Page all of 3 123>
Topic Options
#14971 - 11/27/08 09:42 PM Different types of evil?
Munki1 Offline
stranger


Registered: 09/15/08
Posts: 28
Thought about this today while having a good time oddly enough.

I think there are different types of evil.

Getting a kick out of pulling a childs fingernails out for example, is evil, bad, and not okay.

The envy you feel of another to a Satanist is evil, not bad, and okay.

So some evil is okay and some is not.

Other words have many meanings, why can't "evil"?

The word "love" for example has many meanings.

You love your mom, you love your girlfriend, you love your car, you love the color red, you love hating the pope.

All are different types of love. So are there not different types of evil?

Top
#14972 - 11/27/08 10:17 PM The essence of language. [Re: Munki1]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3813
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Language is a funny thing, and english a particularly good example of what I mean by that. In english we have so many different words with completely different etymologies that are spelled the same or pronounced the same, as well as words with similar or the same etymologies used to mean different things.

The result is a system that, though capable of articulating thoughts in ways more simplified languages would not lend themselves to to such a great degree, allows for a lot of metaphysical wordsmithing that really doesn't translate into jack shit in the real world, off paper.


Eros, Agape, Philos. Three words with similar meanings, yet different meanings. In english there is one word for these three things 'love'. As you pointed out, love is one of those words that is hard to define, because it has many meanings. Without situational context, nobody could know what you mean when you use it. The word 'evil' doesn't really suffer from this problem.

We have in one court, the traditional, and quite useful definition of evil, which is basically 'anything I(the person or group using it) strongly disapprove of'. In the other, the feeling of 'evil pleasure' or the rush we get from doing something 'wrong' or what society or others say is 'wrong'.

The thing is, the latter is only really 'evil' if deemed so by the former. Describing something that you, personally, don't really disapprove of as evil, is intellectually dishonest.

'Evil' is never ok by the standards of the one designating it as such! It is a very personal and subjective thing, although I do feel there are a few 'universals' relative to our species.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#14978 - 11/28/08 12:00 AM Re: The essence of language. [Re: Dan_Dread]
fakepropht Moderator Offline
Big Slick
active member


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 990
Loc: Texas
I believe the correct meanings of words have been corrupted over the years. Powerful words like love, hate, good, evil, and kill have lost their power. "I love Tootsie Rolls". "I hate broccoli". "I would kill for a cheeseburger". The true sense of the word has been corrupted. Would you really "kill" a restaurant full of people just to eat a cheeseburger? How do you truly "love" a color, style of clothes, or a band? These were once powerful words reserved to convey a deep emotional connection to a subject. Another example of dumbing down language.

In that context, yes it is subjective to the viewpoint of the person using the word. Instead of saying "I really dislike this style of music because it reminds me of squeeling pigs", the person "hates" it. Evil once was reserved to describe the most heinous and vile acts. The Holocaust, vile crimes against children, overly oppressive acts against the innocent. Talk to any elderly person, and they will only use these terms to express the most extreme emotions.
_________________________
Beer, the reason I get up every afternoon.

Top
#14982 - 11/28/08 12:11 AM Re: The essence of language. [Re: fakepropht]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
Fakepropht, you've hit on one of the things I've written about... we tend to dilute the meanings of words of power, like love and hate by precisely th things you've described. I seldom use the words, and when I do, I want them to have meaning, but when we love everything from our new shoes to the man or woman we share our lives with, and we hate everything from sardines to the man who killed our child in a drunken stupor, the words just hardly seem adequate after a while.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#14993 - 11/28/08 08:41 AM Re: The essence of language. [Re: Jake999]
Nemesis Offline
senior member


Registered: 09/01/07
Posts: 2175
Loc: US
This reply is in general to all above posters...

Yes, we have diluted the power of words over the years by using it in slang and as everyday adjectives. When I talk about something that is 'evil', such as pulling out a child's fingernails or putting a puppy in a microwave, I try to find a more effective word to use in the conversation. Abhorrent, unspeakable, detestable--those come to mind as some words that would describe that particular kind of 'evil' and lend it more credence.

That's the beautiful thing about having a large vocabulary--one can express themselves more effectively.

To me, envy is not evil at all, it can only cause two things to happen. One, you sulk, bitch and moan about how great the other person has it, or two, be proactive and better your self so you can achieve that status as well. Same goes for ambition. I don't consider that an 'evil' trait, it only becomes evil when you start killing people to achieve your goals or tear down a rainforest to harvest the lumber.
_________________________
Nothing is sacred.

Top
#14997 - 11/28/08 10:36 AM Re: The essence of language. [Re: Nemesis]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
Life & reality are of an infinite complexity. Language has limitations. As soon as you use words for describing the reality, you reduce this complexity.
Language is like any model : a simplification of reality. Some models are simpler than others. For instance classical Newton model is simpler than relativity. Both are wrong in the sense that they are not taking into account the infinite complexity of reality and, at the same time, both are rigth as they correctly describe the reality to a certain extend.
The key point is to chose the model which best fits the situation.

It's the same for language. Inuits have a lot of words for "snow" because it fits their situation. Not making the nuances can be fatal for them!

We must stay aware that our language influences our perception of the reality.

Top
#14999 - 11/28/08 11:15 AM Re: The essence of language. [Re: Fabiano]
mutt mutton Offline
stranger


Registered: 07/29/08
Posts: 13
Loc: paragould ar
diferent types of evil
i guess some of the most evil you can experience is the bad things that happen to you but some things can be evilly good like getting laid by the hottest girl or man you want
that could be awesomely evil
hail!!!!!!!!
satan
_________________________
Damn if they do!
Damn if they don't

Top
#15000 - 11/28/08 12:12 PM Re: The essence of language. [Re: Fabiano]
Meq Offline
Banned
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 861
Well said.
I am reminded of the opening passage of the Tao Te Ching, which is often translated as follows:
"The Tao that can be spoken of is not the eternal Tao".

Here, 'Tao' carries the sense of 'absolute reality'.
The meaning is that any attempt to express this absolute reality in words is at best a very distant and finite approximation of it - and at worst a pernicious delusion born of a language trap.

A conclusion Wittgenstein would also come to thousands of years later.
But the Chinese Taoists said it first, and in my opinion were light years ahead of Plato and his 'metaphysical realism', which posited anthropocentric value-laden abstractions (Goodness, Beauty, Truth) as the most concrete reality (with our reality being merely a shadow of these 'Forms').
This way of thinking led to centuries of utter bullshit - not to mention bloodshed as people sought to impose their own dogmatic interpretation of these abstract values as the correct one.

But 'goodness', 'beauty', 'truth', 'right', 'wrong', 'evil', 'bad', 'God', 'Satan' etc., are just WORDS. Don't take the word for the reality of the abstraction it represents.

As Alfred Korzybski put it well - the map is not the terrain.

 Originally Posted By: Fabiano
Inuits have a lot of words for "snow" because it fits their situation. Not making the nuances can be fatal for them!

That turns out to be an urban legend. English probably has more ('snow', 'sleet', 'hail', 'dusting', 'blizzard', 'white-out', 'powder', 'slush', 'ice' [for thawed and re-frozen snow], etc.)
Nevertheless, survival in Arctic conditions is a specialist undertaking which would tend to necessitate a technical vocabulary by any culture.

Top
#15002 - 11/28/08 12:30 PM Re: The essence of language. [Re: Meq]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
I wasn't aware it was an urban legend. Thanks !

About Tao it makes me reminded of what Zen masters call "soul to soul" transmition, beyond language.

I don't know if it's yet another legend, but I heard that tense in Hebrew are different from French/English.
They have perfect and imperfect tenses : if they listen music under their shower, they use the imperfect. If they sit alone for listening a CD they use the perfect tense.


Edited by Fabiano (11/28/08 12:39 PM)

Top
#15004 - 11/28/08 12:47 PM Re: The essence of language. [Re: Meq]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Quote:
But 'goodness', 'beauty', 'truth', 'right', 'wrong', 'evil', 'bad', 'God', 'Satan' etc., are just WORDS. Don't take the word for the reality of the abstraction it represents.


I'm not too sure about that. Like known, I think memetics is quite to the point in explaining a lot of things and you can regard words as much more than just words. They are memes and do have an effect on us. Of course they are subject to selection and mutation but I think they are much more than just words.

If you think of Plato, he wasn't too far off with his 'idea world' and what is now called memetics.

D.

Top
#15006 - 11/28/08 12:55 PM Re: The essence of language. [Re: Fabiano]
Meq Offline
Banned
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 861
 Originally Posted By: Fabiano
About Tao it makes me reminded of what Zen masters call "soul to soul" transmition, beyond language.


Zen Buddhism had a strong Taoist influence, and the concept of Tao strongly influenced the Zen view of 'Buddha-Nature'.

If I may digress, I personally prefer the original Taoist philosophy, for the reason that Zen tends to see the universe as a kind of 'mind' or 'consciousness'. In my view, this may have some merit as a metaphor or analogy but has the potential to be misleading when taken literally.
The universe is not a fucking 'mind'. We only get the concept of a 'mind' from our experience of human minds, so it is anthropomorphic bullshit to apply it literally to the universe (i.e. metaphysical 'idealism'). Another language trap.

Here is a word you may find useful (definitions from dictionary.com):

reify (v):
- To convert into or regard as a concrete thing
- To regard or treat (an abstraction) as if it had concrete or material existence
- consider an abstract concept to be real
- To regard (something abstract) as a material thing
[from Latin 'res', meaning 'thing'.]
reification (n)


On the subject of 'transmission', I touched upon this while studying hypnosis. Many mystical traditions have a similar concept to this. With hypnosis, it is essential that the hypnotist is in a calm mental state if they would hope to induce it in others.
It is certainly true that a person in an extremely calm yet alert mental state (such as following extended meditation) can have an impact on the consciousness of others without words, drawing them towards such a state by merely being in his presence. And this can result in clearer thinking and hence the potential for wisdom, which can perhaps be seen as transmission of knowledge (though not in the literal sense).

But science has determined that most communication is non-verbal anyway (such as facial expression and body language), so it is no surprise that words are not required to transmit a state of mind (perhaps an 'enlightened' one in some way) to others.


Edited by Mequa (11/28/08 01:14 PM)
Edit Reason: Transmission

Top
#15007 - 11/28/08 01:11 PM Re: The essence of language. [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3813
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Originally Posted By: "Jake"

..we tend to dilute the meanings of words of power.

Agreed, but to go a step further I think this problem is much more far reaching than 'power words'.The meaning behind words are only as clear as the mind presenting them, and that isn't cause for optimism when dealing with most people. Most disagreements seem to boil down to semantics in the end.
 Originally Posted By: "Nemesis"

That's the beautiful thing about having a large vocabulary--one can express themselves more effectively.

The limits of my language are the limits of my mind. All I know is what I have words for.
-Ludwig Wittgenstein

In a sense, language is power.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#15008 - 11/28/08 01:12 PM Re: The essence of language. [Re: Diavolo]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
I read the Lucifer Principle a couple of years ago. If I remember well, meme are closer to ideas than to words.

Regarding Plato and his ideas of "Good" , "Evil", etc notice that's a very good basis on which Xian build their views on.

They just had to map "Good" to "God" and "Evil" to "Satan".

Democrite had more materialist views. It's not a surprise the Xian Church promoted Plato and tried to burry Democrit philosophy...


Edited by Fabiano (11/28/08 01:13 PM)

Top
#15009 - 11/28/08 01:18 PM Re: The essence of language. [Re: Dan_Dread]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
 Quote:
The limits of my language are the limits of my mind. All I know is what I have words for.


What about intuition, about grasping the reality with the subconcious ?

Top
#15010 - 11/28/08 01:20 PM Re: The essence of language. [Re: Dan_Dread]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
Language (and specifically it's proper usage) is DEFINITELY as source of power. More than any other facet of my being, it's helped me progress in life and to prosper in my career(s) from the military through corporate management positions, and on to retirement.

I write better than I speak, for the most part, as when I'm speaking with people, I tend to tailor my speech patterns to the situation and the company I'm with. Sometimes that can almost be schizophrenic.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#15011 - 11/28/08 01:24 PM Re: The essence of language. [Re: Fabiano]
Meq Offline
Banned
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 861
 Originally Posted By: Fabiano
Regarding Plato and his ideas of "Good" , "Evil", etc notice that's a very good basis on which Xian build their views on.

The duality of Good vs Evil actually came from Zoroastrianism rather than Plato (who instead had a strange concept of 'Good' with no opposite).

Many other Xian concepts are distinctly Platonic (and bullshit). The concept of God as a transcendent Higher Goodness (also Beauty and Truth) existing in a spiritual realm; man as an inferior reflection of this being's goodness and possessing an immortal soul; the dualism between soul/spirit and body/matter; an insistence of social values above egoism. All straight out of Plato.

Christians also butchered the Greek concept of the Logos, once a principle of cosmic order through which the mind could grasp. They turned it into a fucking personality (spiritual) which literally incarnated as a man (Jesus) once in human history. That's a step of thousands of years backwards, from the beginnings of scientific enquiry to moronic superstition.

 Quote:
Democrite had more materialist views. It's not a surprise the Xian Church promoted Plato and tried to burry Democrit philosophy...

Not to mention the rational egoism of Epicurus and his school, who followed Democritus' materialism, and cleverly turned around Socrates' dialectical method of debate, to try and devise the best way to happiness for the INDIVIDUAL instead of just an abstract 'good'.
Dante reserved a special place in Hell for these bastards... \:D


Edited by Mequa (11/28/08 01:42 PM)
Edit Reason: Some additions

Top
#15013 - 11/28/08 01:27 PM Re: The essence of language. [Re: Fabiano]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Richard Dawkins defined “meme” as a unit of cultural inheritance.

A word like good is a cultural unit.
It is of course contextual but when linking good to another word, we trigger cultural ideas.

If a word like beautiful and woman are combined, we will encounter rather universal ideas -like hip-waist ratio and symmetry- but at the same time cultural concepts upon beauty. What we deem beautiful now is not the same as what was considered beautiful a couple of hunderds ago.

Of course christians linked good to god and evil to satan but we do essentially the same. The memeplex that takes an important role in our mind, satan in this case, is not too different from the memeplex that has an important role in a christian's mind; god. And as all people do, that what is so important in our mind, is linked to the word good.

D.

Top
#15014 - 11/28/08 01:36 PM Re: The essence of language. [Re: Jake999]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3813
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:
I write better than I speak, for the most part, as when I'm speaking with people, I tend to tailor my speech patterns to the situation and the company I'm with. Sometimes that can almost be schizophrenic.

I wouldn't say it's schizo. It's just using lesser magic.

I can be very articulate and well spoken, but 'letting it all hang out', vocabulary wise, doesn't always serve me. If I am with younger people, say, using their slang and speech patterns to a certain extent just happens naturally. Most people live in a very base level of existence; TV, Sports, Beer, traffic, the weather.Overwhelming people with big words and even bigger thoughts generally results only in blank stares and awkward pauses. It's all about the situational context.


Edited by Dan_Dread (11/28/08 01:38 PM)
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#15015 - 11/28/08 01:40 PM Re: The essence of language. [Re: Jake999]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I agree that language is a source of power but language changes a lot, so proper usage might totally depend on the situation it is used.
If I see how the kids of my partner type and what words they use, I get a bit freaky. It seems like a dumbed down version of normal language but in a way it isn't. In their culture it is a perfect normal language and the medium defines the language. Spoken, written, cellphone, chat or forum language all seem to differ although the essence is the same.
Even the official languages are subject to change, in my lifetime I think I have seen at least two or three revisions of Dutch at the level of writing.

In the end, we are not capable of properly using our language because at some point we'll get stuck in our language. The older we get, the harder it is to move with the changes.

And then we got the problem of foreign languages. I know my limitations with English and no matter how much I regret it, a language that isn't your native tongue will always be limited.

D.

Top
#15050 - 11/28/08 05:13 PM Re: The essence of language. [Re: Meq]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
 Quote:
On the subject of 'transmission', I touched upon this while studying hypnosis. Many mystical traditions have a similar concept to this. With hypnosis, it is essential that the hypnotist is in a calm mental state if they would hope to induce it in others.
It is certainly true that a person in an extremely calm yet alert mental state (such as following extended meditation) can have an impact on the consciousness of others without words, drawing them towards such a state by merely being in his presence. And this can result in clearer thinking and hence the potential for wisdom, which can perhaps be seen as transmission of knowledge (though not in the literal sense).


I never experienced hypnosis but practiced meditation. I might be wrong, but I see a link with the decompression chamber. Mediation induces an anti-intellectual perception of reality (alike disconnecting the frontal cortex). What do you think, am I wrong ?

Top
#15060 - 11/28/08 06:52 PM Re: The essence of language. [Re: Fabiano]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
Notions of "good" or "evil" may differ from person to person. Evil is really just another word for bad, but it comes with connotations of being the result of the influence of some supernatural force. This force is commonly reffered to as a devil or satan. This makes evil more of faith based religous idea, thus losing any credibility.

Many consider what Hitler did to be evil. To him it wasn't evil at all. He truly believed what he was doing to be a good thing. I am not condoning what he did just using it as an example. I dont belive anything is good or evil, it just is.

The person who gives half of their paycheck to charity and considered to be a "good" person is just as capable of going on a killing spree as the serial killer, who is considered to be "evil, is capable of loving a puppy.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#15081 - 11/29/08 03:48 AM Intellectual Decompression [Re: Fabiano]
Meq Offline
Banned
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 861
I would say "non-intellectual perception of reality" is more accurate to describe a meditative state.
"Anti-" implies discursive reasoning (this vs. that), while this is exactly what is left behind when meditating.

I would say meditation is not so much a means of heightening consciousness (as preached by Eastern and New Age religions) as a means of bypassing it, allowing humans to get a glimpse of a more primeval and animalistic feel of things, before words come in to shape our perceptions.

In my view, both meditation (bypassing thought) AND rational discourse has its place.
Reason is a tool, the source of most human power, to be used and developed - and ignored at one's peril.
But it is precisely those who have the most developed reason who could benefit from a spot of meditation - to regain that 'wordless' glance at things one had as a small child.
Cooling down one's over-heated mind while still focused and aware.
Perhaps this gives the frontal cortex time to rest and 'recharge'? Many people who meditate find they can think clearer after and feel more alert.

This would also apply to other meditative, hypnotic or ritualistic practices, including LaVeyan Satanic ritual (if done correctly).
Intellectual decompression indeed.
My view is that the best method is that which works for the individual.

Top
#15082 - 11/29/08 04:17 AM Re: The essence of language. [Re: mutt mutton]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3119
 Originally Posted By: mutt mutton
diferent types of evil
i guess some of the most evil you can experience is the bad things that happen to you but some things can be evilly good like getting laid by the hottest girl or man you want
that could be awesomely evil
hail!!!!!!!!
satan

Hmm, experiencing bad things isn't considered evil. You are just a little unlucky then. Getting laid by a hot girl/boy on the other hand is being very lucky.

And in general I agree with what the others said here. Most people don't know what power most words have when used. Also is language a very powerfull thing to use; written and spoken. You can say something but automatically people will make unnecesary assumptions. Like when speaking about a certain subject you know a thing or 2 about, like some sort of religion for example, Some people will think you follow the religions philosophy.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#15098 - 11/29/08 10:38 AM Re: Intellectual Decompression [Re: Meq]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
 Quote:
"Anti-" implies discursive reasoning (this vs. that), while this is exactly what is left behind when meditating.
Do you mean the decompression chamber is about discursive reasoning ?

I would have used non-intellectual rather than anti-intellectual for meditation. On this I agree with you.

I used anti- because of this quote from TSB :

 Quote:
The formalized beginning and end of the ceremony acts as a dogmatic, anti-intellectual device, the purpose of which is to disassociate the activities and frame of reference of the outside world from that of the ritual chamber, where the whole will must be employed. This facet of the ceremony is most important to the intellectual, as he especially requires the "decompression chamber" effect of the chants, bells, candles, and other trappings, before he can put his pure and willful desires to work for himself, in the projection and utilization of his imagery.


Edited by Fabiano (11/29/08 10:40 AM)

Top
#15212 - 11/30/08 10:47 PM Re: Intellectual Decompression [Re: Fabiano]
Munki1 Offline
stranger


Registered: 09/15/08
Posts: 28
Wow you folks really went into this!

Thanks, I'm learning alot.

Top
#16493 - 12/18/08 08:50 PM Re: Different types of evil? [Re: Munki1]
paolo sette Offline
member


Registered: 12/12/08
Posts: 263
Loc: IL, USA
Evil as defined by the Oxford/American dictionary means, 'embodying or associated with the forces of the Devil.' According to each of us as to the perspective we wish to take, a situation may be construed as either Evil or some other way. By being a Satanist (I'm presuming) signifies your alligning yourself with Evil. For example, a Satanist holds onto "the Satanic Bible" as the bedrock for one's existence. There is no indication in the writing that a Satanist would not adhere to morales and principles. If you get the urge to rip the finger nails off a person, you're having an episode that has to do with mental health... not Satanism. Secondly, there is nothing wrong with love. After all, in the dictionary it means 'having a deep affection for something or someone.' In my impression, a Satanist would not go around saying he/she loves, but rather RESPECTS.

Just a few words to the wise.
_________________________
tathagata-svapratyatma-aryajnana-adhigama
666
[nig]-ge-na-da a-ba in-da-di nam-ti i-u-tu

Top
#16527 - 12/19/08 12:36 PM Re: Different types of evil? [Re: paolo sette]
Ringmaster Offline
member


Registered: 04/07/08
Posts: 205
Loc: Salem Oregon
 Quote:
a Satanist holds onto "the Satanic Bible" as the bedrock for one's existence.
Please tell me how it is the bedrock for one's existance. Just because a book conveys suggestions and ideas of philosophy doesn't mean that it is the law, to believe such would be foolish.

 Quote:
there is nothing wrong with love
I don't think that you will find anyone who will dispute such a statement with you. While there is nothing wrong with love towards those who deserve it, the problem would be ATTEMPTING to love those who truely do not deserve that love that is not love that is just a person trying to decieve themselves. A person shouldn't use the word love unless truely deserved.

"JUST A WORD TO THE WISE"
_________________________
Get off the cross and save yourself, I feel no pity for the cries of a weak man.

Top
#16541 - 12/19/08 08:23 PM Re: Different types of evil? [Re: Ringmaster]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3813
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

Just because a book conveys suggestions and ideas of philosophy doesn't mean that it is the law

There is the law, and there is inherent disposition.

 Quote:

While there is nothing wrong with love towards those who deserve it, the problem would be ATTEMPTING to love those who truely do not deserve that love that is not love that is just a person trying to decieve themselves. A person shouldn't use the word love unless truely deserved.

Well said....aside from the total lack of spellcheck.
;\)
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#16550 - 12/19/08 11:39 PM Re: Different types of evil? [Re: Dan_Dread]
paolo sette Offline
member


Registered: 12/12/08
Posts: 263
Loc: IL, USA
Dan Dread and ringmaster, I must've touched something by replying to the original query. Both of you find that I exhalted Dr. LaVey's words by making them the 'bedrock'. It sounds as if you find it a bit awkward. Well, I did. There is good reason, too. Dr. LaVey was proposing a philosophical religion with rubrics attached in a formalized setting (i.e. LaVey was describing the basis of Satanism). I've accepted his writings (i.e. with the mentality he delineated), and I'm forging ahead- building on the written words. If you agree with me, that's fine. If you don't, and have other things you want to add- please, do. You both have to agree with me on this point... 'you have to start somewhere.' Begin with LaVey, for the plain reason that he made it year 0 in 1966 ce.

I find a problem with 'love', and that is brought to the forefront with TSB. A better word is respect.

666.
_________________________
tathagata-svapratyatma-aryajnana-adhigama
666
[nig]-ge-na-da a-ba in-da-di nam-ti i-u-tu

Top
#16552 - 12/20/08 12:06 AM Re: Different types of evil? [Re: paolo sette]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3813
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Why are you speaking my name when I have not addressed you?

You say you must have 'touched something' in me or that I find an opinion that you hold 'awkward' as if I have ever even given an iota of thought to the drivel you attempt to present as intellectual.
Ok so you like Anton LaVey. What else?

666? Hah.

Thanks for the laughs junior.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#16554 - 12/20/08 12:24 AM Re: The essence of language. [Re: Jake999]
BROWN DEAMON Offline
lurker


Registered: 12/18/08
Posts: 1
HEY GUYS.
THIS IS BROWN DEAMON .

I AM A SATANIST OBVIOUSLY.
JUST INTRODUCING MYSELF.

There is a section for introductions elsewhere on this site. All caps is frowned upon here. And if this is the best you can do for an introduction, you won't last long. Linger Longer.


Edited by fakepropht (12/20/08 02:55 AM)

Top
#16563 - 12/20/08 03:07 AM Re: Different types of evil? [Re: paolo sette]
fakepropht Moderator Offline
Big Slick
active member


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 990
Loc: Texas
Anton LaVey never received a doctorate degree. Oh, I know he liked to refer to himself as a Doktor (or Doctor), but refering to oneself as such and actually carrying the accredition are vastly different. Your referencing him as such only implies your narrow mindedness.
_________________________
Beer, the reason I get up every afternoon.

Top
#16577 - 12/20/08 06:55 AM Re: Different types of evil? [Re: paolo sette]
Ringmaster Offline
member


Registered: 04/07/08
Posts: 205
Loc: Salem Oregon
 Quote:
You both have to agree with me on this point...

I don't have to agree with you on shit. The only time I would agree with you is when you have presented something of validity, and thus far you have't presented me with anything worthy of agreement. As soon as you conquer the bridge of asses show it in intelligence not this drivel.

How much do you really know about the works of Lavey? I by no means am going to claim to be an expert, but you seem to understand little as was stated about you being narrow minded. I also ask this because of this...
 Quote:
for the plain reason that he made it year 0 in 1966 ce.
Is this the only thing that you think Lavey has accomplished? This is a very minuscule accomlishment when you look at everything else that is credited to Lavey. You sound like nothing more then a fool. Even if you knew how to win you wouldn't know what to do with victory.
_________________________
Get off the cross and save yourself, I feel no pity for the cries of a weak man.

Top
#16587 - 12/20/08 01:05 PM Re: Different types of evil? [Re: fakepropht]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
 Originally Posted By: fakepropht
Anton Lavey never received a doctorate degree. Oh, I know he liked to refer to himself as a Doktor (or Doctor), but refering to oneself as such and actually carrying the accredition are vastly different.


Anton LaVey NEVER referred to himself as DOCTOR or DOKTOR unless he was in a particularly strange mood. WE referred to him as Doctor or Herr Doctor, partially out of respect and partially in jest, because of the proliferation of "doctors" on TV as evangelists at the time, such as Dr. Gene Scott, etc.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#16597 - 12/20/08 11:42 PM Re: Different types of evil? [Re: Jake999]
fakepropht Moderator Offline
Big Slick
active member


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 990
Loc: Texas
That thought was brought to you courtesy of several Coors Lights. Check the time stamp when I posted that. I was not of sound mind. Maybe you can enlighten me. Whenever I hear someone refer to him as Doctor, it rings hollow with me. Kind of like someone jumping on the bandwagon. Since you were there, perhaps your insight can change mine.
_________________________
Beer, the reason I get up every afternoon.

Top
#16598 - 12/21/08 12:06 AM Re: Different types of evil? [Re: fakepropht]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
What's there to change? It was a nickname given to him by those who worked with him. Would you have that hollow ring if we had called him "Skippy?" He was the ONLY voice in Satanism. He had defined Satanism in the world as it had never been defined before. Hell, no, he didn't have a doctoral degree... where would he get one? There were no courses in Contemporary Diabolism.

Meanwhile, we watched the TV Evangelists... doctors of divinity... dealing in the name of Mammon. Doctor Gene Scott was a particular favorite... he earned his Ph.D. in EDUCATION at Stanford University in 1957. Yet late night TV, he sat in a chair, wearing silly hats, expounding on the Pyramid Inch and begging for cash from his insomniac flock. This was the era of Jim and Tammy Bakker, Reverend Robert Tilton, Oral Roberts telling his faithful that unless they sent him $10 million that GOD was going to kill him... it went on and on.

So someone called him Doctor one night while he was talking to us about something or other and it stuck. I still call him Dr. LaVey to this day... make of it what you will, but I'm hardly "jumping on any bandwagons." If we had wanted to grant him a doctorate in Satanic theory, you can bet your ass, we would have done it and not cared it ft rang hollow in anybody's mind. He never asked for that, never hinted at it, and it was never done. The term "doctor" became a term of respect and affection from those of us who knew him.

Why the hell should it bother anyone if someone who's found his message meaningful should carry on that tradition? It doesn't bother me. NOWHERE has there ever been a claim that he had a phD... it's a nickname we gave him.

_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#16601 - 12/21/08 03:10 AM Re: Different types of evil? [Re: Jake999]
Ringmaster Offline
member


Registered: 04/07/08
Posts: 205
Loc: Salem Oregon
I think that there is a difference in making the statement in ignorance vs. making the statement while understanding the meaning behind it.
_________________________
Get off the cross and save yourself, I feel no pity for the cries of a weak man.

Top
#16617 - 12/21/08 11:20 AM Re: Different types of evil? [Re: Ringmaster]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
I see your point Ringmaster, but I don't think that "younger people" who call Dr. LaVey "Dr. LaVey" are that far out of line. If they were wandering around substituting ANTON SAYS for JESUS SAYS, then it's a bit pretentious, but I liken it to the new guy in the workplace... and as a military man, you've probably seen it a million times.

A new guy goes into a unit and one of the first things he learns is the monikers of his cohorts. "Alphabet" might be Specialist Lacoberkowicz, "Moose" might be the guy who benches 400 pounds, and "Killer Joe" is Sgt. Kramer, who's an ace with his saw gun. Is he going to call them by their proper names and ranks, or is he going to work to fit in and use those names of respect that the guys in his unit have earned? He's a FNG now... soon people might be calling him "One Eyed Ghost" for some odd reason.

When people came into my unit, they almost immediately began calling me Ratspit on the radio and when talking informally in the field. It was a recognition of the nickname I'd earned (Jake's mean as Ratspit). When it counted, I knew that they were going to address me with proper military protocol... or get their ass handed to them.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#16728 - 12/22/08 01:02 PM Re: Different types of evil? [Re: Jake999]
Picunnus Offline
member


Registered: 11/29/08
Posts: 101
Loc: Ohio, USA
Here's an idea, I'll make friendship bracelets that say "WWAD?" and sell them on eBay. They will of course only be available in BLACK and RED!

Thanks, Jake, I can quit my job now!
:P
_________________________
WWAD?

Top
#16732 - 12/22/08 01:19 PM Re: Different types of evil? [Re: Picunnus]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
LOL! Good luck at shooting your WWAD!!!

Actually, I think there was some one doing WWAD items at one point. I don't know how well they did. Used to be a time on EBAY when ANYTHING LaVey sold for some pretty good fazoozas.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#20508 - 02/16/09 07:09 AM Re: Different types of evil? [Re: Munki1]
Zoid Offline
member


Registered: 01/24/09
Posts: 109
Loc: USA - New Jersey
 Originally Posted By: Munki1
I think there are different types of evil.

Getting a kick out of pulling a childs fingernails out for example, is evil, bad, and not okay.

The envy you feel of another to a Satanist is evil, not bad, and okay.


This thread with its varied responses has provided me some enjoyable ruminations on logical positivism, linguistics, and lesser magic. Meanwhile, I came to this thread in the first place because I had been pondering something on a similar wavelength to the original post.

Sensitive as I am to the notion that differences may be of kind or degree, I will suggest that what the above quote seems to me to be getting at would be differences of degree rather than differences of kind - and differences of degree are what I have been pondering of late.

Circling back to the original question of semantics, I must say I have never escaped the influence of LaVey's comment, which appears in The Devil's Notebook:

"Definition of Good and Evil: Good is what you like. Evil is what you don't like."

This definition can be applied within differing contexts or perspectives. If the perspective is personal, then Good and Evil are what the person in question likes or dislikes. If the perspective is societal, then Good and Evil are what society as an aggregate tends to like or dislike.

It is the societal perspective that has held my interest of late. In that context, Evil becomes the antisocial, a word that allows in its usage differences of degree:

antisocial: (adjective) 1. Shunning the society of others; not social. 2. Opposed or hostile to the established social order, marked by or engaging in behavior that violates accepted mores.
[American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition]

The above permits me to speak of a first degree and second degree of the antisocial, corresponding to the first and second definitions. Bringing in a line of thought from other recent posts of mine, the emotion of disdain would tend (not absolutely but statistically) to accompany the first degree antisocial; whereas, the emotion of hate would tend (not absolutely but statistically) to accompany the second degree antisocial.

In my own life, the first degree antisocial has manifested in various ways, such as the fact that I choose to live alone, but the second degree antisocial has up till now failed to manifest, primarily because I feared the consequences that can follow the gross, base expressions, and hadn't applied any creativity to the question of what subtle, sophisticated expressions might be workable. I have been admonished by an intelligent woman that of all the fears prudence might address, the severest of them all is fear of regret, or should be. And of all the things I might regret, failing to learn how to live fiercely would be at the very top of the list. Introspection has made clear to me that a fierce lifestyle, for me, must be one that embraces the second degree antisocial. And so I have begun to ponder the subtle and the sophisticated.

Top
Page all of 3 123>


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.063 seconds of which 0.007 seconds were spent on 54 queries. Zlib compression disabled.