Builders Of The Adytum/Golden Dawn

[peter2]

>impose ones will on their environment for purely carnal results.... Isn't this the method of nature though

It is certainly tempting to impose human concepts when interpreting nature, but I am not sure how valid that is.

For example, when bees protecting a hive sting you they die. The guard bees however are the oldest bees with not long to live.


At a more complex level there are many symbiotic relationships between all kinds of creatures from bacteria to large mammals.   For example, human digestion is based on a complex ecosystem in the digestive tract.


So I am not sure that the imposition of selfish benefit is nearly as common as appears to humans.

[pan0ptic]

Hi peter2,


What I mean by selfish benefit is that all organism make decisions designed to enhance the chances of successful reproduction (morality has no say in the matter as it is an extraneous grid-work (maze) which the organism must navigate in order to successfully accomplish its goal). In the example you list about bees, they are one of only a few species which demonstrates what's called group or kin selection. In the case of natural selection the individual acts on its own behalf to improve its own chances of successfully finding a mate and propagating its genes. In the case of group selection, like in your example, the will of the individual is subjugated in favor of group benefit. The role of reproductive fitness or the over simplification 'selfish benefit' is redefined because a single entity is responsible for reproduction of the entire species (the Queen). In other words for the purposes of our discussion, natural selection, as it pertains to reproductive fitness is defined differently for both the group and the individual (BUT) reproduction (selfish benefit) is still the goal.

I hope that made sense. I'm not an expert and my understanding of this complex domain of knowledge is lacking..but I am going to college to get a degree in biology

pan

[peter2]

Nov 25, 2015 15:43:03 GMT pan0ptic said:

Hi peter2,


What I mean by selfish benefit is that all organism make decisions designed to enhance the chances of successful reproduction

While this is a common assertion, proof is harder to come by.

I know quite a number of women that have chosen not to have children.

And in my own experience the desire for children was non-existent for some decades until it suddenly appeared even though my relationship situation had not changed.

Perhaps we need to move past the implicit assumption of programmed entities and start to look at trans-species intelligence.

 

[pan0ptic]

Hi peter2,

While this is a common assertion, proof is harder to come by.

Just take a look at the world population. The numbers don't lie. Additionally, take a look at the number of bacterial and viral species that have developed immunity to common treatments.

know quite a number of women that have chosen not to have children.

Many women and men are born sterile but they still have the urge to have sex. Some people don't have an urge for sex so they find some other means of propagating parts of themselves.

And in my own experience the desire for children was non-existent for some decades until it suddenly appeared even though my relationship situation had not changed.

I'm the exact opposite. I desired children and now that I have them I wish I hadn't. Not that they aren't wonderful it's just that sentencing a person to life on this rock (for purely selfish reasons) Disturbs me tremendously.

Perhaps we need to move past the implicit assumption of programmed entities and start to look at trans-species intelligence.

As you wish. Lead the way.

Pan

[peter2]

>Many women and men are born sterile but they still have the urge to have sex

The desire for sexual union is mostly independent of any need to reproduce, particularly after the female has had a first child. Indeed quite a few 70 year olds are still sexually active.

Perhaps there is a greater purpose to sex.


And there are many species that mate for life. If propagation were the primary goal then the males would mate indiscriminately.


So why do mate-for-life species even survive? Surely the indiscriminate-maters should have out-bred the maters-for-life?

[pan0ptic]

Hi peter2

The desire for sexual union is mostly independent of any need to reproduce, particularly after the female has had a first child. Indeed quite a few 70 year olds are still sexually active.

The need for sexual union is a necessary mechanism for reproduction to occur. As was stated, the exponential growth of the world population is prima facie evidence that the primary goal of life is reproduction. I believe there are numerous esoteric quotes which also support this phenomena. It's not that complicated, If reproduction weren't the prime directive we wouldn't be here. Keep in mind that I'm not addressing hypotheses which relate to origination. Everything reproduces if they don't their finger print is erased from the genealogical record.

Perhaps there is a greater purpose to sex.

Perhaps.

And there are many species that mate for life. If propagation were the primary goal then the males would mate indiscriminately.

Species that mate for life still engage in reproduction and produce many off-spring. Higher brain function, specifically the cortex in primates, provides a mechanism to override the promptings of the more primitive brain centers responsible for reproduction.

So why do mate-for-life species even survive?

Because they have off-spring which inherit their genes. The cycle repeats.

Surely the indiscriminate-maters should have out-bred the maters-for-life?

Breeding is the goal, it matters not how much one breeds. Although some interesting trends can be seen in species which indiscriminately mate. It may be that when a species numbers begin to dwindle say due to uncharacteristic environmental oppression or hardship that indiscriminate mating increases in an attempt to increase a population. For example, single parent families are on the rise in some demographics.


Edit** I should like to add that I'm not suggesting that mindless reproduction should define the goal of life. The primitive forces which are responsible for establishing the status quo of reality should be finessed if not managed with reason. Or it may be that i'm not properly understanding your objections? From my perspective I am just explaining a popular paradigmatic view of reality. It doesn't necessarily mean it is inscrutable or even right. I'd be willing to explore alternative explanations if you have one?




Sincerely,

pan

[peter2]

Nov 26, 2015 20:27:34 GMT pan0ptic said:

Breeding is the goal

So having bred does any meaning to life remain?

[pan0ptic]

Nov 26, 2015 21:52:31 GMT peter2 said:

Nov 26, 2015 20:27:34 GMT pan0ptic said:

Breeding is the goal

So having bred does any meaning to life remain?

From a scientific or rational perspective, probably not. Consider that the scientific community doesn't accept claims regarding purpose unless there is adequate proof. The philosophical and spiritual communities on the other hand have varying opinions regarding the purpose of life. Although the idea of having bred doesn't mean that an organism is consigned to lose hope and/or die just that they successfully propagated their genes. There are other biological motives for behavior that are subordinate to reproduction. But to be honest i'm not really well versed in what they are.

What is your take?

pan

[peter2]

Just as the bacteria in my gut are part of a greater system, so am I, and the greater system has its own intent.

Some of that intent is visible in the desire to unite that most intelligent beings exhibit.

[pan0ptic]

Hi peter2,

Just as the bacteria in my gut are part of a greater system, so am I, and the greater system has its own intent.

Indeed we are. You might enjoy a study of Ecology.

Some of that intent is visible in the desire to unite that most intelligent beings exhibit.

Agreed.


Pan

[seekinglight]

Since I've been meditating more, the idea of 'something bad happened, so therefore B.O.T.A is bad' has been bothering me so I wanted to make a more unbiased post on this comment thread stating both the good and the bad.

Good: Everything in the course material is good, except for what I mentioned earlier, and even then, I could just be reading way too much into something that wasn't meant to be taken literally. Also I was repeatedly given advice to stay away from Crowley, which I think is usually a good sign in an esoteric order that you're dealing with the right people. On the surface everything appears to be good.

Bad: Mentioned earlier in this comment thread, someone stated that he/she had a manuscript of Paul Case and Anne Davies receiving instruction from a demon through a Ouija board, which is definitely interesting. Someone I was in contact with from B.O.T.A. had ties to 'The Galactic Federation of Light' which I think is also tied to the 'Ashtar Command'. The word 'Ashtar' appears to be a short form of the name of the demon astharoth, and a being named semjaza is also made mention of by them. Coincidentally Semjaza is also one of the fallen Watchers mentioned in the Book of Enoch.

Neutral: I was told over the phone when I asked about who/what Lucifer is/was, that: 'you'll find out all about Lucifer, and probably sooner than you think'. I put this in the neutral category because although my interpretation of Lucifer is that he is an evil demon, I know some people in the esoteric community having differing interpretations.

edit: The person I mentioned that had ties to the 'galactic federation of light' and the one who gave me advice to stay away from Crowley is the same person. I wouldn't accuse that person either, as although I definitely do not trust either the 'galactic federation of light' or the 'ashtar command', I think that we are in strange times right now and it's possible that the person simply views them as benevolent. I, however, do not.

2nd edit: To add to the good, I read one of their newsletters a few months ago and the ending said 'May the blessings of the Mighty Angel Gabriel be upon you'. Shortly after that I received the text to what I'm practicing now, on the day of the week attributed to the archangel Gabriel.

I think my problem lies more with the Galactic Federation of Light/Ashtar Command (demons masquerading as angels of Light) than it does with B.O.T.A. Not entirely sure and I don't have it all figured out, but maybe B.O.T.A is good after all. Maybe the occult is just a dangerous game to play.

[lazarus]

Dec 22, 2016 15:39:18 GMT seekinglight said:

Since I've been meditating more, the idea of 'something bad happened, so therefore B.O.T.A is bad' has been bothering me so I wanted to make a more unbiased post on this comment thread stating both the good and the bad.

Good: Everything in the course material is good, except for what I mentioned earlier, and even then, I could just be reading way too much into something that wasn't meant to be taken literally. Also I was repeatedly given advice to stay away from Crowley, which I think is usually a good sign in an esoteric order that you're dealing with the right people. On the surface everything appears to be good.

Bad: Mentioned earlier in this comment thread, someone stated that he/she had a manuscript of Paul Case and Anne Davies receiving instruction from a demon through a Ouija board, which is definitely interesting. Someone I was in contact with from B.O.T.A. had ties to 'The Galactic Federation of Light' which I think is also tied to the 'Ashtar Command'. The word 'Ashtar' appears to be a short form of the name of the demon astharoth, and a being named semjaza is also made mention of by them. Coincidentally Semjaza is also one of the fallen Watchers mentioned in the Book of Enoch.

Neutral: I was told over the phone when I asked about who/what Lucifer is/was, that: 'you'll find out all about Lucifer, and probably sooner than you think'. I put this in the neutral category because although my interpretation of Lucifer is that he is an evil demon, I know some people in the esoteric community having differing interpretations.

edit: The person I mentioned that had ties to the 'galactic federation of light' and the one who gave me advice to stay away from Crowley is the same person. I wouldn't accuse that person either, as although I definitely do not trust either the 'galactic federation of light' or the 'ashtar command', I think that we are in strange times right now and it's possible that the person simply views them as benevolent. I, however, do not.

2nd edit: To add to the good, I read one of their newsletters a few months ago and the ending said 'May the blessings of the Mighty Angel Gabriel be upon you'. Shortly after that I received the text to what I'm practicing now, on the day of the week attributed to the archangel Gabriel.

I think my problem lies more with the Galactic Federation of Light/Ashtar Command (demons masquerading as angels of Light) than it does with B.O.T.A. Not entirely sure and I don't have it all figured out, but maybe B.O.T.A is good after all. Maybe the occult is just a dangerous game to play.

Hi Seekinglight! I´m not a member but have been studying the B.O.T.A. curricullum for a couple of years, and I really think, as you said yourself, that the feeling you got from that denomination of 'the devil' by Mr. Case is due to a little misinterpretation. if you remember the premise, quoting an old saying, Mr. Case states very clearly in one of the lessons: 'the devil is God as He is misunderstood by the wicked'. so, given the context, the use of 'His Satanic Majesty' sounds to me to be nothing more than mocking and/or a reference to the way the ancients would refer to the concept of the devil/satan. and regarding the transcript you mentioned, the communication through the ouija board was not with a 'demon' as stated, but with a living instructor of a higher order who goes by the name of 'Master R', supposed to be the count st. germain. so no need to worry. DEFINITELY right hand path, you can rest asured. just read Mr. Case´s works The True and Invisible Rosicrucian Order, Hermetic Alchemy, The Masonic Letter G and Daniel, Master of Magicians, and you´ll get the gist. hope it helps

[seekinglight]

Decided to revisit this thread again. I am now fully convinced that my perception was clouded through previous trauma and therefore I layed the blame on B.O.T.A. I have since moved passed blaming everything except myself for my problems.