You have to first learn the exoteric teachings of one tradition, embrace it, and afterwards you may see the esoteric teachings as a deeper mode of interpretation of the exoteric teachings. If you have no respect for the exoteric, no amount of studying the esoteric will ever help you come to terms with the world in which you live.
>If you have no respect for the exoteric, no amount of studying the esoteric will ever help you come to terms with the world in which you live.
I never thought about this because every esotericist I've seen running around shits on anything that isn't esoteric
>just read Hegel, he's the culmination of esoteric and metaphysical thinking
technically this but one does not just simply read Hegel. The backround reading required to understand Hegel is a big barrier. Then of course theres the translation barrier. Then there's the actual understanding of his works to be done. I doubt there's a single gay on IQfy who can read greek, latin, german, french and english and done the necessary backround reading to understand Hegel.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You only need English and a little German to get a full understanding of Hegel. It will be much much faster if you know all the languages you listed however as you can breeze through a lot of the pre-requisite reading and you'll have to read minimal commentaries.
Not bad, would have more Neoplatonists, Proclus, Numenius ect.
It's also hilarious how Evola was nowhere to be found up till fairly recently. If people got into this shit it would be Crowley. But then Steve Bannon, an obsese grifter who got caught red handed defrauding right wingers, stealing charity donations to "build the wall," and buying himself shit instead, mentioned him. The libshit media went crazy over it because of Evola's support of fascism and "based peeds" began boosting le ebin Nazi sorcerer.
The offhand comment of a fat grifter is the key to the whole movement.
Evola was always in circulation thanks to that Yoga book, in New Age boomer circles, no less.
Why do so many IQfy posters provide youtube links and meme images to back up what they're saying? It is becoming rarer and rarer for someone to claim expertise on a topic and actually provide literature recommendations.
Also I wouldn't take exoteric religious advice from a fat tattoo guy in an American tourist shirt shilling his paypal in the video description. Maximum pseud scam artist vibes.
That exact Frances Yates book was highly recommended to me by a close friend who was very familiar with European esoterism. They also mentioned John Dee as central to the esoterism of the Elizabethan Court, so I think the Peter French book may be a good pickup. Learning about the mystery behind the authorship of Shakespeare's plays, particularly concerning Edward de Vere, will reveal an interesting social perspective to esoterism that I think is lost in modern times. If not lost, living in obscure little niches of people who understand the appeal of esoterism without getting lost in the sauce of it.
I fricking hate esoteric larpers so much. You're not some mystical sorcerer, you're a loser with a porn addiction who wants to feel superior to the people you couldn't fit in with.
>What fricking spells?
There are many that are hard to measure but in one example I spent a week alone in a highly structured ritual and came out rich, never have to work again.
What we use dice for is "metaphysical" (as in above physical). Everything happening in a dice roll can be described in physical terms in theory but not in practice. If it was possible in practice that would invalidate what we use dice for. They're a way to access the unknown using a physical object, a magic object that reflects a higher reality than anything physical.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>metaphysical" (as in above physical)
See:
Evola is Tik Tok crystal magic for angsty suburban 20 somethings. You're not a sorcerer. The whole of philosophy and religious studies didn't pass over Evola and Guenon because they were too deep for them and only the target audience of IQfy can truly understand their deep metaphysical teachings. If you want to learn about Shankara and his intellectual descendants go read the primary sources.
Also "metaphysics" is a specific subdiscipline of philosophy, not "magical deep stuff normies can't into," or "religion without the myth." Using the word doesn't sound big brained when you consistently misuse it.
>Also "metaphysics" is a specific subdiscipline of philosophy, not "magical deep stuff normies can't into," or "religion without the myth." Using the word doesn't sound big brained when you consistently misuse it.
It means "after." Aristotle's metaphysics, where the term comes from us just the book after physics. In current parlance it just means "self-referential." Only trad LARPers think it means "magical deep stuff."
Thus the Rutledge and Oxford guides to metaphysics aren't about fricking magic.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You are moronic my friend. moronic by rigid definitions, assumptions and politically motivated propaganda that disconnects concepts as they're used today from how they were in the past.
Metaphysics as you understand it just happens to include all categories of things outside/before the physical but then you sperg when people use it in that context. >In current parlance it just means "self-referential."
This is an example of propaganda. You're demanding everyone accepts your framing of the hardest questions within your assumptions grounded in incoherent materialist horseshit.
Just say self-referential if that's what you mean moron. Metaphysics is a perfectly clear word to anyone not brain damaged. I don't accept that all metaphysics is self-referential. It's not like you're saying you don't understand what I mean with the word, you just want to feel like you have something to say when you have absolutely nothing to add on any subject.
2 years ago
Anonymous
If "Metaphysics" describes accurately the contents of Aristotle's book (which he didn't name), then it describes it accurately insofar as the content of "metaphysics" comes after physics, in line with Aristotle's practice of attending to "what's known better to us" vs. "what's known better in itself", i.e., the move from what we opine readily about as clear to what is murky to us.
For Aristotle, what must be approached is "First Philosophy", and First Philosophy inquires into:
-What Being is qua Being
-What the first causes or principles are
-Theology, but only insofar as what's eternal and unchanging is worthy of being called God
So Metaphysics must be First Philosophy, which asks after the causes of beings, what Being is, and whether the first causes a God or worthy of being called such.
So it's not frickin' "anything nonphysical" ya frickin' larper lol lmao
2 years ago
Anonymous
>it's not frickin' "anything nonphysical"
Look at your own premises. >the move from what we opine readily about as clear to what is murky to us
We now have a relatively complete model of everything physical called physics. All the things that are clear to us sit within the model, everything that's "murky" sits outside physics including the question of what the fundamental physical forces fundamentally are. Notice how close that question is to the question "what are the first causes or principles". You're thinking only in the abstract, within a "self-referential" closed system that doesn't relate the system to anything external like information about the world. All the early philosophers were trying to approach truth, relate to reality, not establish and maintain these cloud castes of logic for their own sake.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>So it's not frickin' "anything nonphysical"
It is if you bothered to read Aristotle's Metaphysics. What Aristotle declares as natural philosophy, is the study of the first principles of material substances, what he declares as the topic of his Metaphysics (which is actually synonymous with theology, which is what he calls it himself), is the study of the first principle of immaterial substance, which is being as such. If it were not immaterial then it would be merely natural philosophy and the Physics would be the end of his philosophy.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>It is if you bothered to read Aristotle's Metaphysics
It's not, and you'd know that because otherwise Metaphysics would consist of mathematics, which Aristotle argues against at various points, not least the last two books.
First causes and principles, Being qua Being, theology insofar as it is either God as First Cause or God as Primary Being are pretty determinate subjects, and don't leave room for "causes of anything or everything" or "every kind of divinity plausible to speculate on".
2 years ago
Anonymous
Metaphysics, Part II Book E: >If there is anything eternal, immutable and existing separately from matter, it must be studied by philosophy. Not by physics (which is concerned with material objects), nor by mathematics, but by one that is prior to both; for physics deals with objects which exist separately but are not immutable, while some branches of mathematics deal with objects which, though immutable, do not exist separately [ie they exist immanently inside material things]. >Now all first causes must be eternal, especially those immutable and immaterial causes which act upon what is visible of the divine [matter/physics]. Hence there are three speculative branches of philosophy: Mathematics, physics and theology. The highest science must deal with the highest genus; so that the speculative are the highest of the sciences, and theology is the highest of these. >So if there is a separate, immutable substance, the science of it [theology] is different from physics and mathematics. If there is such a substance, here surely is the Divine, and the first and most authoritative principle. Speculative science is the best kind of science, and of its species theology is the best, dealing as it does with the highest of existing things.
>First causes and principles, Being qua Being, theology insofar as it is either God as First Cause or God as Primary Being are pretty determinate subjects
No, read below: >It may also be asked whether or not the science of being qua being is to be regarded as universal. Each branch of mathematics deals with a class of determinate things, but there is a universal mathematics which applies to all alike. Now if the physical [material] substances are the primary entities, physics must be the primary science; but if there is a substance which is separate and unchangeable, the knowledge of it is different and prior to physics, and UNIVERSAL because prior.
>and you'd know that because otherwise Metaphysics would consist of mathematics
Absolutely not. Mathematical objects are not immaterial, they are imminent inside physical things. Which you would know if you had any idea about how Aristotle solved mathematical "universals."
2 years ago
Anonymous
Lol, your contrario is to quote passages that either affirm or don't contradict anything I said?
The book Epsilon quote is what I said above: throughout the Metaphysics, Aristotle draws a distinction between philosophy and First Philosophy, and latter is determined by its focus, wherein the subject is "first" not in order of investigation, but in primacy of its topics, ergo it comes after physics because the question "what is Being" becomes clear only after an inquiry into nature.
To remind, the issue at hand is whether Metaphysics deals with all non-physical phenomena, such as any given spiritual or divine subject, which it's not interested in *unless* some such thing is a cause, an arche, or a principle of Being. Hence his discussion of a prime mover, but not gods in general like Zeus or intermediary daimons. What's more, mathematics isn't a part of physics, and by the Epsilon quote, explicitly placed in some separable category apart from physics and First Philosophy.
>No, read below
I used "determinate" to mean "well-defined", as in "metaphysics has a specifically defined field of inquiry" as opposed to talking about anything not part of physics, my point remains. Being qua Being is universal *only insofar* as it deals with the Being of anything said to Be, but doesn't deal with everything that is in their other facets.
Re: math innately in physical substances, re-read books Mu and Nu, where he takes that all up.
I addressed all your braindead shit in the next post. [...]
Ultimately you don't like how people use a word because you have some insane idea of self importance invested in being the only one who knows. Go frick yourself moron. At least try to say something, add something on any subject. You have never contributed to anything in any field because you're mindless cancer.
Lol, your demand that Metaphysics be anything else but what it is in the book responsible for that term being passed down is nothing but a demand that ancient philosophy affirm your newage LARP.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Lol, your contrario is to quote passages that either affirm or don't contradict anything I said?
It directly contradicts your claim that metaphysics is not about non-physical substance, Aristotle says that theology, ie metaphysics, is exactly about that, and that it is also the universal genus. So you are ipso facto refuted by the quotes I provided, and which you clearly were not aware of, probably because you have not read Aristotle. Guenon and the "traditionalists" use two precise definitions of "Metaphysics", one is the literal meaning which is "beyond the physical", ie any non-physical investigation, and then the Aristotelian meaning which is "theology", ie study of the highest genus (The Infinite/Brahman), which is also non-physical. >wherein the subject is "first" not in order of investigation, but in primacy of its topics, ergo it comes after physics because the question "what is Being" becomes clear only after an inquiry into nature.
You're ignoring the fact that Aristotle never even used a word that is similar to Metaphysics, it's an invention by later philosophers. Aristotle only ever used theology, which is what I am using right now as a placeholder for metaphysics, because he uses it in the same way that later philosophers do. >What's more, mathematics isn't a part of physics, and by the Epsilon quote, explicitly placed in some separable category apart from physics and First Philosophy.
Mathematics is not a part of physics, but it is not a separable substance as the quotes I just gave you demonstrate, meaning mathematics is not to be conflated with non-physical substance, because it resides within physical substances. >I used "determinate" to mean "well-defined",
In this context determinate is used in opposition to universal. Perhaps learn your terminology or specify when you are diverging from common meanings. >"metaphysics has a specifically defined field of inquiry" as opposed to talking about anything not part of physics
Metaphysics traditionally has two definitions, which is what you don't seem to understand. If you don't agree with it, that's fine, but don't expect other people to see things the same way as you do. Metaphysics is not some exclusive word that only Aristotle has a claim to, especially when he never even coined or used the term. >Re: math innately in physical substances
No, read the quotes I just gave you. I've read these books and he affirms exactly what I just gave you in more detail. "Mathematics deal with objects which, though immutable, do not exist separately [ie they exist immanently inside material things]."
Which directly refutes your claim. >be anything else but what it is in the book responsible for that term being passed down is
Aristotle never once used the term metaphysics.
2 years ago
Anonymous
The last thing I'm guessing you "overlooked" is that in the second last book on the Prime Mover, Aristotle attempts to determine logically how many there are, and also their existence in the cosmos as circular movements. How exactly do you justify this claim: >and don't leave room for "causes of anything or everything" or "every kind of divinity plausible to speculate on".
In light of that? Because he clearly speculates on everything that he can speculate on in this domain, so long as they are essential, ie divine, beings. How exactly does eternal circular movement have anything to do with being qua being? There is little qualitative difference here between what he does and what Guenon proceeds to do in considering the lesser manifestations of the highest principle, which are still core principles of Being, eg Ishvara.
It seems to me as though you are simply desperate to discredit metaphysicians such as Guenon, to merely preserve some imagined superiority for "Western metaphysics", whatever that is exactly, considering it has no actual core principles and is just a mishmash of different historical opinions not linked by any common thread.
2 years ago
Anonymous
lol, that dude BTFO you and you still carried on with this
Just call it fricking New Age, that's where the book stores and libraries put it. Not even hating, I owned a lot of Crowley in my early 20s, but it definitely isn't philosophy.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I addressed all your braindead shit in the next post.
>it's not frickin' "anything nonphysical"
Look at your own premises. >the move from what we opine readily about as clear to what is murky to us
We now have a relatively complete model of everything physical called physics. All the things that are clear to us sit within the model, everything that's "murky" sits outside physics including the question of what the fundamental physical forces fundamentally are. Notice how close that question is to the question "what are the first causes or principles". You're thinking only in the abstract, within a "self-referential" closed system that doesn't relate the system to anything external like information about the world. All the early philosophers were trying to approach truth, relate to reality, not establish and maintain these cloud castes of logic for their own sake.
Ultimately you don't like how people use a word because you have some insane idea of self importance invested in being the only one who knows. Go frick yourself moron. At least try to say something, add something on any subject. You have never contributed to anything in any field because you're mindless cancer.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>in one example I spent a week alone in a highly structured ritual and came out rich, never have to work again.
see, this is why people compare this shit to the secret, those people say the same things you do. jim carrey insists the secret is real because he "cast a spell' (ie wrote a check to himself for a million dollars, as "visualization" of future fortune) and then a year later he was rich - except what happened between point a and point b was that he starred in "dumb and dumber." the delusion isn't that he isn't really rich, it's that the money came from working, not from spellcasting. your money didn't materialize from thin air either, you got it from somewhere and the guy who did everything you did minus the spell would have the money too.
It's also hilarious how Evola was nowhere to be found up till fairly recently. If people got into this shit it would be Crowley. But then Steve Bannon, an obsese grifter who got caught red handed defrauding right wingers, stealing charity donations to "build the wall," and buying himself shit instead, mentioned him. The libshit media went crazy over it because of Evola's support of fascism and "based peeds" began boosting le ebin Nazi sorcerer.
The offhand comment of a fat grifter is the key to the whole movement.
Esotericism happened to fit in with the brewing sub-culture of pol, which then proceeds to leak into other boards. Though, evolo, geunon, it's just like
Evola is Tik Tok crystal magic for angsty suburban 20 somethings. You're not a sorcerer. The whole of philosophy and religious studies didn't pass over Evola and Guenon because they were too deep for them and only the target audience of IQfy can truly understand their deep metaphysical teachings. If you want to learn about Shankara and his intellectual descendants go read the primary sources.
Also "metaphysics" is a specific subdiscipline of philosophy, not "magical deep stuff normies can't into," or "religion without the myth." Using the word doesn't sound big brained when you consistently misuse it.
said, it's 'the secret' for angsty 20-30 year olds who want to feel superior to le normies.
>it's 'the secret' for angsty 20-30 year olds who want to feel superior to le normies.
this is just the standard cope that people tell themselves when they dislike the idea of people reading and enjoying Trad authors
2 years ago
Anonymous
This is just the standard cope young people resort to when they are called out on being bad readers.
Esotericism happened to fit in with the brewing sub-culture of pol, which then proceeds to leak into other boards. Though, evolo, geunon, it's just like [...] said, it's 'the secret' for angsty 20-30 year olds who want to feel superior to le normies.
The dumb craze started with ebola-chan in 2013-2014 in /x/, and then /misc/ took it in order to make more Africans to die of Ebola. This would morph into winter-chan or whoever the frick in order to cause more winter storms, because black people are allergic to snow.
This would generally form into "meme magick" after the whole kek thing being an Egyptian god, Shadilay, and using gets and dubs for numerology.
The pizzagate and Qanon happened, which was the real culmination of it all.
It was all so stupid.
Yeah, fricking numerology and shadilay. Those days were something else. Had I known people were taking it 100% seriously I would have left that board a lot sooner. This site truly is more moronic than reddit or twitter.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I still take dubs and other conspicuous numbers seriously
>The pizzagate and Qanon happened, which was the real culmination of it all.
You're right but it's also the huge swing into traditionalism due to incels and the hatred against the woke left which are very materialistic & atheist/"pagan".
2 years ago
Anonymous
Why did they pick ridiculous larp that people thought was ridiculous larp when it came out? Why not any of the new "scientific idealism" that has been coming out? Why not the right Hegelians? They could have a coherent ideology then not centered around magic.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Hegel too hard and already associated with Naziism and communism. Scientific idealism not ambitious enough.
Magic good for the MAGApede mind that likes feels but not reals.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Why did they pick ridiculous larp that people thought was ridiculous larp when it came out
There are hundreds (thousands?) of replies every day on /misc/ about CERN creating demons/time travel/alterative univeres
/x/ is unironically winning some sort of cultural battle because anti-science appeals to those with mental illness.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You see this all as stemming from /x/, but it seems to go back even further.
It's probably not news to you, but they all got that idea from Stein's Gate, and a hodge-podge of other ideas from similar young adults series like Laine, Eva, etc.
All that shit is rooted in the same Asian loserdom that inspired the boxer rebellion, the mentality that the Japanese empire appealed to to get idiots around Asia to cuck their own people, the angle that Russia is currently playing, etc, etc..
Ultimately, traditionalists are just losers with trauma from highschool or similar who can't get over themselves and join the mainstream (where they would to submit to being anything but on top)
This impulse has always existed in society, but nowadays there's 3 giant population counties chock full of historical losers pumping these messages and affirmation of these antisocial tendencies via flashy media, and youth of the west - being obsessed with some hollow form of cultural novelty - lick this shit up.
Catholic trads are the worst because the clearest point of their own doctrine is that you have to get the frick over yourself and follow the Pope. Absolutely hilarious how they delude themselves. I always think of the Aquinas line "Tantum ergo Sacramentum, veneremur cernui
Et antiquuum documentum
Novo cedat ritui"
How great is the sacrament
How great is the new rite which chases out the old.
2 years ago
Anonymous
This post could be used by schoolbooks as an example of projection.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>akshually
2 years ago
Anonymous
Polcels think Traditionalism is 1950s America. They've never read Evola.
The speech in question was given in 2014.
The IQfy archives show that Evola's name was already mentioned several times per week by late 2012: https://warosu.org/lit/?task=search2&ghost=yes&search_text=evola&search_dateto=2013-01-01
Bannon most likely got it from here (Breitbart journalists were using IQfy as a news source since at least 2011)
Evola is Tik Tok crystal magic for angsty suburban 20 somethings. You're not a sorcerer. The whole of philosophy and religious studies didn't pass over Evola and Guenon because they were too deep for them and only the target audience of IQfy can truly understand their deep metaphysical teachings. If you want to learn about Shankara and his intellectual descendants go read the primary sources.
Also "metaphysics" is a specific subdiscipline of philosophy, not "magical deep stuff normies can't into," or "religion without the myth." Using the word doesn't sound big brained when you consistently misuse it.
>The whole of philosophy and religious studies didn't pass over Evola and Guenon because they were too deep for them
That's exactly what they did. >If you want to learn about Shankara and his intellectual descendants go read the primary sources.
Already have. >Also "metaphysics" is a specific subdiscipline of philosophy
That is the profane definition of metaphysics, which is not even strictly speaking metaphysics, it is just abstract logic and word games, with no real relation to Being at all.
On the subject of Zen Buddhism, these are not books, but these lectures by Alan Watts are very informative. I don't know about his later work, but these videos are very enlightening: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5scxrMeYNc0
The channel has many more.
I've seen this chart multiple times and have read some of the books and they were actually very good.
But I never understood what is it supposed to be exactly? Is there any linking theme here? What does the term "Gatekeepers Remorse" actually mean??
its about information that will enlighten you to the true state to world, at least from what I have gathered through talking to others about it and reading the books on it
"Gatekeepers" of truth from the rest of humanity, regretting their actions, put forth their hoarded knowledge in the form of the listed books. I never understood if these are merely suggested works by the gatekeepers, or if the authors themselves are in on it, but that's the gist.
>where is my bank?! noooooo!!!!
it's like they're unaware that temples used to double as the city bank.
just look at Rome, the Temple of Saturn was the city bank.
Most of the contents of the charts posted here are garbage (Shankara chart is the exception). Some might have literally just a few decent primary texts but those are there to justify a deviant and degenerate spirituality; it does not become hermeticism anymore but rather mere vulgar occultism.
Use this chart as a correction. Now, it's not perfect either; ignore the tiny books on the sides. They're useless excretions. But the fact is: if you want to enter esotericism, the best place to start is with the academics, such as Hanegraff and Faivre. From there, read the Traditionalist School for more insight, principally Guénon and Evola. After that, finally engage with the primary sources of esoteric traditions and nothing else.
Anything from the Age of "Enlightenment" onward is simply a perversion that slips into an inversion and at the very best you will be wasting your time with a fraud. A worse possibility is that you put your very soul in mortal danger; you would go actually insane, as in paranoid schizophrenia, and your subtle body will completely disintegrate leaving you totally open to demonic attacks and possession and you will in the end be destroyed. There is nothing to gain from such enterprise but direct knowledge of damnation.
>A worse possibility is that you put your very soul in mortal danger; you would go actually insane, as in paranoid schizophrenia, and your subtle body will completely disintegrate leaving you totally open to demonic attacks and possession and you will in the end be destroyed
What?! Where can I read more about why this would happen?
You see, the fact that is is news to new is what the entire new age deception is pure evil. They pull the wool over the eyes of the naïve and at the very least imply that there is no such thing as spiritual danger, if not state it outright.
The Traditionalist School authors that I mentioned are a good starting point for learning about what they call the counter-initiation; modern emergences of alternative spirituality that are a very real danger: mesmerism, hypnosis, mediumship, seances, "ceremonial magic(k)", Theosophy and Anthroposophy, shamanism and neoshamanism, Freemasonry and modern Rosicrucian groups, New Thought (which includes people you might not initially expect, such as Napoleon Hill), parapsychology, Fortean topics, psychoanalysis (yes, that includes Jung), satanism (laveyan, setian, o9a, it doesn't matter), witchcraft (wicca or traditional craft, it doesn't matter), Buddhist Modernism, neo-vedanta, neotantra, neopaganism (often just a larp, but if they are "reading runes" then it's probably counter-initiation), neo-advaita (people become deluded into thinking that they are enlightened beings because they experienced some mental clarity), the Human Potential Movement (which birthed the self-help industry), transhumanism (the major threat today that will kill the human race) and finally just the plain old New Age milieu. There's other stuff like yoga outside of a proper religious practice with a guru, but the list is long and distinguished.
Here's a chart to help you get started.
You see, the fact that is is news to new is what the entire new age deception is pure evil. They pull the wool over the eyes of the naïve and at the very least imply that there is no such thing as spiritual danger, if not state it outright.
The Traditionalist School authors that I mentioned are a good starting point for learning about what they call the counter-initiation; modern emergences of alternative spirituality that are a very real danger: mesmerism, hypnosis, mediumship, seances, "ceremonial magic(k)", Theosophy and Anthroposophy, shamanism and neoshamanism, Freemasonry and modern Rosicrucian groups, New Thought (which includes people you might not initially expect, such as Napoleon Hill), parapsychology, Fortean topics, psychoanalysis (yes, that includes Jung), satanism (laveyan, setian, o9a, it doesn't matter), witchcraft (wicca or traditional craft, it doesn't matter), Buddhist Modernism, neo-vedanta, neotantra, neopaganism (often just a larp, but if they are "reading runes" then it's probably counter-initiation), neo-advaita (people become deluded into thinking that they are enlightened beings because they experienced some mental clarity), the Human Potential Movement (which birthed the self-help industry), transhumanism (the major threat today that will kill the human race) and finally just the plain old New Age milieu. There's other stuff like yoga outside of a proper religious practice with a guru, but the list is long and distinguished.
Here's a chart to help you get started.
Addendum: I'm currently reading this book and it is excellent. It actually is a wonderful starting point on this topic for serious spiritual seekers as it systematically addresses almost all of the dangers lurking in this pursuit today. Some new ones have manifested themselves more since the author's time such as transhumanism so he does not address that.
The real gigachad move is to disregard all that time and effort bullshit and to just become a chaos magician instead. No practice required, all that's needed is a pen and some paper.
just pick a system and stick to it and start practicing. When you start practising the flow of information will come to you. Plus you'll learn way more through practice than through reading.
good luck and keep on trucking
not exactly my field, but I had a passing interest in the occult and esotericism some time ago. The obvious choices are the writings of the Neoplatonists (I've only read some of Plotinus personally, but there's plenty more there). There is a clear connection between the Neoplatonists, the Gnostics (I think someone already mentioned the Nag Hammadi) and the Hermeticists (Corpus Hermeticum and Transcendental magic I thought were quite extensive). I don't necessarily resonate with the esoteric stuff so much as the mystical stuff. All this seekrit club nonsense only muddies the value of some of these texts; if I'm not mistaken, I think Eliphas Levi talks about things like the tarot and numerology having a function primarily in communicating with other occultists. If you're really interested in the knowledge of these esoteric writings as opposed to the secrecy, I would recommend Rudolph Steiner. Steiner was a true modern mystic and Anthroposophy is probably the closest real continuation of the esoteric tradition from the Neoplatonists to now. I may be biased on this front though (I went to a Steiner school). I don't know where to get your hands on copies of his writings, though there is a bizarrely dedicated YouTube channel with a frankly insane amount of his written works in audiobook format.
Honesty and authenticity. Curiosity and faith. Why is it so hard to pray? You certainly don't have to stick to any established form. Debasement. Worship. Humility. Dessert.
not exactly on topic but i'm really fricking tired of the oversaturation of lazy memes that aren't even creative or funny and just gesture at humor by following a format especially with how mainstream le edgy post-post-ironic meme humor has become with zoomer normies. this era of internet humor is going to be so embarrassing to look back on a decade from now.
The internet's average IQ has dropped at the very least 1 SD in the past 2 decades. And it will never get better. The social age of the internet is over, welcome to the braindead crowd-produced cheap mass entertainment age. In the future, we will have the Western population hooked up on the internet through metaverse, tiktok, facebook, twitch like Matrix 24/7 while the internet old users touch grass, the then new "nerd shit".
I literally made it all up and you would never tell
You have to first learn the exoteric teachings of one tradition, embrace it, and afterwards you may see the esoteric teachings as a deeper mode of interpretation of the exoteric teachings. If you have no respect for the exoteric, no amount of studying the esoteric will ever help you come to terms with the world in which you live.
>If you have no respect for the exoteric, no amount of studying the esoteric will ever help you come to terms with the world in which you live.
I never thought about this because every esotericist I've seen running around shits on anything that isn't esoteric
That might be a sign that they aren't the most equipped to discuss any of it.
>esotericists
>are identifiable on the internet
Pick one. You're talking about teenagers exploring wicca.
This. Choose a valid and alive Tradition, then embrace all aspects of it fully, exoteric and esoteric
But the tradition I like is long dead
Unlucky for you, pick the next best thats alive
just read Hegel, he's the culmination of esoteric and metaphysical thinking
or do this
in that case i recommend the Vajrayana path
>just read Hegel, he's the culmination of esoteric and metaphysical thinking
technically this but one does not just simply read Hegel. The backround reading required to understand Hegel is a big barrier. Then of course theres the translation barrier. Then there's the actual understanding of his works to be done. I doubt there's a single gay on IQfy who can read greek, latin, german, french and english and done the necessary backround reading to understand Hegel.
You only need English and a little German to get a full understanding of Hegel. It will be much much faster if you know all the languages you listed however as you can breeze through a lot of the pre-requisite reading and you'll have to read minimal commentaries.
>apophaticism, retroduction, neti neti, disobjectification
^Has a point. Not to go perennialist, but the pith of other strains open up more readily this way. Some primers:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLNnqqvK2yDEF44yZjBGOahfGKFIYGWcLt
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZ__PGORcBKxNBjy-A49C8fUd4COs8Vi9
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZ__PGORcBKyxwViLyPNn1vmbI5kl0xj7
Not bad, would have more Neoplatonists, Proclus, Numenius ect.
Evola was always in circulation thanks to that Yoga book, in New Age boomer circles, no less.
Why do so many IQfy posters provide youtube links and meme images to back up what they're saying? It is becoming rarer and rarer for someone to claim expertise on a topic and actually provide literature recommendations.
Also I wouldn't take exoteric religious advice from a fat tattoo guy in an American tourist shirt shilling his paypal in the video description. Maximum pseud scam artist vibes.
Read Plato and his seventh letter. Also frick off.
ຜູ້ຮ້າຽ
There's this I suppose
great chart
That exact Frances Yates book was highly recommended to me by a close friend who was very familiar with European esoterism. They also mentioned John Dee as central to the esoterism of the Elizabethan Court, so I think the Peter French book may be a good pickup. Learning about the mystery behind the authorship of Shakespeare's plays, particularly concerning Edward de Vere, will reveal an interesting social perspective to esoterism that I think is lost in modern times. If not lost, living in obscure little niches of people who understand the appeal of esoterism without getting lost in the sauce of it.
Esotericism and its consequences...
But esoteric knowledge precedes exoteric. Everything first only exists as an idea among a limited group and then becomes adopted by the public.
I fricking hate esoteric larpers so much. You're not some mystical sorcerer, you're a loser with a porn addiction who wants to feel superior to the people you couldn't fit in with.
If I'm not a sorcerer why do the spells empirically work? Just a coincidence? It's not delusion or independent observers couldn't confirm the results.
What fricking spells? What empirical evidence?
Like the reddit spell I cast upon ye a fortnight ago.
>What fricking spells?
There are many that are hard to measure but in one example I spent a week alone in a highly structured ritual and came out rich, never have to work again.
What we use dice for is "metaphysical" (as in above physical). Everything happening in a dice roll can be described in physical terms in theory but not in practice. If it was possible in practice that would invalidate what we use dice for. They're a way to access the unknown using a physical object, a magic object that reflects a higher reality than anything physical.
>metaphysical" (as in above physical)
See:
>Also "metaphysics" is a specific subdiscipline of philosophy, not "magical deep stuff normies can't into," or "religion without the myth." Using the word doesn't sound big brained when you consistently misuse it.
It means "after." Aristotle's metaphysics, where the term comes from us just the book after physics. In current parlance it just means "self-referential." Only trad LARPers think it means "magical deep stuff."
Thus the Rutledge and Oxford guides to metaphysics aren't about fricking magic.
You are moronic my friend. moronic by rigid definitions, assumptions and politically motivated propaganda that disconnects concepts as they're used today from how they were in the past.
Metaphysics as you understand it just happens to include all categories of things outside/before the physical but then you sperg when people use it in that context.
>In current parlance it just means "self-referential."
This is an example of propaganda. You're demanding everyone accepts your framing of the hardest questions within your assumptions grounded in incoherent materialist horseshit.
Just say self-referential if that's what you mean moron. Metaphysics is a perfectly clear word to anyone not brain damaged. I don't accept that all metaphysics is self-referential. It's not like you're saying you don't understand what I mean with the word, you just want to feel like you have something to say when you have absolutely nothing to add on any subject.
If "Metaphysics" describes accurately the contents of Aristotle's book (which he didn't name), then it describes it accurately insofar as the content of "metaphysics" comes after physics, in line with Aristotle's practice of attending to "what's known better to us" vs. "what's known better in itself", i.e., the move from what we opine readily about as clear to what is murky to us.
For Aristotle, what must be approached is "First Philosophy", and First Philosophy inquires into:
-What Being is qua Being
-What the first causes or principles are
-Theology, but only insofar as what's eternal and unchanging is worthy of being called God
So Metaphysics must be First Philosophy, which asks after the causes of beings, what Being is, and whether the first causes a God or worthy of being called such.
So it's not frickin' "anything nonphysical" ya frickin' larper lol lmao
>it's not frickin' "anything nonphysical"
Look at your own premises.
>the move from what we opine readily about as clear to what is murky to us
We now have a relatively complete model of everything physical called physics. All the things that are clear to us sit within the model, everything that's "murky" sits outside physics including the question of what the fundamental physical forces fundamentally are. Notice how close that question is to the question "what are the first causes or principles". You're thinking only in the abstract, within a "self-referential" closed system that doesn't relate the system to anything external like information about the world. All the early philosophers were trying to approach truth, relate to reality, not establish and maintain these cloud castes of logic for their own sake.
>So it's not frickin' "anything nonphysical"
It is if you bothered to read Aristotle's Metaphysics. What Aristotle declares as natural philosophy, is the study of the first principles of material substances, what he declares as the topic of his Metaphysics (which is actually synonymous with theology, which is what he calls it himself), is the study of the first principle of immaterial substance, which is being as such. If it were not immaterial then it would be merely natural philosophy and the Physics would be the end of his philosophy.
>It is if you bothered to read Aristotle's Metaphysics
It's not, and you'd know that because otherwise Metaphysics would consist of mathematics, which Aristotle argues against at various points, not least the last two books.
First causes and principles, Being qua Being, theology insofar as it is either God as First Cause or God as Primary Being are pretty determinate subjects, and don't leave room for "causes of anything or everything" or "every kind of divinity plausible to speculate on".
Metaphysics, Part II Book E:
>If there is anything eternal, immutable and existing separately from matter, it must be studied by philosophy. Not by physics (which is concerned with material objects), nor by mathematics, but by one that is prior to both; for physics deals with objects which exist separately but are not immutable, while some branches of mathematics deal with objects which, though immutable, do not exist separately [ie they exist immanently inside material things].
>Now all first causes must be eternal, especially those immutable and immaterial causes which act upon what is visible of the divine [matter/physics]. Hence there are three speculative branches of philosophy: Mathematics, physics and theology. The highest science must deal with the highest genus; so that the speculative are the highest of the sciences, and theology is the highest of these.
>So if there is a separate, immutable substance, the science of it [theology] is different from physics and mathematics. If there is such a substance, here surely is the Divine, and the first and most authoritative principle. Speculative science is the best kind of science, and of its species theology is the best, dealing as it does with the highest of existing things.
>First causes and principles, Being qua Being, theology insofar as it is either God as First Cause or God as Primary Being are pretty determinate subjects
No, read below:
>It may also be asked whether or not the science of being qua being is to be regarded as universal. Each branch of mathematics deals with a class of determinate things, but there is a universal mathematics which applies to all alike. Now if the physical [material] substances are the primary entities, physics must be the primary science; but if there is a substance which is separate and unchangeable, the knowledge of it is different and prior to physics, and UNIVERSAL because prior.
>and you'd know that because otherwise Metaphysics would consist of mathematics
Absolutely not. Mathematical objects are not immaterial, they are imminent inside physical things. Which you would know if you had any idea about how Aristotle solved mathematical "universals."
Lol, your contrario is to quote passages that either affirm or don't contradict anything I said?
The book Epsilon quote is what I said above: throughout the Metaphysics, Aristotle draws a distinction between philosophy and First Philosophy, and latter is determined by its focus, wherein the subject is "first" not in order of investigation, but in primacy of its topics, ergo it comes after physics because the question "what is Being" becomes clear only after an inquiry into nature.
To remind, the issue at hand is whether Metaphysics deals with all non-physical phenomena, such as any given spiritual or divine subject, which it's not interested in *unless* some such thing is a cause, an arche, or a principle of Being. Hence his discussion of a prime mover, but not gods in general like Zeus or intermediary daimons. What's more, mathematics isn't a part of physics, and by the Epsilon quote, explicitly placed in some separable category apart from physics and First Philosophy.
>No, read below
I used "determinate" to mean "well-defined", as in "metaphysics has a specifically defined field of inquiry" as opposed to talking about anything not part of physics, my point remains. Being qua Being is universal *only insofar* as it deals with the Being of anything said to Be, but doesn't deal with everything that is in their other facets.
Re: math innately in physical substances, re-read books Mu and Nu, where he takes that all up.
Lol, your demand that Metaphysics be anything else but what it is in the book responsible for that term being passed down is nothing but a demand that ancient philosophy affirm your newage LARP.
>Lol, your contrario is to quote passages that either affirm or don't contradict anything I said?
It directly contradicts your claim that metaphysics is not about non-physical substance, Aristotle says that theology, ie metaphysics, is exactly about that, and that it is also the universal genus. So you are ipso facto refuted by the quotes I provided, and which you clearly were not aware of, probably because you have not read Aristotle. Guenon and the "traditionalists" use two precise definitions of "Metaphysics", one is the literal meaning which is "beyond the physical", ie any non-physical investigation, and then the Aristotelian meaning which is "theology", ie study of the highest genus (The Infinite/Brahman), which is also non-physical.
>wherein the subject is "first" not in order of investigation, but in primacy of its topics, ergo it comes after physics because the question "what is Being" becomes clear only after an inquiry into nature.
You're ignoring the fact that Aristotle never even used a word that is similar to Metaphysics, it's an invention by later philosophers. Aristotle only ever used theology, which is what I am using right now as a placeholder for metaphysics, because he uses it in the same way that later philosophers do.
>What's more, mathematics isn't a part of physics, and by the Epsilon quote, explicitly placed in some separable category apart from physics and First Philosophy.
Mathematics is not a part of physics, but it is not a separable substance as the quotes I just gave you demonstrate, meaning mathematics is not to be conflated with non-physical substance, because it resides within physical substances.
>I used "determinate" to mean "well-defined",
In this context determinate is used in opposition to universal. Perhaps learn your terminology or specify when you are diverging from common meanings.
>"metaphysics has a specifically defined field of inquiry" as opposed to talking about anything not part of physics
Metaphysics traditionally has two definitions, which is what you don't seem to understand. If you don't agree with it, that's fine, but don't expect other people to see things the same way as you do. Metaphysics is not some exclusive word that only Aristotle has a claim to, especially when he never even coined or used the term.
>Re: math innately in physical substances
No, read the quotes I just gave you. I've read these books and he affirms exactly what I just gave you in more detail. "Mathematics deal with objects which, though immutable, do not exist separately [ie they exist immanently inside material things]."
Which directly refutes your claim.
>be anything else but what it is in the book responsible for that term being passed down is
Aristotle never once used the term metaphysics.
The last thing I'm guessing you "overlooked" is that in the second last book on the Prime Mover, Aristotle attempts to determine logically how many there are, and also their existence in the cosmos as circular movements. How exactly do you justify this claim:
>and don't leave room for "causes of anything or everything" or "every kind of divinity plausible to speculate on".
In light of that? Because he clearly speculates on everything that he can speculate on in this domain, so long as they are essential, ie divine, beings. How exactly does eternal circular movement have anything to do with being qua being? There is little qualitative difference here between what he does and what Guenon proceeds to do in considering the lesser manifestations of the highest principle, which are still core principles of Being, eg Ishvara.
It seems to me as though you are simply desperate to discredit metaphysicians such as Guenon, to merely preserve some imagined superiority for "Western metaphysics", whatever that is exactly, considering it has no actual core principles and is just a mishmash of different historical opinions not linked by any common thread.
lol, that dude BTFO you and you still carried on with this
Just call it fricking New Age, that's where the book stores and libraries put it. Not even hating, I owned a lot of Crowley in my early 20s, but it definitely isn't philosophy.
I addressed all your braindead shit in the next post.
Ultimately you don't like how people use a word because you have some insane idea of self importance invested in being the only one who knows. Go frick yourself moron. At least try to say something, add something on any subject. You have never contributed to anything in any field because you're mindless cancer.
>in one example I spent a week alone in a highly structured ritual and came out rich, never have to work again.
see, this is why people compare this shit to the secret, those people say the same things you do. jim carrey insists the secret is real because he "cast a spell' (ie wrote a check to himself for a million dollars, as "visualization" of future fortune) and then a year later he was rich - except what happened between point a and point b was that he starred in "dumb and dumber." the delusion isn't that he isn't really rich, it's that the money came from working, not from spellcasting. your money didn't materialize from thin air either, you got it from somewhere and the guy who did everything you did minus the spell would have the money too.
It's also hilarious how Evola was nowhere to be found up till fairly recently. If people got into this shit it would be Crowley. But then Steve Bannon, an obsese grifter who got caught red handed defrauding right wingers, stealing charity donations to "build the wall," and buying himself shit instead, mentioned him. The libshit media went crazy over it because of Evola's support of fascism and "based peeds" began boosting le ebin Nazi sorcerer.
The offhand comment of a fat grifter is the key to the whole movement.
Esotericism happened to fit in with the brewing sub-culture of pol, which then proceeds to leak into other boards. Though, evolo, geunon, it's just like
said, it's 'the secret' for angsty 20-30 year olds who want to feel superior to le normies.
>it's 'the secret' for angsty 20-30 year olds who want to feel superior to le normies.
this is just the standard cope that people tell themselves when they dislike the idea of people reading and enjoying Trad authors
This is just the standard cope young people resort to when they are called out on being bad readers.
The dumb craze started with ebola-chan in 2013-2014 in /x/, and then /misc/ took it in order to make more Africans to die of Ebola. This would morph into winter-chan or whoever the frick in order to cause more winter storms, because black people are allergic to snow.
This would generally form into "meme magick" after the whole kek thing being an Egyptian god, Shadilay, and using gets and dubs for numerology.
The pizzagate and Qanon happened, which was the real culmination of it all.
It was all so stupid.
How esoteric is it really if it's a craze? Was bringing kek into the light a mistake? Seems an improvement over ebola.
Yeah, fricking numerology and shadilay. Those days were something else. Had I known people were taking it 100% seriously I would have left that board a lot sooner. This site truly is more moronic than reddit or twitter.
I still take dubs and other conspicuous numbers seriously
>The pizzagate and Qanon happened, which was the real culmination of it all.
You're right but it's also the huge swing into traditionalism due to incels and the hatred against the woke left which are very materialistic & atheist/"pagan".
Why did they pick ridiculous larp that people thought was ridiculous larp when it came out? Why not any of the new "scientific idealism" that has been coming out? Why not the right Hegelians? They could have a coherent ideology then not centered around magic.
Hegel too hard and already associated with Naziism and communism. Scientific idealism not ambitious enough.
Magic good for the MAGApede mind that likes feels but not reals.
>Why did they pick ridiculous larp that people thought was ridiculous larp when it came out
There are hundreds (thousands?) of replies every day on /misc/ about CERN creating demons/time travel/alterative univeres
/x/ is unironically winning some sort of cultural battle because anti-science appeals to those with mental illness.
You see this all as stemming from /x/, but it seems to go back even further.
It's probably not news to you, but they all got that idea from Stein's Gate, and a hodge-podge of other ideas from similar young adults series like Laine, Eva, etc.
All that shit is rooted in the same Asian loserdom that inspired the boxer rebellion, the mentality that the Japanese empire appealed to to get idiots around Asia to cuck their own people, the angle that Russia is currently playing, etc, etc..
Ultimately, traditionalists are just losers with trauma from highschool or similar who can't get over themselves and join the mainstream (where they would to submit to being anything but on top)
This impulse has always existed in society, but nowadays there's 3 giant population counties chock full of historical losers pumping these messages and affirmation of these antisocial tendencies via flashy media, and youth of the west - being obsessed with some hollow form of cultural novelty - lick this shit up.
Catholic trads are the worst because the clearest point of their own doctrine is that you have to get the frick over yourself and follow the Pope. Absolutely hilarious how they delude themselves. I always think of the Aquinas line "Tantum ergo Sacramentum, veneremur cernui
Et antiquuum documentum
Novo cedat ritui"
How great is the sacrament
How great is the new rite which chases out the old.
This post could be used by schoolbooks as an example of projection.
>akshually
Polcels think Traditionalism is 1950s America. They've never read Evola.
The speech in question was given in 2014.
The IQfy archives show that Evola's name was already mentioned several times per week by late 2012: https://warosu.org/lit/?task=search2&ghost=yes&search_text=evola&search_dateto=2013-01-01
Bannon most likely got it from here (Breitbart journalists were using IQfy as a news source since at least 2011)
Underrated post; no one acknowledging threes facts
I wish newbies such as yourself would never post. Evola was quite popular here before 2016. But you wouldn't know that, would you? Election tourist.
yeah so?
Evola is Tik Tok crystal magic for angsty suburban 20 somethings. You're not a sorcerer. The whole of philosophy and religious studies didn't pass over Evola and Guenon because they were too deep for them and only the target audience of IQfy can truly understand their deep metaphysical teachings. If you want to learn about Shankara and his intellectual descendants go read the primary sources.
Also "metaphysics" is a specific subdiscipline of philosophy, not "magical deep stuff normies can't into," or "religion without the myth." Using the word doesn't sound big brained when you consistently misuse it.
Cry more nerd, we'll use the word how we want.
>The whole of philosophy and religious studies didn't pass over Evola and Guenon because they were too deep for them
That's exactly what they did.
>If you want to learn about Shankara and his intellectual descendants go read the primary sources.
Already have.
>Also "metaphysics" is a specific subdiscipline of philosophy
That is the profane definition of metaphysics, which is not even strictly speaking metaphysics, it is just abstract logic and word games, with no real relation to Being at all.
PBUH
Heres some books anon, all given a short review and most are free to read online or download
http://occult-mysteries.org/books.html
There's several on the wiki. Read sticky.
I would actually larp for this if one of you gays decided to make a gay ass little club advocating for it.
I got a handful
What is the brown pill fren? Seems just like a list for esoteric socialism
its about focusing on yourself and no one else, devote your time to your own enlightenment
Might have to read through the list then. Sounds like the type of shit I need right now.
This is completely false list of the brownpill.
Begone.
Love this schizo shit. Got any more?
I got this and a few more
On the subject of Zen Buddhism, these are not books, but these lectures by Alan Watts are very informative. I don't know about his later work, but these videos are very enlightening: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5scxrMeYNc0
The channel has many more.
Here is another
I've seen this chart multiple times and have read some of the books and they were actually very good.
But I never understood what is it supposed to be exactly? Is there any linking theme here? What does the term "Gatekeepers Remorse" actually mean??
its about information that will enlighten you to the true state to world, at least from what I have gathered through talking to others about it and reading the books on it
"Gatekeepers" of truth from the rest of humanity, regretting their actions, put forth their hoarded knowledge in the form of the listed books. I never understood if these are merely suggested works by the gatekeepers, or if the authors themselves are in on it, but that's the gist.
>Resonance of Unseen Things
>Susan Lepselter
Based, thought i was the only person in the world who ever read that
>where is my bank?! noooooo!!!!
it's like they're unaware that temples used to double as the city bank.
just look at Rome, the Temple of Saturn was the city bank.
You expect internet-esoteric larpers to understand that? C'mon anon, they think they're practicing magic, give the morons a little slack.
If you can find it this book is really interesting
Most of the contents of the charts posted here are garbage (Shankara chart is the exception). Some might have literally just a few decent primary texts but those are there to justify a deviant and degenerate spirituality; it does not become hermeticism anymore but rather mere vulgar occultism.
Use this chart as a correction. Now, it's not perfect either; ignore the tiny books on the sides. They're useless excretions. But the fact is: if you want to enter esotericism, the best place to start is with the academics, such as Hanegraff and Faivre. From there, read the Traditionalist School for more insight, principally Guénon and Evola. After that, finally engage with the primary sources of esoteric traditions and nothing else.
Anything from the Age of "Enlightenment" onward is simply a perversion that slips into an inversion and at the very best you will be wasting your time with a fraud. A worse possibility is that you put your very soul in mortal danger; you would go actually insane, as in paranoid schizophrenia, and your subtle body will completely disintegrate leaving you totally open to demonic attacks and possession and you will in the end be destroyed. There is nothing to gain from such enterprise but direct knowledge of damnation.
>A worse possibility is that you put your very soul in mortal danger; you would go actually insane, as in paranoid schizophrenia, and your subtle body will completely disintegrate leaving you totally open to demonic attacks and possession and you will in the end be destroyed
What?! Where can I read more about why this would happen?
You see, the fact that is is news to new is what the entire new age deception is pure evil. They pull the wool over the eyes of the naïve and at the very least imply that there is no such thing as spiritual danger, if not state it outright.
The Traditionalist School authors that I mentioned are a good starting point for learning about what they call the counter-initiation; modern emergences of alternative spirituality that are a very real danger: mesmerism, hypnosis, mediumship, seances, "ceremonial magic(k)", Theosophy and Anthroposophy, shamanism and neoshamanism, Freemasonry and modern Rosicrucian groups, New Thought (which includes people you might not initially expect, such as Napoleon Hill), parapsychology, Fortean topics, psychoanalysis (yes, that includes Jung), satanism (laveyan, setian, o9a, it doesn't matter), witchcraft (wicca or traditional craft, it doesn't matter), Buddhist Modernism, neo-vedanta, neotantra, neopaganism (often just a larp, but if they are "reading runes" then it's probably counter-initiation), neo-advaita (people become deluded into thinking that they are enlightened beings because they experienced some mental clarity), the Human Potential Movement (which birthed the self-help industry), transhumanism (the major threat today that will kill the human race) and finally just the plain old New Age milieu. There's other stuff like yoga outside of a proper religious practice with a guru, but the list is long and distinguished.
Here's a chart to help you get started.
Addendum: I'm currently reading this book and it is excellent. It actually is a wonderful starting point on this topic for serious spiritual seekers as it systematically addresses almost all of the dangers lurking in this pursuit today. Some new ones have manifested themselves more since the author's time such as transhumanism so he does not address that.
The real gigachad move is to disregard all that time and effort bullshit and to just become a chaos magician instead. No practice required, all that's needed is a pen and some paper.
https://runesoup.com/2012/03/ultimate-sigil-magic-guide/
Sorry, wrong link:
https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Chaos_Mage_(3.5e_Class)
Sorry anon, I have some but I can't share any of it with you. If I did it wouldn't be esoteric.
Esotericism is a psyop to make right wingers focus on meaningless bullshit.
Why does he have a pineapple in his head?
for esoteric reasons, you probably wouldn't get it
Hes lemurian
Filtered
just hoteps for white people
just pick a system and stick to it and start practicing. When you start practising the flow of information will come to you. Plus you'll learn way more through practice than through reading.
good luck and keep on trucking
there is no golden age after the kali yuga
Is that motherfricking king Harkinian on the right
My boy, this new golden age is what all true warriors strive for!
ham borger
Whys that guy got a pineapple head
If nautical nonsense be something you wish
not exactly my field, but I had a passing interest in the occult and esotericism some time ago. The obvious choices are the writings of the Neoplatonists (I've only read some of Plotinus personally, but there's plenty more there). There is a clear connection between the Neoplatonists, the Gnostics (I think someone already mentioned the Nag Hammadi) and the Hermeticists (Corpus Hermeticum and Transcendental magic I thought were quite extensive). I don't necessarily resonate with the esoteric stuff so much as the mystical stuff. All this seekrit club nonsense only muddies the value of some of these texts; if I'm not mistaken, I think Eliphas Levi talks about things like the tarot and numerology having a function primarily in communicating with other occultists. If you're really interested in the knowledge of these esoteric writings as opposed to the secrecy, I would recommend Rudolph Steiner. Steiner was a true modern mystic and Anthroposophy is probably the closest real continuation of the esoteric tradition from the Neoplatonists to now. I may be biased on this front though (I went to a Steiner school). I don't know where to get your hands on copies of his writings, though there is a bizarrely dedicated YouTube channel with a frankly insane amount of his written works in audiobook format.
That Megamind reminds me of JREG
Iceland is the most deforested place in the world!
All you need:
Hermetic corpus
Plato
The Bible
Hegel
Manly P hall
Jung
Necessity, priority. Substantivity. Univocality. Deafness. Thirst.
Honesty and authenticity. Curiosity and faith. Why is it so hard to pray? You certainly don't have to stick to any established form. Debasement. Worship. Humility. Dessert.
Disliking privileges revokes.
Start with the Timaeus
not exactly on topic but i'm really fricking tired of the oversaturation of lazy memes that aren't even creative or funny and just gesture at humor by following a format especially with how mainstream le edgy post-post-ironic meme humor has become with zoomer normies. this era of internet humor is going to be so embarrassing to look back on a decade from now.
Amen.
The internet's average IQ has dropped at the very least 1 SD in the past 2 decades. And it will never get better. The social age of the internet is over, welcome to the braindead crowd-produced cheap mass entertainment age. In the future, we will have the Western population hooked up on the internet through metaverse, tiktok, facebook, twitch like Matrix 24/7 while the internet old users touch grass, the then new "nerd shit".