Given what Brennan said, Nothing does not exist. You can neither escape from it or merge with it and there can't be any paths leading to it because it is "nothing". If this is considered, how can there be a "path" that leads to what does not exist?
Now, another question arises, how in the HELL does one find a use for that in life if there was never any use for it to begin with? At the same time, how can one oppose a non-existent concept (which ironically does exist by virtue of it being a concept?)?
And another thing, where did you get the idea that RHP leads to the Ain Soph as you define it? This begs further clarification of what you mean by said path, assuming it really is a path and not a projection developed in the philosophy of your path (and theirs!) in order to define itself in relation to an what it opposes.
But what do you mean by wisdom? Surely "general wisdom" can't apply, particularly since you are rejecting one way in favor of another. That is, you cannot be wise about something you think you know - you must have some degree of real experience and this not just a one time thing but a succession exposures.
Is the ego an isolated thing that can sufficiently be boosted or even really destroyed? Isn't it like a construct developed from things like sensation, perspective, location in time? In the process of boosting, it would seem one would have to find a stable solidity, right? Yet in seeking this stability - which some say the ego is really doing for the sake of the whole organism - isn't one laying one's self open to be destroyed by forces that are percieved, rightly or wrongly, as being stronger than one's self? That is, in finding strength in terms of self value, what happens when that value becomes untenable in the face of opposition? Let's say you are in a situation in which if you do not submit, you are destroyed but if you do submit you get to live. In that situation, how can your principles apply?
I have heard "self diefication" with regards to LHP, but I am forced to wonder at it and question whether this is a given result of your positions. If you became a "certain diety" yourself, wouldn't you expect some kind of worship in order to be a diety (that is, by definition)? Or would you be a "god" without followers? In this case, reflecting back to the original statement regarding the "path of the Ain Soph", of what use is it to become a "god" that is not worshipped, assuming one does not wish to become what one rejects?
On critical thinking, not to be a smart ass, but did you gain any or all of your conceptions from a book or series of books? Do you trust the authors? Or, did you think these things up yourself and define them as being in opposition of an RHP conception you have only vaguely defined with terms like "certain book" and "certain god"? If there is a criticism in this, it is merely to point out that you might have a series of contractions that are based on prejudices and a lack of information. But that could be said of anybody (including me).
My understanding of Darwinian theory is that "fittest" and "strongest" are not synonymous. In fact, some of the strongest creatures on Earth have been slain by microscopic entities that we ourself wipe up everyday with disinfectants. The strong and weak dichotomy is not something that you can fix in place for all time, just in the moment, in context. I could see a discipline of thought based on the notion of "always being strong", yet being strong is not the same as being smart. One thing Nature has proven in her Darwinian ruthlessness is that weak creatures with brains outlast the braun in many cases - but always under the aegis of adaptablity. They say we come from rodents that changed into monkeys.
I am not saying you are confused, BTW - just that there is more to consider and concieve is one is to bravely question one's self for the sake of self knowledge and personal certainty. Of course, you have to look in your heart, even if it stone cold, to find out whether anything you said is worthwile to pursue. I have heard various ranges of description for RHP and LHP, covering extremes of navel gazing in the former case and pure pychotic criminality in the latter. The descriptions you have given seem incomplete unless you wish to define being LHP only in those terms. For me, I am forced to ask if are we talking a characterization of Vama Marga/Vamachara - which I am told is the original "LHP" pre-Blavatsky, or something more akin to the Order of Nine Angles? It probably doesn't matter if we keep those excluded in favor what you are stating, yet I am curious. I guess I should quit being an asshole and ask you where you get your info and how you constructed your path because the goals you seek to fulfill are dependent on the construct, and that is why I think you seek feedback.
I don't expect an answer to any of the above, just hopeful something I said/asked gives at least a little food for thought - not just for you but for me too. Nothing is indestructable.
That wasn't a pun.
Edited by The Stalking Hyena, 30 November 2013 - 03:13 AM.