So someone in a random TV thread just said 'You should devote

Why don't you buy a coloring book? >>>/r9k/

>>19474651
THE ALL is MIND; The Universe is Mental.

>>19474662
Im mental. Mentally insane...

>>19474690
that is one of the first lines of the kybalion. I can't explain it to (you). (You) have to find it.

>>19474651
Retard probably means all kinds of occult arts, traditions etc. Overall "spooky stuff". The pic I find questionable. IIH is alright (though people in /omg/ complain about it, but stuff like Regardie's One Year Manual is better).

>>19474651
Really good advice actually.

Crowley is helpful, but he's a double edged sword. Don't worry about his work until you've established a wide range of knowledge. Although his writings on daoism and budhism are useful for westerners and I feel those can be read at any point really.

>>19474651
>>19469264

>>19474651
oh shit, I was in that thread too. dont kill yourself senpai, hope things get better. /x/ is kinda the worst board on 4chan, so try looking through the sticky or the occultism general threads if this one isnt helpful

>>19474651
"In search of the Miraculous" by P.D.Ouspensky
All the read you will need.

>>19475125
I read it, it was shit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjmFm8PIz8M
Watch this and tell me its not 100% true. At the very least, the elites believe this and that should be looked into.

>>19474651
I posted the image dude. Weird to find you here since I've visited /x/ maybe once in eight years before today. I'm not actually the guy who told you to branch into esotericism, but I've found the stuff posted in that image helpful. For years I felt like I was sinking into a hole and it's only recently that I've been able to sort of get things back together/discover a fledgling spiritual purpose. I think you should check out the Kybalion at least and go from there. Belief is a tool as well.

>>19474651
While virtually none of them would describe it as such, people who talk of "estoricism" are generally referring to the fascinating forms of creative thinking and insight-winning that emerge from a sustained insistence on mapping all of reality on to a limited but rich set of related related symbolized concepts/notions, or onto several such sets which are vaguely or explicitly held to be related to each other in some way.

Typically, the symbol-set that self-proclaimed "esoterics" work with to this end could, without, too much trouble, be referred to as "Hermetic". The practice of esoteric investigation is not in principle any different from what mystically-oriented fellows sometimes have been known to achieve with the symbol-sets of the religious orthodoxy they grew up with (although it's rare to see people of this nature do much with those sorts of symbol-sets nowadays).

Personally, I think Hermetic esotericism is a bit silly, and have my doubts that anyone really bothers with it without at least some hidden residue of pretense in the modern world, but you can still "notice" some interesting things from playing around with it all.

I will say that the guy who made the post in your image is a faggot of almost unimaginable proportions, not because of his tastes, but just because of his overall attitude. He is almost certainly a college-aged brat who has yet not grown accustomed to approaching his own discoveries and experiences with at least a tinge of self-criticism. Also, he is not JUST talking about "esotericism" in that post (at least in the way I have chosen to herein define the word); some of what he refers to is blatant magical technique.

Why he is so put off by some of the things he advises against, I can't say; a few things on his shit-list share more than a bit in common with his recommended literature. He must have just had a hard time getting anywhere with those and found better results personally with the stuff he recommended.

>>19476910
Also don't kill yourself holmie. I've had persistent suicidal thoughts and serious depression for years now; often the thought of suicide was something that I used to comfort myself with the idea that, however bad things get, I'll always be able to just end it all. I've grown to believe that existence never ends, and that you're much better off working through what you need to in this life.

>>19476922
This is a bunch of crap. Hermeticism is productively used by willing yourself to be better, and actualizing that will in reality. It's basically positive thinking, but you have to realize that there's a real purpose to the universe, and your own life. Atheism and materialistic science is really the ultimate bluepill you need to reject.

I would actually highly recommend, as well, that you read Joseph Campbell's 'The Hero with a Thousand Faces'.

>>19476956
That is just what YOU have gotten out it. Which I don't claim is invalid, but you seem to be a on just a bit of a "my way is the only way kick". Do you really think no one, in the entire world, could have a valid definition or use for "Hermeticism" that differs from yours?

>>19476974
Keep in mind, I didn't write the post in the image you're referring to. Anyway, if you have a different interpretation of the Kybalion or related hermetic treatise then I'm happy to hear it.

>>19476922

>Also, he is not JUST talking about "esotericism" in that post (at least in the way I have chosen to herein define the word); some of what he refers to is blatant magical technique.

What's the difference between the two?

>>19476982
Meh. I more or less put mine forward, although it is more a meta-interpretation of seeing the value and interest in the fact that meaningful insights tend to arise at all by the mere act of steadfastly committing oneself to the interpretation of reality in accordance with a limited symbol-set.

In that regard, I'll assure you that I consider "scientific" theories (conceptual symbol-sets) no less "mythical" in principle than anything from the Hermetic arsenal. But, while I'll wholeheartedly agree that "science" has paid a fair bit of selective inattention to reality, and that some of its more lackwitted "priests" have bizarrely mistaken its chosen field of focus for all that exists period, I will nonetheless withhold my rejection of it as a "bluepill" until you can furnish me a technique-arsenal which both yields more reliable results AND cannot coexist with it.

As for "atheism", "god" is just a word. If you're applying it to something that isn't there, then "god doesn't exist"; if you're applying it to something that is, then "god is real"; if you're doing the latter without carrying any theological residue from circumstantially-unrelated notions into the word-association, then you're "seeing god as it actually is". Now, as to the SORTS OF THINGS people tend to assign the word "god" to, that is of course a matter could be discussed at some length.

>>19477052
According to me, esoterics is more symbol-play with the aim of thereby winning insights into reality which could not easily or at all be gleaned from more "conventional" or "rational" approaches. Magical technique would be the creation of or stumbling-into "weird" events that seem at variance with how we're told the world ought to work. The same kinds of people frequently tend to indulge in both. To use some terms which I hope will intuitively strike a chord, you could think of them as the difference between "the spiritual" and "the paranormal". That's of course just MY working definitions.

>>19477091
>I will nonetheless withhold my rejection of it as a "bluepill" until you can furnish me a technique-arsenal which both yields more reliable results AND cannot coexist with it.

The scientific method is perfectly valid; it's just not applied unbiasedly, and a lot of the conclusions which are accepted as dogmatic facts in the 21st century are, I believe, totally false. I also reject the notion of an anthropocentric universe. I think there are beings far higher and more advanced than humans, and I think that's a pretty logical thing to assume if you're divorcing earth and man from the willful intentions of a single Yahweh figure. For example, how far can a barnacle or a bacteria get with their scientific instruments? About as far away from actual understanding as humans can, in my opinion.

>As for "atheism", "god" is just a word.
Atheists reject purpose and meaning in life in favour of random chance and materialism. I think that believing you're purposeless, or even that you don't have free will, are the strongest bluepills you can possibly swallow.

>>19477113
>The scientific method is perfectly valid; it's just not applied unbiasedly, and a lot of the conclusions which are accepted as dogmatic facts in the 21st century are, I believe, totally false. I also reject the notion of an anthropocentric universe. I think there are beings far higher and more advanced than humans, and I think that's a pretty logical thing to assume if you're divorcing earth and man from the willful intentions of a single Yahweh figure. For example, how far can a barnacle or a bacteria get with their scientific instruments? About as far away from actual understanding as humans can, in my opinion.

I'll pretty much agree with all of that, actually.

>Atheists reject purpose and meaning in life in favour of random chance and materialism. I think that believing you're purposeless, or even that you don't have free will, are the strongest bluepills you can possibly swallow.

Hm…well, if I'm being honest, the historical evidence does seem to suggest that periods in which materialistic flourishes will *always* culminate in nihilism and despair after a few centuries, followed by the flowering of novel forms of religion; not because materialism was ever "proved wrong", but merely because the segment of humanity experimenting with it has grown bored and exhausted of its implications (seems to be at the root of most major paradigm-shifts). There do, however, exist MILLIONS of *individuals* who are wholly atheistic in their thinking and nonetheless maintain a purposive and positive outlook on existence, and one needn't worry too much about the implications of the overall pattern on himself if he is the exception to the rule it exhibits.

Since I haven't really made MY thoughts on all of that too clear at this point, I'll say that if I must pigeonhole myself, it wouldn't be far off to refer to me as "ignostic" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism).

I'd be interested to hear *precisely* what you mean when you say "purpose" and "free will".