Conceptual Luciferianism

Note: Theistic Luciferianism

So what I thought I'd do would be a form of Luciferianism that, structurally takes a bit of influence from the right-hand path, but is ultimately individualist.

So basically, there's a primordial formless well of concepts. A concept in the use here is an idea of something, be it the idea of a dog, a philosophical principle, or even as complex as scenarios, histories, and societies. The concepts exist without contradiction, for they have no need to; there's no law of noncontradiction. They exist, they are set creations, with variations existing as their own concepts. They are eternal, and never destroyed.

But corrupt deities instated the law of noncontradiction; reality is the norm, set objects and narratives prevail, and concepts exist only as abstracts to be described, but nothing more. We now have people confined to concepts that are true to our reality and others that are true in alternate dimensions, but people unable to choose which ideas they deem true. Lucifer is the only one who can bring the light and power of concepts to humanity, while the rest of the deities attempt to reign in their dimensions. Borrowing from anti-cosmic Satanism, there's the belief that the world will merge back into the world of concepts, where reality is choice. However, there might be a chance that it may need to be spiritually instigated.

So now we have to live with objective reality, which ultimately confines us into a mold. Whether or not it's true, we still have to fit a mold. Even if we are neutral, we will be pushed into a mold out of concern over becoming the opposition, if neutrality isn't considered opposition. So in order to remedy this, we need to return to the primal chaos of Lucifer so all are true, and all is permissible. So if one was to invoke Lucifer, one would be a god to the extent of not affecting the godhood of others.

They are like the cells of the man o war jellyfish, you'll find that their cells are all independent animals, simply working together autonomously.

To free all individuals from the tyranny of ethics and the nihilism of the modern-day, the destruction of objective truth, fact, and ideology must be committed in favor of complete choice. What is true and what is false entirely depends on the person, regardless of what others think. Contradiction doesn't matter; chocolate ice cream shall not exist, and chocolate ice cream shall be the only form of ice cream to exist, not only in the accumulation of collected "fantasies," but within certain individual fantasies. All, of course, should the wielder of the fantasy will so.

The ethics of this would be justified thusly: Assuming objective morality exists (which it probably doesn't[https://anotepad.com/notes/r6rwpr]), then there are actions that are good and bad. If the ethics of actions were made subjective, people will usually justify their actions as ethical, and eventually remove actions from their sphere that they declare immoral. Eventually, if one accumulated the actions that are good, then there would be an increase in good acts, and possibly eradication of good acts. While there won't be a set code of what is good and bad, the acts in each sphere would still be good if declared. And given that people will design their parts to meet their standards, so there won't be a conflict between what's ethical and what's pleasurable. This makes Conceptual Luciferianism not only good, but the closest good any religion, philosophy, or idea can ever be.

The existence of the primordial concept can be found in the traditionally Christian Cosmological argument from Thomas Aquinas. He argued everything contingent must have a cause, saying an infinite regress of such things was impossible (as opposed to the popular reduction to "everything has a cause"). This initial cause doesn't need to be a deity; why would it be anything besides the sum of all possibilities?

Theories about the world being a simulation, while not necessary, do help advance the evidence of Conceptual Luciferianism. The simulations would be on the basis of the great concept.

It would be the most emblematic of the stellar tradition. https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftHandPath/comments/owe6zq/stellar_vs_solar_tradition_instead_of_left_vs/ My system is the total separation of all forms of dogma, even that based on truth.

What is the Law of Noncontradiction:

Find a stone in a forest, beach, or any area. List its attributes. Once you've observed it, consider the existence of the rock, its nature. Realize that if you changed simply one of its attributes, you would find that you have changed the nature of the rock, and as such, it would be a similar, but nonetheless, separate rock. This would technically be the same rock as it has the same atoms and molecules, but it would still be a separate version of said rock, a separate concept entirely. This is necessary if things must change. Things cannot have an attribute and simultaneously not have it. As I told my brother when I talked to him about these ideas, Chocolate ice cream cannot be Vanilla Ice Cream. Even in a swirl, the Chocolate and Vanilla must be distinct. All concepts must be distinct, because if they aren't, they will all be the same concept, if not completely formless.

Some justification for the theology:

In the beginning, there was dirt. We couldn't do too much with it, just enough to live and get by.

Then came the industrial revolution. This created technology that advanced humanity's potential. We used to be confined to old ways of production, but the industrial revolution advanced technology so that we could expand our potential. This began with economics, but then transferred to film and photography. Before then we were stuck with paintings, plays and other forms that relied heavily on recreation. Now, we had a way to, theoretically, perfectly preserve actions of the past and present. Then, after about a century and 20 years, the internet was created. SO now we didn't have just preservation and creation through image and ideas through studios, it could be done in the hands of the average consumer.

Another thing was that when the industrial revolution occurred, electricity was discovered, or more widely implemented. For most of the world didn't have access to electricity and then suddenly they had easier and more potent energy to power their homes. The only type of matter similar to electricity (plasma) they had before was fire. SO not only could a matter similar to fire be harnessed safely, but also power new energy and technology.

A lot of these things were simply seen as impossible for most of the people at the time.

Put simply, given the way technology advances, can't we eventually accelerate beyond the material world.

First dirt, mild and from the earth, then electricity, the lightning that for most of humanity (exceptions of course to the possible use of it by Egyptians) was unable to be harnessed, then what can come next?

If first we had recreations, then preservation, and then mass creation of ideas, can we start creating realities?

Another aspect of Conceptualism is Potentialism. Potentialism is a solution to the paradox of knowledge. On one hand, it's scary to not know everything, but on the other hand, it's also scary to know everything and not be able to know more than that. Potentialism is when the edge of knowledge isn't nothing, but the potential of something. The Potential is to be endless, but it is to form into something.

Responding to criticism:

"I disagree utterly. Concepts do not beget matter, matter begets concepts. Concepts can change, influence, or transform matter, and they are absolutely our medium for organizing matter into mental maps necessary to further our interests. But matter is clearly the dominant aspect, as an argument for this note how gravity's behavior is uniform even though we have two contradictory models for it in Relativity vs. Quantum Theory. Note I mean "matter" here in the philosophical sense, not the scientific one. So in scientific terms for "matter" read "physical law." If something has been conceptualized then it definitionally has form. You bring up contradiction and non-contradiction in both this line and the next; what I would argue is that nothing formally contradicts (dry wetness doesn't even make sense conceptually) but everything dialectically contradicts (this is what I touched on earlier, how everything contains it's opposite). To be clear, I'm not Leveyan/symbolic, I believe in Satan as a real, existent deity, but I am also a materialist (which does not mean I think Satan has a body, only that Satan is not external to physical reality)."

I didn't say concepts beget matter, I just said that reality happened and some concepts became true and others became false. I didn't assign responsibility to the concepts themselves. As for concepts changing, do they really change or do they separate into separate variations? I didn't say matter was powerless, I said that concepts once were dominant, but then physical matter was utilized. I say it's by Gods, but if one wants to go into this idea but ignore the Luciferianism, that's fine, just believe in the concept parts. FOr the part about contradiction, things do currently contradict. Dry wetness does contradict, that's why people don't think it can exist. Although it can, if the law of noncontradiction is repealed. It can exist conceptually, since paradoxes can; in addition, fiction can make things like anachronisms contradictions, but still be narratives. So concepts can contradict.

"This seems to imply that our concept of concepts is in fact corrupt and therefore all our understanding is corrupt thus nothing that comes of that understanding can provide genuine knowledge of reality. In short, you're advocating for the classical conception of Gnosis. The problem with this approach is that, because material knowledge is not to be trusted, this can be used to justify literally any belief. If the true concepts that shape reality are in fact these sort-of anti-concepts as you'd have it, then you can just as easily use that to justify worshipping Darkwing Duck as you could the theology you've presented here. If multiple corrupt deities define our reality then why don't the laws of physics change every time they have a dispute? The word "dimension" doesn't mean an alternate reality, it means a plane of measurement. Height, width, and depth are examples of dimensions, realms of varying gods are not. Multiverse theory never posited alternate realities like this, it was meant to explain the existence of certain particles, and even for that purpose it's not as in favor as it once was."

I didn't say concepts were corrupt, I said the deities were. But I'll take the Gnosis anyway, it's a good starting point, and maybe it might help me. As for being able to worship Dark-wing duck, I guess you could be able to when concepts and individual will will reign. The reason the laws of physics exist is because the deities colluded. They each made their own rules and then made them true. While I did misuse the term dimension, I believe my intention of it as a synonym for reality is made clear, and any further objections would be purely about semantics rather than theology. As for multiverses, I said they were possible, not required. However, I believe that there are some stories such as the man from Taured that can give some basis of something.

"Unfortunately, after that I have to go back to vigorously objecting. Without facts or ideology choice is utterly impossible; there would be no choices just random actions. A sea of choices without an ounce of objective meaning in any of them would inevitably produce nihilism."

Maybe, but again, people would be the gods of their realms, they can declare their will moral. Regardless, even if this was the case, they could turn off their problems with meaninglessness. And what's wrong with random actions if they bring enjoyment. Not to mention, if it were nihilistic, then it would be no more nihilistic than our current world, just with more choices.

"Aquinas lived long before we understood that time is not absolute. Infinite regress is only a problem in a linear timeframe. And I'd say the Prime Cause would have to be the root of all possibilities, not their sum."

I'll have to refer to some other arguments https://www.reddit.com/r/exatheist/comments/odypl3/what_are_your_thoughts_on_this_criticism_of_the/. Although, in this context, I believe that it was only meant to be the initial cause, not the sum of everything.

"An argument can be made for existence as partially or wholly illusory (regardless of how much I or anyone else would or would not agree with those arguments) but it's false on its face that existence is a simulation. Existence includes infinities so any simulator would require an infinite amount of processing power to run it. Existence based on concepts as you described it here would not technically be a simulation at all even if it is an illusion."

I first begin with the fact that I said it wasn't necessary in the first place for the world to be a simulation, just that it helped. Regardless, the final sentence shows that reality being a simple illusion helps support it just as well.

"The core idea is still the hyperuranion. Why don't we stop believing in a creation coming down from Kether to Malkuth, and we start start building from Malkuth to Kether, Daath or whatever?"

Call me a materialist, but I think that ultimately, the spiritual has to precede the material, because the material can't be shown to be supernatural. Looking at the material world itself, there is no spirituality.