illuminism 101B: What is Illuminist Luciferian-Satanism?

[Jonathan Barlow Gee]

topic: Illuminism 101B

title: What is Illuminist Luciferian-Satanism?

author: Jonathan Barlow Gee

organisation: the Pythagorean Order of Death (POD)

location: Tallahassee, Florida, USA

date: 4-26-2012

synopsis:

Because there is no "morality" in reality, though it exists in a higher plane, so to speak, of our mental projections that we super-impose invisibly over consensus reality, there is no such thing as "right" or "wrong," aside from as subjective variables symbolising a uselessly random system with no basis in facts. Because there are no "right" or "wrong" in reality, only in the morality of our shared mental realm, one could postulate that "good" is the mental realm, while "evil" is reality itself, and continue this line of justification for psychosis to rationalise the existence of both "God" and "Satan," or even only "God" as the supreme being above all the lower levels, and thus explain the existence of "morality" as an "ideal" in itself. One could further argue a system of levels that alternates between real and ideal, such that evil is reality, good is idealism, Satan is false, yet God true. One can argue this system can "wrap around" so that God can influence reality directly, but reality cannot change the will of God. This system is "good" insofar as it is logically convincing to our moral minds. However, is it true at all? If it is not, then there MIGHT be NO God, and thus all religions, both of "good" and in favour of the anti-thesis of that popular consensus concept, and thus for "evil," MIGHT be equally futile and false.

introduction:

Is it "better" to bring peace, or to make war? This all depends on the pre-existing condition. If war pre-exists peace, it is better to make peace. If peace precedes war, it is worse to bring war. However, in reality, there is peace in one place and war in another, such that when one war in one place ends and they have peace there, then another war starts in another place that had been at peace before. There is, somewhere, always war. The concept, tried twice, of a "world-wide war" - where the more technologically developed nations carpet-bomb and conquer their poorer neighbors,  where whichever side uses its resources fastest is defeated, and which end with only the conquered half of all profiteers and killers being charged with war-crimes - has failed to end this viscious cycle of violence, which is moreover apparently inherent in all species on this planet, not only our own. If our species were wiped out, others would evolve to achieve what we have, and it is more than a little likely they would also succumb to the emotional temptation to use their technologies as weapons and make war. If the moral truism "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" were true, then sooner or later this planet we live on now WILL be totally destroyed in a war.

As discussed in section A, the law of binary dualism implies the equality of quadrupled options due to the possibility for over-lap and thus imbalance implied between the extreme opposites. Just as we can say that only 1/4th of all possible options in such a system is truly "good," without any impurity due to admixture with its opposite, so too can we say that only 1/4th of all options that exist in such a system would be truly "evil." There would be 1/2 of the total equation that would constitute the imbalanced conditions of reality, where in some places there is "more good than evil," and elsewhere "more evil than good." Just as "ideal good" cannot exist in relationship to "real evil," neither is "ideal evil," in its fullest extreme, existent anywhere in reality. A "real good," or "service," is an economic commodity, while the "ideal good" would be "God" as the "Most High good," who could not be commodified or expressed in reality. Insofar as economics and money are the "root of all evil," and they exist in reality, and insofar as reality is less than ideal, as we can imagine a "better" world for ourselves, reality in general is evil, while the ideal of "God" alone is an "ideal good," and "Satan" alone the opposite in being an "ideal evil."

The problem with any binar-based system is that, no matter how many levels one multiplies it to, it will remain binarily divisible, and will always break even, so to speak, by providing any new level with an equal and opposite component; if any vote were taken in such a binary system, it would always tie, and thus, no change would be able to occur. Because the system remains "balanced," any sudden "imbalance" in one location must be immediately corrected by a "re-balancing" toward that location by the entire surrounding area. Such a model as the binary-based system is argueably an ideal or not, and argueably real or not. In truth, however, in either case, it should not be held to exist in a vaccum apart from any other possible systems. Systems such as, for example, the odd-numbered system do allow for "growth" and "expansion" and, when morality is super-imposed onto the changes thus caused, these changes can be considered "good" or "evil" progress in either the "right" or "wrong" direction, etc. In a binary-based system, we do not see the possibility for exponential growth, only arithmetic, as each new addition is coupled, but this coupling does not in itself produce any new addition, as we see to be the case in odd-numbered trinary dialectics, where the merger of "thesis" and "anti-thesis" yields a new "synthesis," which then serves to reproduce as "thesis" by pairing with its polar opposite as an "anti-thesis," etc. ad infinitum. The difference between a "binary" and an "odd-numbered" system is that in a binary system, any change rebalances to a new level, while in an odd-numbered system, balance is never attained, stasis is impossible, and change constantly occurs instead. Both exist in reality, thus neither can be likened to the ideal "good" of "God" nor "evil" of "Satan," which can exist only beyond reality as ideals in the mind.

In reality, that is, material, solid reality, no ideals exist unless we make them exist by constructing symbols of them using existing material objects in solid reality. This is the essence of "idolism," which would mean the "bringing down" into reality of ideals using symbolic material objects to represent the ineffable and unattainable ideal itself. Money, for example, is a symbol of value, as opposed to being the ideal of "Value" in itself. Thus, in reality, we find there exist BOTH binary or even-numbered AND dialectic or odd-numbered systems, thus proving neither is, itself, at all "ideal." However, just as symbols can exist, and be used as moral truisms to justify arguing the existence of the ideal they represent, so too are both binary and dialectic systems used in arguments to prove the final truth about "good" and "evil," even though, in reality, there can be no final proof of any ideal.

definitions:

If we can say that no ideal can exist in reality, but that any material object can be used to symbolise any ideal, we might come to believe that objects, when used as symbols of non-real ideals, are elevated in meaning to the status of a more idealised form of "meta-object," imbued with symbolic meaning refering to the non-real ideal it represents to us. Insofar as "belief" or "imagination" in the mind may imbue any object with symbolic meaning refering to any ideal, this theory itself might be used as a justification in reality for the existence and usefulness in symbolising an ideal. However, neither this argument of using both binary and dialectic systems to symbolise the ideals of "right" and "wrong" nor the use of symbols as "meta-objects" to idolize ideals, is a material reality in itself, merely another mental projective form of ideal. If no ideal can exist in reality, no amount of justification will prove the opposite. Morality, logic and the entire ideal mental realm are non-real and do not exist in material, solid reality. No symbol can dis-prove this.

Thus, we can define "symbols" as real objects we imbue with additional meaning to rationally and morally justify our mental belief in imaginary ideals such as "right" and "wrong." We can define reality, additionally, as being corrupted by the influence of BOTH good AND evil, and thus say only in the ideal realm of the mind do the ultimate extent of this binary idea truly exist as "God" and "Satan," but that, no matter how we symbolise these in reality using material objects, neither can be "brought down" and "made real" by simply imbuing any object with this symbolic meaning.

Because no amount of moral reasoning can cause "good" or "evil" to exist in reality, no argument is possible that can either prove or disprove the moral use of symbols nor the existence of any mental ideal. The fact ideals cannot exist, and the fact symbols used for them are all arbitrary, are often ignored by many of our species. Instead, we embrace the use of symobls in place of ideals themselves, and we believe in the existence of ideals, and that our belief in their existence is what causes them to have that existence. We believe in the real existence of our mental realm, our mind. However, this does not make our mental realm, the ideals of our minds, real existing objects in material reality.

methodology:

By detaching the concepts of real objects that are used as idealised symbols by being imbued with additional meaning from our mental realms, and the ideals these symbols are used to represent, from the solid, material reality of objects, we can differentiate between the object in reality itself and the subjective meaning we super-impose on it with our mind. This method determines the difference between what is "true" in reality and what is only a "higher truth" in our minds, to distinguish between which exists in reality and which is merely a hallucination inside our imaginations. Thus, because "good" and "evil" are ideals that exist only in the mind, they do not exist as any real object in material reality.

Because symbols of ideals are used as "meta-objects" by our species to give additional meaning to regular solid objects, the useo f symbols collectively can be considered by its micro-application in the form of written language. A book of history is a symbol of history, but the past before they were born cannot be truly known by anyone. A symbol of the past can only influence one's mind to make different choices than they would by instinct, however it cannot prove the existence, in the present, of any truth about past events, which now no longer exist. No historical artefact can truly convince the morally reasoning mind the universe did not simply pop into existence the moment they were born into it. If nothing we imagine can be considered "true" in the sense of being a solid material object in itself, then objects we create or alter using written language to symbolise the ideals of our minds, no matter how many other minds they may influence in the future, are arbitrary and lies.

If we look at the history of written history itself, we can find through the study of changeing symbols, that is, the use of different solid, material objects over time to signify the same, single unchangeing ideal, and can prove the futility of believing one needs to do so to learn and improve their own instinctive ideals. The arbitrary assignation of symbolic meaning to any material object causes that object to decay at an increased rate, and eventually to be destroyed prior to our belief in its usefulness ceasing. Even this, the longevity of our belief in a symbol beyond the very ability of the object we use for it to exist, is taken as morally logical argument to justify the existence of ideals as a "higher reality." Of course, our destruction of one material object as a natural resource after another, ad infinitum, is excused by this argument as being "morally logical," but the fact this arugment itself is ex post facto and imaginary itself is ignored.

history:

Logic and Morality are the twin children of written language. If written language had never been invented, neither morality nor logic would exist. If all capacity for written language were destroyed, morality and logic would cease also. Morality, as a justification for making an argument, and logic, the manner of constructing the argument to successfully convince someone else's mind, can only exist so long as written language exists, because written language, as a symbolic system for making an argument, can be made to exist as a material, solid object in reality. However, only within written language do the ideals of morality and logic exist anywhere in reality. Logic and morality are symbols of an ideal good and a necessary evil used to acquire it, but if all written language were erased, neither would persist.

Some state communication using verbal language is the invention of our species, and none others use symbolic language verbally to communicate as we do. This is obviously wrong, since every animal species on this planet makes some form of verbal noise to communicate with its own kind, and even other species also. Yet, the invention of symbolic language to communicate can be proven unique to our species as an invention in its form as writing, an invention we owe entirely to our thumb's use in creating it, and not to our species' ability to use language to speak.

A written record of events in our species existence signifies the entirety of our concept of history, as it unfolded here on our planet prior to our personal birth. No other species perserves their history in this way. This method is unique to humans and is how we measure the difference between our species and all others. The written record of our species' history is what we base our belief as a species for morality and logic upon. Without the written record of history, no logical argument would exist for morality, and we would need to, if it had proved useful, re-invent the record as proof for the existence of logical morality. Outside of writings, we can find no other proof in reality for the existence of either logic or morality.

The most basic principles of logic are identity and cause and effect: "A = A" and "if A therefore B." The most basic principles of morality are ideals that are only symbolically expressed in logical terms. Thus "good = good," and thus "if good exists thus also there must be such a thing as evil." In short, the written letters of our symbolic language themselves comprise the format of logic, and thus logic is used to argue the existence of binary morality. Because written language exists as a series of alphabetic letters, logic is premised on language, and thus morality on logic.

We cannot say now that "written language does not exist as a material object in solid reality," nor that "history itself does not exist as the records of all our species' written languages." Therefore, symbolically within these texts, "morality" and "logic" can be argued to exist in reality; even though there is no proof for either outside these books. However, it cannot be argued that, because writing exists, the subjects of the writing must necessarily also exist. This is because writing is only symbolic of morality and logic, and thus, though useful in expressing our species' imaginary ideals, does not prove they exist as material objects in solid reality. The book about "Moby Dick" itself is not a real "white whale." No amount of logical morality can prove the existence as a material object of "good" or "evil," because in truth neither exist in reality, as both are purely mental ideals.

The argument is often made that, by containing good and evil symbollically as records of history, the material objects of books about history are, themselves, a "meta-object" form of "better" reality that symbolises mental idealisms. Again, any object used as a symbol will be rendered extinct before the expiration of its usefullness. Gold coins can be hoarded away from their use in the free-market as money; paper bills will expire before their users can reclaim their holdings in metals; the idea of "God" will die out long before the religions of monotheism are prepared to let Him go. By valuing any object as a symbol, it depletes that object's supplies to immitate in reality the scarcity of non-real ideals. By using any object as a symbol, we use its supplies in material reality up faster. Thus, the value of books as a symbol of idealism is increased along with their scarcity. If there were only one book, it would be considered most ideal. Such is, in modern times, the "Bible," comprised of the religious history of Judeao-Christian Islam.

It is also often argued over whether this one book, the "Bible" of mono-theist religions, is an authentic symbol of idealism or not. It is said by some, "the bible is inaccurate in some regards, therefore less ideal as a symbol of history," while it is said by others, "the bible is the literal word of God." Neither of these arguments amounts to any proof either way, because the entire argument itself is moot. Arguing over the amount of truth in the Bible is like arguing over the exact amount of wheat content in a loaf of bread. The argument is irrelevant to the object's use itself. The use of a loaf of a bread to the stomach is equal to the use of any book to the mind, which consumes and lives off the ideals of other people just as the stomach must consume a variety of foods to survive. If the stomach doesn't eat, the body dies, and if the mind does not think, it cannot be said to be "alive" in the sense of active deeds either. For every hundred thoughts the average mind consumes from outside itself, it might produce one original idea of its own. Thus, the value of the one-book, the monotheist "Bible, as a symbol of all human history assembled as a series of logical consequences proving the existence in reality of the moral ideal, is due to its length. Because it's a long book, it inspires more original thoughts on average than most other works of equal percentage fiction.

The existence of the "Bible" as the history of our species comprised to logically prove the existence of morality as a final proof for the existence of "God" is irrelevant to whether or not "God" exists, and thus is an arbitrary symbol for human belief alone, and in itself can serve as evidence for the "higher truth" of nothing. The mental realm elevates itself symbolically to the level of an ideal "God," but this does not mean the mind itself is "God." In reality, there is no proof even for the existence of the mind, let alone for its belief in "God" being able to bring "God" into being in reality.

evaluation:

As long as the Bible, as an artefact of our species' record of history, exists as a solid object in material reality, people will continue to cling to it to logically justify their belief in the idealism of the mental realm for proof of a non-existent God. Because the argument of the futility of this is, itself a moot argument, the efficacy of the Bible as proof of God will continue, while the logic to disprove the reality of morality will yet elude those who apply logic to disprove the existence of morality. Logic depends on morality, and so logic cannot be used to relieve itself of needing morality. Morality is the ideal preceding it, and logic is then aimed to prove and make morality real.

The concept of "illuminist Luciferian-Satanism" is only as useful as a logical disproof for the "Bible's" description of the monothesit "God" because of the limitations to the definiton of "God" implied by its being a single material object. Beyond this, "illuminst Luciferian-Satanism" would only replace one monotheist religion worshipping "God" as "good" with the opposite religion worshipping "Satan" as "evil," but would not be able to free the mind from belief in the un-real "existence" of the monotheist ideal of "God" itself. Thus, "Illuminst Luciferian-Satanism" is not an elevation in levels from the real toward the ideal, but a decent from the levels of reality into those of an equally imaginary and false ideal. Both of these paths lead knowingly to insanity. In short, because "Illuminst Luciferian-Satanism" is no different from "Judeao-Christian Islam" insofar as both are monotheisms, then "Judeao-Christian Islam" is no better nor more truly ideal than "Illuminist Luciferian-Satanism." To see this fact is the origin for seeking freedom from all belief. Ultimately, all beliefs, not only in EITHER "good" OR "evil," are false. The sky is NOT "blue," even if we Believe it IS. "Blue" is only a word our species invented to describe the concept of a colour that pre-existed us. It is meaningless to say that which preceded is like that which followed. It would, logically, be like saying "if B therefore A."

People will continue to believe in God long after they reach the logical conclusion one cannot really exist. Because logic is an arbitrary proof for morality, they will continue to use logic as a proof for the untrue "existence" of God. Again, this is identical to saying "because we say the sky is blue, it is blue," when in truth the sky is thin, clear water. And, again, the more we persist in using logic to justify morality, using the "Bible" as proof for God, and using books as proof for the past, we will only deplete the existence of logic, the efficacy of the "Bible," and all other books. This is a very dangerous road to pursue for us as a species, but then again, we are all doomed to die anyway, so who cares?

conclusion:

Reality is malleable, but ideals are not. Ideals, by necessity, must outlast all symbols used for them. This is a natural fact, and not an axiomatic law we impose onto nature by our logic. There is no "law" in nature, and that is why we, and all other species on this planet, are permitted to wage war and to profit by killing. We would very much like to impose a "natural" law to prevent this behaviour, but it is not possible in true reality to do so. We can no more change natural fact than we alter an ideal. Our mind is detached from reality like oil on water, but as lovely the patterns of our mind may be, they are nothing beside the depths of the realm of reality below. No "law" we imagine can change reality.

Because we exist in reality, though our minds do not, we think we are able to superimpose our minds onto reality by creating symbolic "meta-objects" from solid materials. This is a lie. Because we see symbols of ideals, we believe ideals exist as proven material objects in reality. This is a lie. Because we use and believe in symbols, we think ideals are real. This is a lie. All logic and morality are lies, but we will never stop believing in them until our species is extinct. There is no more point in valueing freedom from belief than there is in valueing death over life. Belief is a fact of the mental realm just as solid objects are facts in material reality. We cannot separate the mind and its beliefs. To try is suicide. Beliefs are the organs of the mind, just as are the organs in our bodies necessary to keep our brains alive. The mind cannot live without belief anymore than the brain could live without the body. Just as we consume food to process through our stomach and feed our bodily organs, we consume ideas with the mind to digest in our brains and feed the beliefs in our mental realm. The mind can be compared to the body, but not the other way around, because the body exists in material reality, whereas the mind does not. You can change a belief in specific, but you cannot remove one organ and replace it with another that is a different kind. You can believe in both "good" and "evil," but you cannot sacrifice one heart to make room for a second stomach.

prediction:

Death comes to all of us, and how we live our lives does not matter if history is arbitrary and beyond our control. So long as we continue to be alive however, we will cling to beliefs and lies of logical morality to falsey prove "God." No amount of logic can disprove the use of logic, nor can gasoline extinguish a fire. Thus, we will keep believing because our species is weak-minded and soft, our beliefs malleable and inconstant, and ignore the fact of reality that our ideals can never possibly exist in reality. We will believe as a species until we are extinct, and never succeed in proving our beliefs are true. That is the fate of our species. There is no hope for us to progress beyond binary morality, even though it is ultimately useless to us, and will only bring about our downfall.

PEACE. - Jon