Page 10 of 13 « First<89101112>Last »
Topic Options
#37369 - 04/04/10 09:27 PM Re: Physis of the Sinister [Re: Khk]
Zophos Offline
member


Registered: 03/28/10
Posts: 115
Loc: U.S.A.
Allow me to explain in a different way. First, do you and I agree that the claims "All logic is circular" and "Not all logic is circular" follow the law of the excluded middle—i.e., that the two statements are mutually exclusive and cannot co-exist?


Z.
_________________________
Nihil sit tam infirmum aut instabile quam fama potentiae non sua vi nita.

Top
#37370 - 04/04/10 11:08 PM Re: Physis of the Sinister [Re: Zophos]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Hang on, now you want to use more logic to understand the first logic hoping to arrive at a final conclusion from which one may or may not proceed, if not, then the cycle starts again, until you can further proceed... yeah? I get what you are getting at.

You can use logic to come to conclusions - I don't dispute that function of it.

Nevertheless, logic is circular, for me, because it always leads to more logic and never seeks to escape its own function. That's why we are still here entertaining the idea we can extract the truth or essence of logic. But naturally, your logical conclusions won't fit someone elses and then the whole thing will go on again. FEAR is behind logic.

But no matter what I say, at any time, anywhere, someone will try to apply logic which creates more logic, and since we're on the internet, potentially endless logic. And you may very well be right that logic is not circular - but I think it is.

I am fully self-satisfied in my own conclusions - which conclusions may not be logical to you, but form the conclusions of my perspective comfortably enough. And the more logic you use, the more, to me, you reinforce my impressions that logic is circular and never ends, spiralling back into and onto itself.

I'd rather not continue the argument about logic if it's all the same to you.

Top
#37372 - 04/05/10 12:10 AM Re: Physis of the Sinister [Re: Khk]
Zophos Offline
member


Registered: 03/28/10
Posts: 115
Loc: U.S.A.
Just as the statement "There is no truth" proves its own falsehood if it is true, your statement that all logic is circular proves its own falsehood if it can be demonstrated with consistency, which would by that fact be logic, and if it cannot, the statement itself is undecidable, making it a declaration of pure faith.

That is all I will say. Read more on the foundations and limits of logic—I recommend the works of Alfred Tarski, Stephen Kleene, and Kurt Gödel.


Z.
_________________________
Nihil sit tam infirmum aut instabile quam fama potentiae non sua vi nita.

Top
#37379 - 04/05/10 03:48 AM Re: Physis of the Sinister [Re: Zophos]
Meq Offline
Banned
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 861
 Originally Posted By: Zophos
I recommend the works of Alfred Tarski, Stephen Kleene, and Kurt Gödel.

That's a little hard-core for the beginner! There are gentler introductions available to the topic, which I'd recommend before diving into these primary works.

On the subject of the limits of logic - I found this piece on the rare Sophie's World CD-ROM (it was not included in the book), which should whet the reader's appetite a little:

 Originally Posted By: Sophie's World CD-ROM
[The] interest in language grew out of the anti-metaphysical movement of the logical positivists. But metaphysics has come back into the picture. Some philosophers argue that no theory of meaning is acceptable if it passes as meaningful a sentence that it would be absolutely impossible for us ever to decide whether or not it is true. They argue with Wittgenstein that to understand a sentence is to know how to use it correctly. For indicative sentences that would involve knowing how to recognise that it was in fact correct to assert the sentence as being true. Other philosophers reject this constraint on a theory of meaning and argue that we can well recognise what is meant by sentences on whose truth or falsity no one (not even God) could decide. These philosophers are called "realists"; the other "anti-realists".

A nice illustration of this controversy is found in mathematics. The logician Gödel showed that there are mathematical propositions which are undecidable. This means that they can neither be proved nor disproved. No matter how long we work, no matter how clever we are and no matter what powerful computers we have to aid us there will be mathematical questions we can never settle. Perhaps an example is Goldbach's Conjecture that any even number greater than 2 is the sum of two prime numbers. No one has been able to disprove this conjecture but famously no one has been able to prove it. The realists think that this illustrates the limits of our ability to do mathematics. The proposition is perfectly meaningful. It is true or false, but we can never find out which. The anti-realist is upset by the metaphysical consequences of this. For it means that there is something for ever beyond our power to access. There would be some determinate fact in the realm of numbers which we can never find out. The anti-realist rejects the idea of there being some facts that not even God could access. He does this by seeking to build a theory of meaning on which such propositions will not come out as being fully determinate in their meaning.

This is a classical metaphysical debate about ontology (the study of what exists). Are there facts which go beyond our powers to access them? It is a debate which spills over into a controversy about logic. Traditional logic from Aristotle to this century was based on the "law of the excluded middle": for any proposition p, either p is true or p is not true. The realist accepts this. Goldbach's conjecture is true or it is not true. The anti-realist rejects this law of logic. He does not want to assert that the conjecture is true or false. If it is one of Gödel's "undecidables", he thinks it is not true but it is not false either.

Have fun pondering over that!

Meq

Top
#37381 - 04/05/10 04:39 AM Re: Physis of the Sinister [Re: Zophos]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Maybe I was just being difficult, and maybe I can learn something from you. If you don't mind continuing where you left off..

What if, both suppositions you propose are equally forms, and thus unified in both being equally abstract - therefore both being a matter of faith? They can then be said to co-exist on a wholistic plane of both coming from the same source - viz. abstraction.

Isn't everything, being subjective, a declaration of pure faith - and logic only a tacit agreement that we conveniently settle on to explain things but is only ever one of an endless variety of possible levels of agreement narrowed down by more articles of faith?

Would that not make logic circular in that it can never prove itself?


Edited by Khk (04/05/10 04:41 AM)

Top
#37426 - 04/06/10 11:26 AM Re: Physis of the Sinister [Re: Khk]
Zophos Offline
member


Registered: 03/28/10
Posts: 115
Loc: U.S.A.
Meq:

 Quote:
That's a little hard-core for the beginner! There are gentler introductions available to the topic, which I'd recommend before diving into these primary works.

Believe it or not, those were actually the authors with whom I started, although since you seem well aware of their work, you can well imagine that my experiences as a novice (which I still consider myself to be in many ways) were less than pleasant. In any event you make a valid point, and since the primary concern here is philosophical rather than mathematical logic, I will instead recommend the following book:

An Introduction to Philosophical Logic by A. C. Grayling — Besides giving exactly what its title claims, the author very wisely prefaces the actual study of logic with important explanations of its foundations, methodology, and applications. For an explanation both of how and why logic works, this is the book.



Khk:

 Quote:
Maybe I was just being difficult, and maybe I can learn something from you. If you don't mind continuing where you left off..

I managed to explain, albeit tersely, the gist of my argument, but certainly.


 Quote:
What if, both suppositions you propose are equally forms, and thus unified in both being equally abstract - therefore both being a matter of faith? They can then be said to co-exist on a wholistic plane of both coming from the same source - viz. abstraction.

The symbolic abstraction employed by logic exists for precisely the same reason as the abstraction of number used in mathematics. Just as one chair, one person, one book, and one leaf all "participate" (in a modified Platonic sense) in the number 1—that is, their existence as a particular unit in question allows us to represent each of them by a symbol—the operations of logic or the sentential calculus derive from principles of thought which are identical regardless of what proposition we use. "If it rains, then we will not go to the game" and "If Charles is free, we will go to dinner" are logically equivalent statements, and therefore can be abstracted from any particular occurrence into a symbolic form that equally represents them all.

P → Q (Read "If P then Q")

The element of faith is removed by the class of reasoning that Kant called analytic judgments. The terms "triangle" and "three-sided figure" are by definition the same. Square circles and married bachelors do not exist. The central bastion from which logic is constructed, then, is the principle of contradiction. Let P be "David is a bachelor" and Q be "David is married."

P → ¬Q (Read "If David is a bachelor, then he is not married.")

There is no faith required in making these statements, since we are dealing with definitions that are mutually exclusive. The positing of a "wholistic [sic] plane" which reconciles them somehow has the consequence of rendering vacuous all statements whatever, meaning that even the statement "All logic is circular" can be reconciled with the statement "All logic is not circular." You can try as much and as hard as you wish, but you will never find liquid ice or liberal fascists.

This principle of contradiction is also what allows us to make analytic judgments of a mathematical nature. Despite its apparent simplicity, the operation 1 + 1 = 2 is in fact extraordinarily complex, as explored more closely in the field known as metamathematics. If you are interested and have access to an academic or public library, the book Mathematics Made Difficult by Carl E. Linderholm explains how overwhelmingly deep the rudimentary facets of mathematics actually are.


 Quote:
Isn't everything, being subjective, a declaration of pure faith - and logic only a tacit agreement that we conveniently settle on to explain things but is only ever one of an endless variety of possible levels of agreement narrowed down by more articles of faith?

These were the sorts of questions that began to arise in the nineteenth century, when deductive systems like Euclidean geometry finally gave way to hyperbolic and elliptic geometry, both non-Euclidean. In some ways, the agreement among people that you describe is correct, but that does not necessarily make its conclusions faith statements or said agreements tacit. The statement "All human beings are mortal" is only meaningful when we have a conceptual definition of what mortality and human beings are, but we can see plainly that the statement is true.

Again, I might be wrong, but your argument from subjectivity seems to be a conflation of '[evidential] opinion' with '[personal] opinion.' People are free to believe whatever they choose, but convincing anyone that the Earth does not revolve around the Sun is going to be an asymptotic battle. The evidence simply isn't there.


 Quote:
Would that not make logic circular in that it can never prove itself?

Not at all. The inability to be absolutely certain of something does not mean that we are unjustified in arguing it, logical equivalence being a definitional exception. Absolute certainty is impossible; evidential probability, when dealing with inductive claims, is as close as we can get.

Purchase Grayling's book if you wish; it should answer a number of your questions.


Z.
_________________________
Nihil sit tam infirmum aut instabile quam fama potentiae non sua vi nita.

Top
#37434 - 04/07/10 01:38 AM Re: Physis of the Sinister [Re: Zophos]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
The symbolic abstraction employed by logic exists for precisely the same reason as the abstraction of number used in mathematics. Just as one chair, one person, one book, and one leaf all "participate" (in a modified Platonic sense) in the number 1—that is, their existence as a particular unit
in question allows us to represent each of them by a symbol—the operations of logic or the sentential calculus derive from principles of thought which are identical regardless of what proposition we use.

-?- I understand what you are saying, but I think I disagree since if we have to use a proposition to begin with we assume logic is the best way to make sense of things and it hasn't made that much sense of things as they are has it - only what we percieve them to be. Logic is useful - but I still think it is circular since it can never intrinsically reveal what is observed due to being impacted by the observee. Thus it is all speculation - granted, often useful on a certain plane, but cumbersome on another.

"If it rains, then we will not go to the game" and "If Charles is free, we will go to dinner" are logically equivalent statements, and therefore can be abstracted from any particular occurrence into a symbolic form that equally represents them all.

-?- But you are positing 'rain', 'it', 'we', 'game', Charles' and all these other things which logic has accepted exist in order to bias its conclusions to make inferences about them? That is, you assume they exist, and do so so that you can work with them logically, yes? Language represents already existing phenomena as given - where as I do not see that language has captured anything more than articles of faith in a convenient description.

The element of faith is removed by the class of reasoning that Kant called analytic judgments. The terms "triangle" and "three-sided figure" are by definition the same. Square circles and married bachelors do not exist. The central bastion from which logic is constructed, then, is the principle of contradiction. Let P be "David is a bachelor" and Q be "David is married."

-?- I don't dispute that on one plane they are those things, as consensus agreements of faith - but they only have definition for the purpose of making sense of them - whereas there are many ways to make sense of something - not merely logic. The triangle doesn't know it's a triangle, and what it actually is maybe more than a triangle or less than the abstract over which we have placed what we are observing.


There is no faith required in making these statements, since we are dealing with definitions that are mutually exclusive.

-?- the suppositions are all articles of faith - they require a tension in order for each to exist, viz. only by comparison to another abstract which tension is considered 'proof' of mutual exclusion.

The positing of a "wholistic [sic] plane" which reconciles them somehow has the consequence of rendering vacuous all statements whatever, meaning that even the statement "All logic is circular" can be reconciled with the statement "All logic is not circular."

-?- the value in each symbol is redundant when considering them as a wholistic abstract. They are both abstracts and only mean something on the logical plane. There are processes that occur before logic kicks in, including inference and supposition, abstraction and form.

You can try as much and as hard as you wish, but you will never find liquid ice or liberal fascists.

-?- I agree to some extent that you may find it difficult - but in magic, Satanism, the occult, contradictions that stymy logic are easily patched up with metaphysics. Liquid and Ice are just words to describe something observed, something which is interpreted and given a name for convenience - but which name-giving does not have the power to define, only describe.


This principle of contradiction is also what allows us to make analytic judgments of a mathematical nature. Despite its apparent simplicity, the operation 1 + 1 = 2 is in fact extraordinarily complex, as explored more closely in the field known as metamathematics. If you are interested and have access to an academic or public library, the book Mathematics Made Difficult by Carl E. Linderholm explains how overwhelmingly deep the rudimentary facets of mathematics actually are.

-?- I don't have time or inclination to read those books - and it seems we will disagree on this, since you keep making a pri ori suppositions and THEN applying logic to them - and I question the nature of a priori suppostions well before applying Logic to understand them. Nevertheless, thank you for your thoughts. I will try to return to what this thread was about before all its content was reduced to a battle about logic.

Cheers,

Top
#37463 - 04/09/10 08:51 AM Re: Physis of the Sinister [Re: Khk]
Zophos Offline
member


Registered: 03/28/10
Posts: 115
Loc: U.S.A.
 Quote:
I understand what you are saying, but I think I disagree since if we have to use a proposition to begin with we assume logic is the best way to make sense of things and it hasn't made that much sense of things as they are has it - only what we percieve them to be. Thus it is all speculation - granted, often useful on a certain plane, but cumbersome on another.

Postmodern vagary at its worst. Once again, that something isn't absolutely certain does not mean we lack evidence for believing it or can simply proclaim the truth of whatever we want with the same epistemic grounds as a hypothesis demonstrated by evidence. If, contrary to every discovery we have made, the Sun in fact revolves around the Earth and our every perception is some sort of grand illusion, we have absolutely no means by which to know it, and can only rely upon hypotheses which have verifiable criteria and falsifiability. Your positing of "planes" has provided neither, nor been justified in any way.

Logic does not begin with propositions but with axioms. In logical reasoning, an axiom is not a principle assumed or proclaimed to be true by fiat, but one required even in an attempt at its refutation. This is why your argument has consistently fallen short. You have not taken into account that in trying to provide a rational case for logic's circularity, you are employing the same principles of logic whose consistency you mean to disprove, including the law of contradiction and consequentia mirabilis, since your goal has been to demonstrate the inconsistency of your claim's negation, which is exactly what the consequentia mirabilis is. Knowingly or not, you have implicitly accepted it merely by the fact that you recognize our respective positions as contradicting one another, and you will continue to use logical axioms so long as you hold that our positions are different and that one is commensurate with reality, whether mine or yours. The alternative is intellectual suicide.


 Quote:
But you are positing 'rain', 'it', 'we', 'game', Charles' and all these other things which logic has accepted exist in order to bias its conclusions to make inferences about them?

Accepting the existence of physical reality is biasing conclusions? The fact is this: if physical reality exists, we are in contact with it, although this does not mean that our sensory apparatus are always useful in grasping the operations of that reality. If the entire physical universe does not exist, and everything we observe likewise has no existence, then there is nothing in the human mind capable of knowing or conceiving it, meaning by extension that there is no way to show it either. You're blowing smoke.

Additionally, if the mere act of grafting a name onto something is enough to bias a conclusion, then it is interesting that workers in logical structures which use different names or even different methodologies (e.g., Newton's calculus versus Leibniz's calculus) nevertheless come to the same conclusions independently of one another. The history of logic and mathematics is littered with examples.


 Quote:
I don't dispute that on one plane they are those things, as consensus agreements of faith - but they only have definition for the purpose of making sense of them - whereas there are many ways to make sense of something - not merely logic.

As I have already said, you are bringing in the claim of "planes," whether conceptual, metaphysical, or both, for which you have provided no justification. Feel free to continue repeating your hypothesis if you choose, but realize that any attempt at demonstrating rather than merely asserting it will, as Boole and De Morgan well knew, necessarily place you within the laws of thought whose meaning you decry and inform the methods by which you could support your claim, making it no support at all. That is the nature of reason.


 Quote:
The triangle doesn't know it's a triangle, and what it actually is maybe more than a triangle or less than the abstract over which we have placed what we are observing.

A triangle is an abstract entity, but its definition as a figure with three and only three sides is as concrete as it gets. Proposing that we in some way do not know what it "actually" is smacks of nebulous 'essences.'


 Quote:
the suppositions are all articles of faith - they require a tension in order for each to exist, viz. only by comparison to another abstract which tension is considered 'proof' of mutual exclusion.

Incorrect. The principle of contradiction is an axiom because it is impossible not to employ it. A supposition is an undefended statement, while an axiom is a necessary entity by virtue of its indispensability. You are perfectly welcome to find for me an example of reasoning, including your own, which does not in some sense either use them or resort solely to bare assertion. With regard to the existence of tension, you have given no reason why the fact that "[logical axioms] require a tension for each to exist" necessitates that those tensions don't in fact exist. Married bachelors do not exist, anywhere. A body cannot be moving at 125 miles per hour and at the same time not moving at all. That "tension" exists outside of us. The Sun was at the center of our solar system before it was demonstrated.


 Quote:
I agree to some extent that you may find it difficult - but in magic, satanism, the occult, contradictions that stymy logic are easily patched up with metaphysics.

You are beginning to sound like a supernaturalist. I especially like the implicitly patronizing tone, intended or not, of your first clause.

What do you mean that logic is "easily patched up" with metaphysics? That sounds like something straight out of the mouth of a Christian who 'saw' his amputee brother's leg miraculously healed. The gullible practitioners of occultism are free to espouse whatever metaphysical hooey they wish, from fairies to fortune-telling, but Satanism has nothing to do with supernatural beliefs. The ritual chamber is a place of aesthetic and emotional psychodrama, and that is all. Satanists recognize that their representation of existence in ways that are contrary to fact, such as 'invoking' Satan or throwing a curse in a ritual, does not mean by any stretch that there is a supernatural being called Satan or a metaphysical undergirding to reality, whether the astral plane, the agency of demons, or any other, which somehow causes curses to work. Anton LaVey made that exceedingly clear here. Occultists (excluding a handful of atheistic and physicalistic ones) are no different than Christians, Muslims, or any other band of religious folk in this regard.


 Quote:
Liquid and Ice are just words to describe something observed, something which is interpreted and given a name for convenience - but which name-giving does not have the power to define, only describe.

And what is a definition but an empirically demonstrable description?


 Quote:
I don't have time or inclination to read those books...

What a close-minded response. On the one hand you make a pair of statements (that logic is circular and that there are "wholistic [sic] planes," whatever that means) without validation of any kind, and on the other hand refuse to consider or investigate anything which might counter you. What do we call that?


 Quote:
...and it seems we will disagree on this, since you keep making a pri ori suppositions and THEN applying logic to them - and I question the nature of a priori suppostions well before applying Logic to understand them.

You quite obviously have no idea what an a priori judgment is.


 Quote:
Nevertheless, thank you for your thoughts. I will try to return to what this thread was about before all its content was reduced to a battle about logic.

If that is how you view the topic, then you certainly shouldn't have asked me to continue discussing it with you. You alone brought forward the claim that all logic is circular, knowing full well that someone might respond with criticism. Responsibility to the responsible. I have said my piece, and I am done with this thread.


Z.
_________________________
Nihil sit tam infirmum aut instabile quam fama potentiae non sua vi nita.

Top
#37482 - 04/09/10 09:55 PM Re: Physis of the Sinister [Re: Zophos]
jesusbeater Offline
pledge


Registered: 11/15/07
Posts: 79
Loc: Ireland
Sorry to get away from the rest of the posts but shouldn't the thread topic been"Australian Satanism?"
_________________________
crabpeople...crabpeople

Top
#37528 - 04/11/10 08:11 PM Re: Physis of the Sinister [Re: jesusbeater]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
OK then.
Top
#37564 - 04/13/10 10:44 AM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: Dan_Dread]
darklord Offline
stranger


Registered: 01/13/10
Posts: 12
Loc: USA
of course theres prototypes everywhere of these belive systems, I think THEM are just bring it back to the roots, one of lavey's influences for the bible and alot of it was copied directly was Ragners redbeards book that was wrote in australia.
Top
#37567 - 04/13/10 12:16 PM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: darklord]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Close man, on one hand THEM were (since changed our current) trying to cause a mass psycho-social collapse and destroy everything anyone believed in to create maximum chaos for the Magian, who rely on forms, constructs, ideology, language, time etc to get things done. On the other we tried to educate others in extremely subtle energies that possess people and groups and influence them to do things so that they could avoid being brainwashed by Magian propaganda - and, admiteedly, be brainwashed by ours. That one's a no-win situation.
Top
#37568 - 04/13/10 12:17 PM Re: Physis of the Sinister [Re: jesusbeater]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
It's not really even Satanism by anyone's definition anymore. *shrug* I think we deconstructed just a bit too far.

(note: I call it Heuristics or Phenomenology)


Edited by Khk (04/13/10 01:05 PM)

Top
#37569 - 04/13/10 01:04 PM Re: Physis of the Sinister [Re: Zophos]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Zophos, I just don't see how you are doing anything more than relying on shared consensus, a construct for logic, by throwing more words at me. If I wanted to I guess I could put them together and believe in all the abstracts you're using as solid proven working methods that everyone knows and takes for granted as real - but they're just not.

What is the difference between an 'axiom' and a 'butterfly' when you see them both as abstracts? They're just words, and yes a lot can be done with them if people invest faith in them to denote certain things from others things - but they're just one plane of interpreting the world, one means. You ever tried drugs?


Of course my arguments will fall short - I'm not trying to argue the pint, hell I don't think I can argue any point precisely because of people doing what you're doing - yet whatever You think, I don't see why I should accept your view just because mine is wrong according to yours.
said that words will fail to communicate what I'm trying to communicate just because of the way words are and the way people use them. And hey, what's wrong with intellectual suicide? does that make me less of a person because I'm not able to reason like you? I have my own senses and my own subjective views. And to me, that's all you have too.

Accepting the existence of physical reality is biasing conclusions? - only when you translate it into the words 'physical reality' - or think 'physical reality'. That's when the proceses begin altering what it is - I don't care if you think essences are nebulous.

- The fact is this: if physical reality exists, we are in contact with it, although this does not mean that our sensory apparatus are always useful in grasping the operations of that reality. - nicely said. And I don't disagree there is definately something There that we are in contact with, but by naming it, we reduce it and make it something it's actually not by constraining it with language which is a device fraught with problems.

If the entire physical universe does not exist, and everything we observe likewise has no existence, then there is nothing in the human mind capable of knowing or conceiving it, meaning by extension that there is no way to show it either. You're blowing smoke.

- NO, something exists - but it loses its nebulous essence when it is given a name and slotted into a category. Everything we observe has existence - but again, loses its nebulous essence when it is given a name and slotted into a category. And yes, there is nothing in the human mind capable of conceiving it as it is which is why we have language to come to a convenient agreement.

Additionally, if the mere act of grafting a name onto something is enough to bias a conclusion, then it is interesting that workers in logical structures which use different names or even different methodologies (e.g., Newton's calculus versus Leibniz's calculus) nevertheless come to the same conclusions independently of one another. The history of logic and mathematics is littered with examples.

So what, its still the same process of naming things despite the reality that we don't actually know what their nebulous essencey names are. You can observe 'Change' but you need to know what you are observing before you can look out for it. The word change helps grasp the process we are observing but it isn't IT - it's just a name for it. And then that name becomes treated as real, and that process as that name. That's nebulous - at least on one plane - on the logical, form-based plane, its one of mankinds greatest achievments. Memory is a good one too. And playstation.


As I have already said, you are bringing in the claim of "planes," whether conceptual, metaphysical, or both, for which you have provided no justification. Feel free to continue repeating your hypothesis if you choose, but realize that any attempt at demonstrating rather than merely asserting it will, as Boole and De Morgan well knew, necessarily place you within the laws of thought whose meaning you decry and inform the methods by which you could support your claim, making it no support at all. That is the nature of reason.

How can I provide justification without using the words to which you are accustomed to grasping things? Just because I haven't provided doesn't mean I don't have some. I just tend not to see the point sometimes in trying to get across something that is going to be misunderstood anyway. And hey, maybe I'm wrong - but I don't feel the need to argue with you about it, I know I'm right, for me, subjectively, at this point in time of my perspective. Do I want you to change my perspective? Not directly no - but I might take things you've said on board.

Feel free to continue repeating your hypothesis if you choose, but realize that any attempt at demonstrating rather than merely asserting it will, as Boole and De Morgan well knew, necessarily place you within the laws of thought whose meaning you decry and inform the methods by which you could support your claim, making it no support at all. That is the nature of reason.

Okay, so logic isn't circular. There. It doesn't matter all that much to me. Yeah I'm always going to be doing things I don't know I'm doing when it comes to words. They trap me and my magical nebulous essence sharing everytime I used them.

A triangle is an abstract entity, but its definition as a figure with three and only three sides is as concrete as it gets. Proposing that we in some way do not know what it "actually" is smacks of nebulous 'essences.'

- On ONE plane. On the plane of abstract reasoning. But we have to pluck that triangle out of the totality of space and interpret its nebulous essence and give it a name to make it concrete. The world might seem that simple - but I don't think it is. But then I'm either mad, or a magician cause we see things very differently. And why shouldn't we?

Incorrect. The principle of contradiction is an axiom because it is impossible not to employ it. A supposition is an undefended statement, while an axiom is a necessary entity by virtue of its indispensability. You are perfectly welcome to find for me an example of reasoning, including your own, which does not in some sense either use them or resort solely to bare assertion. With regard to the existence of tension, you have given no reason why the fact that "[logical axioms] require a tension for each to exist" necessitates that those tensions don't in fact exist. Married bachelors do not exist, anywhere. A body cannot be moving at 125 miles per hour and at the same time not moving at all. That "tension" exists outside of us. The Sun was at the center of our solar system before it was demonstrated.

Every single word we each use, is an abstract that relies on all the other words we use to make it concrete as you say. We accept words have value because we invest faith in them to do so - but my view is that they don't actually have any. We just make them have it so we can explain nebulous essences to one another.

You are beginning to sound like a supernaturalist. I especially like the implicitly patronizing tone, intended or not, of your first clause.


So you assumed I wasn't? What am I then? According to someone else on occult corpus I'm a Chaos Mage. I don't know what the hell that is. But here you are giving a name to something to define it, control it, control what I am in your mind by calling me and my few texts posted here an umbrella term of supernaturalist. I'm sorry Zophos, I wasn't aware I had to be just one thing?


The gullible practitioners of occultism are free to espouse whatever metaphysical hooey they wish, from fairies to fortune-telling, but Satanism has nothing to do with supernatural beliefs.

Why not? Because you defined it that way? Or because its an objective truth? I know, 1000 or so satanically-inclined people who are going to differ with you on that. Satanism is popular because its not ruled by definition, its anarchic like Satan, and if you want to say fuck your definition, I'm doing it my way, whatever your way is - that seems most to me what satan's archetype did and does. Satan's there so I can abandon your laws and your logical fences if I want to. So I can do anything.

The ritual chamber is a place of aesthetic and emotional psychodrama, and that is all.

Again - for you. I don't have a ritual chamber either, or perform 'magic'.

Satanists recognize that their representation of existence in ways that are contrary to fact, such as 'invoking' Satan or throwing a curse in a ritual, does not mean by any stretch that there is a supernatural being called Satan or a metaphysical undergirding to reality, whether the astral plane, the agency of demons, or any other, which somehow causes curses to work.

LOL - what? Since when did Satanists collectively recognize anything unless they were throwing away their individuality to serve some cool mandate devised by someone else? C'mon man, your logic can't NAIL or DEFINE things like that - and I certainly don't accept your definitions of what Satanism is or should be. That would suck ALL the fun out of it. And the point.


Anton LaVey made that exceedingly clear here. Occultists (excluding a handful of atheistic and physicalistic ones) are no different than Christians, Muslims, or any other band of religious folk in this regard.

Oh ok, thanks for letting me know.

And what is a definition but an empirically demonstrable description?

Fuck I don't know - what is any of that but a jumble of words and shapes and bright light if I don't choose to recognize it's consensus status quo?

What a close-minded response. On the one hand you make a pair of statements (that logic is circular and that there are "wholistic [sic] planes," whatever that means) without validation of any kind, and on the other hand refuse to consider or investigate anything which might counter you. What do we call that?

Oh I'm sorry I didn't feel the need to impose my will and acknowledge yours right away - it just didn;t seem important to me - it certainly wans't going to change anything for me not giving more backing to my arguments, I'm not trying to impress anyone - otherwise I probably wouldn't be so cavalier with the swearing and the ignorance. Why should I try to prove anything to you unless I am frightened that my own convictions are weak? I don't need your reassurance about what I believe being right for me and so our conversations aren't going to follow those neat little rules you like so much.


You quite obviously have no idea what an a priori judgment is.

Oh maybe its the wrong word - but you know how words are. You don't have to use a lot of them to make a point. The right one's sure - but hey, you're still doing what I tihnk you're doing whatever the word for it is. Which I still think is a priori supposition.

If that is how you view the topic, then you certainly shouldn't have asked me to continue discussing it with you. You alone brought forward the claim that all logic is circular, knowing full well that someone might respond with criticism.

Hey man, logic is circular. Maybe yours isn't. And you're welcome to respond with criticism - but why should I accept it? Cause you're... Imposing your will?

Responsibility to the responsible.

You know I never understood what the fuck that meant. Seems like a nebulous essence to me.

I have said my piece, and I am done with this thread.

OK then.

Top
#37570 - 04/13/10 02:06 PM Re: Australian Satanism + The Temple of THEM [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Oh, and Zophos, I didn't say logic was circular. I said "For me, logic is circular." I made the subjective disclaimer. It's a pretty important part of making such claims.[/b]
Top
Page 10 of 13 « First<89101112>Last »


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

Generated in 0.026 seconds of which 0.003 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.