Page all of 2 12>
Topic Options
#33210 - 12/24/09 05:58 PM Merry Christmouse from Anton LaVey
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2573
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
A note to me from Diane LaVey back in the '70s - "Hugo Zorilla" was one of Anton's whimsical pen names, often for his artwork - accompanying this.

Merry Christmouse to all 600ers!
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#33211 - 12/24/09 06:07 PM Re: Merry Christmouse from Anton LaVey [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
I saw a slightly different version of this. Basil Ratbone -- the rat-- was not amused, but hey... he was a rat.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#33212 - 12/24/09 06:27 PM Re: Merry Christmouse from Anton LaVey [Re: Jake999]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
As an aside...

I've been working on some Satanic note cards, etc. I've designed a trapezoidal envelope with laminated Sigil of Baphomet and appropriately shaped note card, and a couple of other items because someone had commented to me that there was nothing appropriate for Walpurgisnacht, etc.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#33213 - 12/24/09 06:33 PM Re: Merry Christmouse from Anton LaVey [Re: Jake999]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
Just awesome. Some folks may get these next year - if your good.

I do love the carnival atmosphere in the stores today. It is sort of like going to post office on April 15th.

Of course, the 12 Days of Xmas are simply lifted from Roman pagan tradition. Rome held a series of festivals prior to the winter solstice. Naturally, most pagans celebrated the winter solstice because Northern Europe sucks in the winter without gas heat and electricity.

Hell, even you savages have something to celebrate. Now go have some fun.
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#33256 - 12/26/09 01:26 AM Re: Merry Christmouse from Anton LaVey [Re: Fist]
Woland Moderator Offline
Seasoned
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 764
Loc: Oslo, Norway
 Originally Posted By: Fist
Naturally, most pagans celebrated the winter solstice because Northern Europe sucks in the winter without gas heat and electricity.


Happy to say that Northern Europe sucks in the winter WITH gas heat and electricity.
70 cm of snow in 6 hours.
Now; where's my shovel...
_________________________
Regards

Woland

Contra Mundum!

Top
#33352 - 12/29/09 03:40 PM Re: Merry Christmouse from Anton LaVey [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
111Cal Offline
member


Registered: 12/22/09
Posts: 143
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
A note to me from Diane LaVey back in the '70s - "Hugo Zorilla" was one of Anton's whimsical pen names, often for his artwork - accompanying this.

Merry Christmouse to all 600ers!


Dr. Aquino. I am sure you wont recall me, but I had contacted you about 15 years ago with an interview request for a book I was working on. At that time, I was completing my service in the US Army, and although you were not able to do the interview, you did send me a thoughtful letter relating some of your experiences at Fort Bragg, NC. I always appreciated you taking the time to do so.

My question is this... Having read many of your posts on this forum, you seem to speak kindly toward the late Anton LaVey and always seem to share positive stories about him. We all know about the personal and "spiritual" differences that the two of you had. When you look back on LaVey and his life: how do you view his legacy? And do you remember him fondly? Or with the hostility that the two of you seemed to share for one another the last 25 years of his life?

I mean this in all honesty because it seems as if you seem to miss him at time? Or at least that with the passage of time, you have focused more on the positive and let some of the negatives soften.

Top
#33694 - 01/07/10 09:43 PM Re: Merry Christmouse from Anton LaVey [Re: 111Cal]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 862
Loc: Nashville
I am not Dr. Aquino. I am closer to the great British film character Dr. Bean. However, I may be able to get at the conundrum that has been plaguing you all these years: How could Michael Aquino form his own organization despite the wishes of his fearless leader, Anton LaVey?

The answer, I think, can be found in LaVey’s philosophy post-1975. LaVey’s view of Satanism, as I take it, is that it is the purest form of human expression – that Satanism is, basically, humanism in Technicolor.

I think the main philosophical difference between LaVey and Aquino is not the purchasing of degrees vs. the non-purchasing of degrees. It is Theism vs. Atheism. LaVey may’ve believed in the Prince of Darkness during the “non-contaminated” 1966-1975 CoS period, but it seems pretty clear that afterward either LaVey A)Didn’t believe in Satan/Set/Whoever The Fuck He Is, or B)Didn’t care what he had to say.

I suspect that Aquino’s feelings toward LaVey are complicated, and I suspect that LaVey would’ve wanted it that way.
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#33702 - 01/07/10 10:53 PM Re: Merry Christmouse from Anton LaVey [Re: William Wright]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



What is regarded as the sale of the degrees had everything to do with it.

It was the catalyst. The TOS is seen as the logical progression and culmination of the CoS, from Dr. Aquino's view.

Infernal mandate is transferred and revealed to Dr. Aquino via a new revealed literature.

All of this is detailed in Dr.Aquino's books on the CoS and the early parts of his book on the TOS.

I wish to apologise to Dr. Aquino and Jake. You both should be able to have discussions and enjoyment in this place without people like me stirring up things and dragging up a past you may not wish to have to deal with again.

Top
#33703 - 01/07/10 11:10 PM Re: Merry Christmouse from Anton LaVey [Re: William Wright]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
 Originally Posted By: William Wright

I think the main philosophical difference between LaVey and Aquino is not the purchasing of degrees vs. the non-purchasing of degrees. It is Theism vs. Atheism. LaVey may’ve believed in the Prince of Darkness during the “non-contaminated” 1966-1975 CoS period, but it seems pretty clear that afterward either LaVey A)Didn’t believe in Satan/Set/Whoever The Fuck He Is, or B)Didn’t care what he had to say.


http://www.the600club.com/topic33445-1.html -- This clarifies Dr. LaVey's thoughts on that PRE 1975, as the recording was sold in 1973... production time, makes the content even earlier. It's in his own words, in his own voice. Not much room for ambiguity,
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#33712 - 01/08/10 03:25 AM Re: Merry Christmouse from Anton LaVey [Re: William Wright]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3138
 Quote:
However, I may be able to get at the conundrum that has been plaguing you all these years: How could Michael Aquino form his own organization despite the wishes of his fearless leader, Anton LaVey?

As far as I can tell (and I assume this is the main explanation, derived from the texts both jake and Michael posted) both persons respected each other and were probably close friends.
As in some posts stated, and in a few texts I read, the titles weren't that much of an importance in the very beginning.

Another reason is, as far as I can see, that Satanism isn't the fully 100% about having an atheistic or theistic view. The philosophy of Satanism goes a bit beyond that. While in most views of Satanism theism is being seen as delusional, I don't think it is that of a problem IF the person still knows where the boundaries of reality and fantasy are.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#33718 - 01/08/10 05:57 AM Re: Merry Christmouse from Anton LaVey [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Baron dHolbach Offline
member


Registered: 12/29/09
Posts: 162
 Originally Posted By: MawhrinSkel
By the same token, distancing oneself from the theistic aspects of Satanism only works to a certain extent. Even so-called 'theist' Satanists cannot be said to be 100% theist. Setians, as I understand the term, acknowledge the existence of a dark force/entity, but do not worship him/it. Others, like myself, do not acknowledge any such supernatural claims, but still maintain there is a spark that can be labelled 'divine' inside ourselves.


I have so far encountered two types of Atheist. Type One says, "There is no God and I can prove it." Type Two says, "There is no empirical evidence for the existence of God, therefore I don't make the claim that there is a God, and I reject anyone else's claim to that effect."

In the above, "God" is my word for any non-material entity who was instrumental in bringing about the material universe.

Type One atheists can be attacked on the basis of whatever proof they offer, and as the proof is always flimsy at best, because they are trying to prove a negative, Type One atheists end up flailing about, trying to bail the water out of their rapidly sinking ship.

Type Two atheists, of which I am one, can only be attacked by offering empirical evidence for the existence of God. Such supposed evidence, when offered, is always flimsy at best, and thus it is the attacker who ends up flailing about.

I think Type One is more absolutist in the sense you're using the term, MawhrinSkel, and Type Two is less absolutist. Please correct me if I am wrong.

The Type Two Atheist knows and accepts the fact that if he/she were ever presented with solid empirical evidence for the existence of God, he/she would immediately begin scientific inquiry or at least research of the inquiries of others, and if, over time, the empirical evidence continued to uphold the God hypothesis, the Type Two Atheist would stop espousing Atheism. Of course this has never happened, and I doubt it ever will.

As an aside, I'll draw attention to the fact that solid empirical evidence for the existence of God is hard to even imagine, let alone find. If I suddenly encountered a burning bush that spoke, a column of flame moving on its own across the sands of the desert, a tablet of stone on which words were materializing with no visible cause, and a man who was curing lepers by the laying on of hands, I would be quicker to think some super-advanced extra-terrestrial technology was being employed, than to think these phenomena were caused by God.

All of that is preamble to my main question, MawhrinSkel:

What do you mean by a spark that can be labeled "divine"? Please flesh that concept out for me, if you wouldn't mind. Perhaps you can start by defining the two key terms, "spark" and "divine," as you are using them in your sentence.
_________________________
The baboon is the soul of man.



Top
#33731 - 01/08/10 12:56 PM Brrrrring! [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2573
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
The existence of the neteru [corrupted into "gods", further debased into "God"] is easy to prove: it is first the existence of the material/energetic universe and secondly its consistency everywhere and all of the time. That's it. Anything else is just a subset.

Not to mention that this also, necessarily, proves the existence of Set, "the neter not of the neteru", as the [general/Platonic Form] source of the external perspective and free will that enables all particular isolate consciousnesses [that's us] to first apprehend the neteru, then learn to communicate with them, then influence them.

None of this is at all complicated, and of course people stumble around doing it nonconsciously and ineptly [as opposed to Adeptly] every day. Initiation is accordingly just the process [also fucked up a lot] of turning oneself from an Inept into an Adept.

Anton knew all of this just as much as I did back then, and he was just as matter-of-fact about the futility of "teaching people who need to be taught"; the results vary from the comic to the dangerous:

 Originally Posted By: Anton LaVey to M.A.A. 12/18/70
I received the Ouspensky volume and wish to thank you for your thoughtfulness in having it sent. It is a masterpiece, and you are to be commended for bringing it to my attention. I am going to make it required reading for all members and will state same in next month’s newsletter. Perhaps it might explain the Balance Factor to a few of our more egocentric members who constantly seek new power and wouldn’t know what to do with it if they had it.

The book in question was The Psychology of Man's Possible Evolution, which is a succinct series of lectures on how to wake up. For anyone here who is still asleep, here's your alarm clock.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#33736 - 01/08/10 01:30 PM Re: Brrrrring! [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2573
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: MawhrinSkel
Thanks for pointing it out. I have it in .pdf. Anyone curious can pm me and I'll send them a copy from an open source.

I keep forgetting how fingersnapping a resource the Internet is! Here's the book for direct .pdf download.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#33742 - 01/08/10 06:54 PM Re: Brrrrring! [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Baron dHolbach Offline
member


Registered: 12/29/09
Posts: 162
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
The existence of the neteru [corrupted into "gods", further debased into "God"] is easy to prove: it is first the existence of the material/energetic universe and secondly its consistency everywhere and all of the time. That's it. Anything else is just a subset.


The existence of the material/energetic universe doesn't prove the existence of a non-material maker. The material/energetic universe could be uncreated and without a beginning. To call that impossible is to beg the question of how a non-material maker could be uncreated and without a beginning.

The consistency everywhere all the time doesn't prove the existence of a non-material maker. Consistency is what one experiences when one lives in universe of physical and mathematical lawfulness. Lawfulness does not prove the existence of a non-material maker. We have no evidence that a non-lawful universe is even possible. The imaginable and the possible do not always intersect. Human beings can imagine the impossible.

The concept of lawfulness is really just a recognition that there are scenarios where the probability of something happening or being factual is exactly one. We live in a probabilistic universe. Is there any other kind? As far as we know, we live in the only kind of universe there is or could ever be. Nothing about that necessitates a non-material maker.
_________________________
The baboon is the soul of man.



Top
#33747 - 01/08/10 08:42 PM Re: Brrrrring! [Re: Baron dHolbach]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2573
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Baron dHolbach
[quote=Michael A.Aquino]The material/energetic universe could be uncreated and without a beginning.

It is indeed possible to propose that presence [at the raw matter/energy level] is just as a priori assumable as absence. However such a presence, absent organization, would be merely an undifferentiated universal plasma. The moment that this ultimately-uniform/relaxed state is divided and coalesced into matter, antimatter, and energy, an intelligence and agent behind that tension is inescapably necessary.

As for time, the concept has no meaning in an undifferentiated universe, since it is merely a way of tracking and comparing the various differentiations.

 Quote:
The consistency everywhere all the time doesn't prove the existence of a non-material maker. Consistency is what one experiences when one lives in universe of physical and mathematical lawfulness. Lawfulness does not prove the existence of a non-material maker. We have no evidence that a non-lawful universe is even possible.

To the contrary, the consistency of even two phenomena establishes a connection between them, which in turn necessitates a force dictating that connection. And in the case of the universe, the interconnections are [to the limits of our experience and detection] omnipresent. It is absurd to suggest that uniformity on such a scale could be accidental, not to mention accidental infinitely through time.

 Quote:
The imaginable and the possible do not always intersect. Human beings can imagine the impossible.

This is precisely the premise for the necessary existence of Set, thank you.

Caveat, however, that despite the isolate, particularized consciousness' ability to create, invent, and imagine the unnatural (or should I say "un-neterable"?), that capacity is very rarified - the very essence of divinity - because its outward manifestations slide into mere sensory recombinations of universal laws, resulting in only the illusion of their violation. Hence imagining that Jake's hat turns into a green elephant every night while he sleeps is not the Gift of Set. But your ability to willfully engage in such imagination is.

 Quote:
The concept of lawfulness is really just a recognition that there are scenarios where the probability of something happening or being factual is exactly one. We live in a probabilistic universe. Is there any other kind? As far as we know, we live in the only kind of universe there is or could ever be.

According to universal, natural laws of probability, a variety of minerals and chemicals would not combine themselves into an automobile. That requires a divine consciousness apart from the neteru, to beg, borrow, or steal some of their stuff, as it were. It gets more serious when, as the scientists of the Mahatttan Project, you start fucking with the really primal universal laws.

The very concept of "law" is a complex one. Just because your wristwatch has been ticking through the minutes for the last hour or day or year, is there a law which requires it to continue for one more minute? Such a law, strictly defined, would eliminate all possibility of variation. So a great many "natural laws" are more accurately theories - or, less established, hypotheses - or, less hypothetical, speculations.

I am reminded of the philosophy student who, after listening to a lecture on Descartes, found himself unable to sleep. Finally, at around 3AM, he telephone the professor and screamed at him, "Tell me - I've got to know - DO I EXIST?!" The prof yawned, "And who wants to know?"
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#33753 - 01/08/10 09:42 PM Re: Brrrrring! [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 862
Loc: Nashville
My point, which I don’t think I presented well, was that LaVey’s selling of degrees was the overt manifestation of his philosophical conclusion. If there was no literal Satan as LaVey believed (or came to believe), then the CoS was simply a man-made construct like anything else. And if it was simply a man-made construct – a materialistic organization – then why not award degrees for contributions, including material contributions, made to the Church?

I’m not saying I agree with the idea of selling degrees. I agree with Aquino that honorary degrees should’ve been awarded for material contributions. My only point is that LaVey’s decision to sell degrees was based on something deeper, something I think was rooted in his belief that the namesake of his organization didn’t actually exist.
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#33757 - 01/09/10 05:47 AM Re: Brrrrring! [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Baron dHolbach Offline
member


Registered: 12/29/09
Posts: 162
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino

It is indeed possible to propose that presence [at the raw matter/energy level] is just as a priori assumable as absence. However such a presence, absent organization, would be merely an undifferentiated universal plasma. The moment that this ultimately-uniform/relaxed state is divided and coalesced into matter, antimatter, and energy, an intelligence and agent behind that tension is inescapably necessary.


Why? The only answer you can really give is, "It seems so to me."

You're making the same argument as any who espouse Intelligent Design, and it interests me that such an espousal can become a common cause for both LHP and RHP practitioners. Since an Intelligent Design outlook can apparently co-exist with an LHP orientation, I find myself wondering if Atheism can co-exist with an RHP orientation! Something to research, up has popped.

The Intelligent Design argument boils down to this claim: "Order implies sapient genesis." That claim is easily falsified by stating the fact that sapience was the last step in evolution, not the first. But then the maker of the claim will posit a non-material sapient agent and will claim this non-material sapient agent as the genesis of order. This second claim cannot be falsified in any way, because the non-material by its nature is beyond experimental detection. An empiricist such as myself immediately rejects out of hand any claim that is non-falsifiable. Unfalsifiable claims are the stuff of pure imagination and make for good fantasy novels but bad philosophy and atrocious science, so atrocious as to not be science at all.

 Quote:
It is absurd to suggest that uniformity on such a scale could be accidental, not to mention accidental infinitely through time.


Why?

 Quote:
 Quote:
The imaginable and the possible do not always intersect. Human beings can imagine the impossible.

This is precisely the premise for the necessary existence of Set, thank you.


Apparently because order implies sapient genesis. See my response to that above.

 Quote:
I am reminded of the philosophy student who, after listening to a lecture on Descartes, found himself unable to sleep. Finally, at around 3AM, he telephone the professor and screamed at him, "Tell me - I've got to know - DO I EXIST?!" The prof yawned, "And who wants to know?"


The student was ignoring the clear empirical evidence that he existed, and thus was an idiot.
_________________________
The baboon is the soul of man.



Top
#33778 - 01/09/10 01:36 PM Re: Brrrrring! [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Baron dHolbach Offline
member


Registered: 12/29/09
Posts: 162
 Originally Posted By: MawhrinSkel
The existence of *insert deity's name here* is a necessity because we can imagine a higher power, and hence it exists, since nothing unimaginable can exist.

Right.


I presume you're lampooning a theistic argument. Probably the theist would say something slightly different, namely, "Nothing non-existent can be imagined."

I don't know if the unimaginable can exist, since I don't know the limits of human imagination, but I know without a doubt that the non-existent can be imagined, as all I need to do to test that hypothesis is watch a Harry Potter movie and make a list of the things I see that don't exist. I'm a big fan of Harry Potter movies, by the way, and even moreso of the books on which the movies were based. Imagination untethered to reality makes for fun entertainment!

 Quote:
And as for the story of the philosophy student who wanted to know if he existed, the professor's retort shouldn't have been "Who wants to know?" but "Why do you care?"


Or better yet, "You flunked the class, you moron."
_________________________
The baboon is the soul of man.



Top
#33783 - 01/09/10 02:53 PM "You do not exist." - O'Brien, 1984 [Re: Baron dHolbach]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2573
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Baron dHolbach
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
... The moment that this ultimately-uniform/relaxed state is divided and coalesced into matter, antimatter, and energy, an intelligence and agent behind that tension is inescapably necessary.

Why? The only answer you can really give is, "It seems so to me."

Because of the observed/established universal principle of entropy: that the natural state of the universe is disorganized, and that absent compulsion to the contrary, everything organized will eventually and inexorably return to that state.

The contrasting concept is ectropy, which unlike entropy, and according to the second law of thermodynamics, requires an external force [= the neteru].

For your dissent to prevail, you would need to invalidate entropy and establish ectropy that does not require external force. Good luck.

 Quote:
The Intelligent Design argument boils down to this claim: "Order implies sapient genesis." That claim is easily falsified by stating the fact that sapience was the last step in evolution, not the first.

The neteru, being eternal and omnipresent, have never had any need to evolve. How, for instance, would you suggest that light, or gravity, or magnetism evolve?

 Quote:
This second claim cannot be falsified in any way, because the non-material by its nature is beyond experimental detection. An empiricist such as myself immediately rejects out of hand any claim that is non-falsifiable. Unfalsifiable claims are the stuff of pure imagination and make for good fantasy novels but bad philosophy and atrocious science, so atrocious as to not be science at all.

I agree with your conclusion, if not with the huff-puffery leading up to it. Science is limited to the exploration and identification of the operational consistencies of nature, and never touches why they exist or how they function as they are observed to do. A scientist is merely a workhorse technician, and if you choose to limit yourself thus, then as Obi-wan Kenobi said to an initially-reticent Luke Skywalker, "You must do as you think best, of course."

 Quote:
The student was ignoring the clear empirical evidence that he existed, and thus was an idiot.

A ferocious stimulus/responsist might argue that there was no true, existential student - just a jumble of stimuli producing an illusion to that effect, hence further illusions concerning a telephone and a professor. Descartes' famous aphorism gets into the deep shit not because of its traditional refutations, but when one tries to think of something that is not the product of sensory input. Again there is a solution, but once again it is metaphysical.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#33785 - 01/09/10 04:14 PM Re: "You do not exist." - O'Brien, 1984 [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
MorningStar93 Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/20/09
Posts: 28
Loc: Ecotopia
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
The contrasting concept is ectropy, which unlike entropy, and according to the second law of thermodynamics, requires an external force [= the neteru].

Half a year ago I found my way to xeper.org and read some of your essays there. I would be happy to have the universe you provide to scry into and draw from.

I have had some email correspondance with Lon Milo DuQuette where I send him my material and he comment on it.

I knew Frater Thabion (Carroll “Poke” Runyon) from the begining.

For the last five month I have had a close cooperation with Jerry Edward Cornelius.

There are also many other voices here. \:\)

Now I have to prepare myself for the task as an Hierophant. I will be posting in this forum maybe once per week or so.

MorningStar93

Top
#33788 - 01/09/10 04:45 PM Re: "You do not exist." - O'Brien, 1984 [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3138
 Quote:

The concept of entropy purportedly supports your notion that a divine force exists -> the divine force can be disproven by proving that ectropy exists.

Or you could proof that a divine force exists because there is the ability and existence of both these states of energy/forces.
Also, without entropy there wwould be no ectropy since there isn't a thing to refer too. No chaos without structure, no structure without chaos.

What happened in the very beginning is indeed guesswork, but quite honestly: I am quite happy with the knowledge what happened the one-thousandth second after the big-bang, and I like the result upon looking in the mirror. ( I would have probably said the same thing if I were a green blob of sticky goo.. neverless!)

Does a divine force exist? Only if you want to believe in it.
Is it necessary to believe in it? Perhaps to some, not to others. Perhaps from the best guess I can make, and the most objective view I can make about the concepts of "intelligent design", "God", .. is but the imagined form of the perfect leader anyone would trust and follow in existence.
In other words; it is the unconscious mind making up a person who matches up ALL personal expectations.

Acausal universes vs causal universe, acausal energies manifesting in causal entities.. It can possibly make sense.
As far as I am concerned there is only 1 Universe, ie the one I live in with all its mysterious aspects and laws.


Edited by Dimitri (01/09/10 04:47 PM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#33789 - 01/09/10 05:06 PM Re: Atheist RHP [Re: Baron dHolbach]
Baron dHolbach Offline
member


Registered: 12/29/09
Posts: 162
 Originally Posted By: Baron dHolbach
[quote=Michael A.Aquino]
I find myself wondering if atheism can co-exist with an RHP orientation! Something to research, up has popped.


Fascism seems the only candidate. The RHP requires submission to a will that is outside and somehow above one's own. I don't know what that could be, for an Atheist, but the state.

Utterly unappealing, needless to say.
_________________________
The baboon is the soul of man.



Top
#33791 - 01/09/10 05:56 PM Re: "You do not exist." - O'Brien, 1984 [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Baron dHolbach Offline
member


Registered: 12/29/09
Posts: 162
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
Because of the observed/established universal principle of entropy: that the natural state of the universe is disorganized, and that absent compulsion to the contrary, everything organized will eventually and inexorably return to that state.


This argument has been soundly refuted by people who actually understand the physics involved, such as the author of the article at this URL:
http://ncse.com/cej/2/2/creationist-misunderstanding-misrepresentation-misuse-second

I'll cut and paste the Summary at the end:

"Summary

"In their first and crudest attempt at creating the illusion of a contradiction between evolution and the second law of thermodynamics, creationists simply ignored the fact that evolving systems are not isolated. Their next endeavor consisted of altering the second law by maintaining that it precludes entropy decreases in all systems, not just isolated ones.

"Although they still occasionally make either or both of these claims in debates, they apparently realized at some point, presumably after having been confronted with examples proving them wrong, that a new device was needed. So, they invented the "Creative Trinity." This actually replaces the second law, but they still refer to it as the second law of thermodynamics in order to maintain the air of scientific respectability.

"There is a virtually unlimited number of examples of natural systems in which entropy deficiencies develop spontaneously, provided only that energy is allowed to flow across their boundaries, thus disproving the creationist requirement for a divine directing program or different kinds of entropy. We are awaiting coherent responses from creationists dealing with these examples.

"This leaves only the task of examining the validity of the claim by creationists that genetic programs could not have developed naturally and must therefore have been intelligently created. A simple calculation of the probability of formation of a sufficiently autocatalytic chain of amino acids and an elementary examination of the process of evolution through mutations and natural selection from simple organisms to complex ones show that, whatever difficulties occur in the natural origin of life, they do not involve any violations of the second law of thermodynamics."

 Quote:
I agree with your conclusion, if not with the huff-puffery leading up to it. Science is limited to the exploration and identification of the operational consistencies of nature, and never touches why they exist or how they function as they are observed to do. A scientist is merely a workhorse technician, and if you choose to limit yourself thus, then as Obi-wan Kenobi said to an initially-reticent Luke Skywalker, "You must do as you think best, of course."


This gets to the heart of the matter. I consider the scientific method to be humanity's single greatest advance, which has steadily been elevating our civilization, holds the promise of elevating our biological capabilities, and which, when applied to the contents of one's psyche, elevates the self. I don't know why I would base my epistemology on anything else.

You are right about this much, however: questions of why are meaningless except when applied to the behavior of living things or their products, which means any question of why with respect to the existence of matter or the existence of reliable probabilities (natural law) is meaningless unless one posits a non-material sapient maker. From a position of atheistic materialism, there is no reason why matter exists, and no reason why reliable probabilities exist. No intentionality, no purpose, no design, no meaning. It is only the living that have intentionality; only the living that impart or adopt purpose; only the living that impose design; and only the living that can deliver meaning to matter and probabilities. And of all living things, it is man that excels at these activities, perfecting and expanding them in an amazing display of creative power that in its own way can compete with the fiery might of the stars. Purpose isn't something man asks of matter and probabilities. Purpose is something matter and probabilities receive by the grace of man.


_________________________
The baboon is the soul of man.



Top
#33792 - 01/09/10 10:24 PM Re: Atheist RHP [Re: Baron dHolbach]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2573
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Baron dHolbach
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
I find myself wondering if atheism can co-exist with an RHP orientation! Something to research, up has popped.

This is not a quote by me.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#33793 - 01/09/10 10:42 PM What happened to my third eye? [Re: Baron dHolbach]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2573
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Baron dHolbach

 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
Because of the observed/established universal principle of entropy: that the natural state of the universe is disorganized, and that absent compulsion to the contrary, everything organized will eventually and inexorably return to that state.

This argument has been soundly refuted by people who actually understand the physics involved, such as the author of the article at this URL:
http://ncse.com/cej/2/2/creationist-misunderstanding-misrepresentation-misuse-second

I'll cut and paste the Summary at the end:

"Summary

"In their first and crudest attempt at creating the illusion of a contradiction between evolution and the second law of thermodynamics, creationists simply ignored the fact that evolving systems are not isolated. Their next endeavor consisted of altering the second law by maintaining that it precludes entropy decreases in all systems, not just isolated ones ...

My discussion of entropy/ectropy has nothing whatever to do with either evolution or religious "creationism". En/Ec are phenomena at a universal-law level.

I have no quarrel whatever with evolution, save perhaps that so many people misunderstand how it actually works, and/or try to use it hilariously out-of-context.

Since this now-wildly-awander thread began with Anton LaVey's Christmouse card, it seems appropriate to mention that he was a passionate Lamarckian, which always threw me a bit off-balance during our discussions.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#33794 - 01/10/10 12:04 AM Ride the Tiger! [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2573
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: MawhrinSkel

 Originally Posted By: M.A.A.
Because of the observed/established universal principle of entropy: that the natural state of the universe is disorganized, and that absent compulsion to the contrary, everything organized will eventually and inexorably return to that state.

The contrasting concept is ectropy, which unlike entropy, and according to the second law of thermodynamics, requires an external force [= the neteru].

For your dissent to prevail, you would need to invalidate entropy and establish ectropy that does not require external force. Good luck.

The concept of entropy purportedly supports your notion that a divine force exists -> the divine force can be disproven by proving that ectropy exists. This doesn't fly with me, but I'm guessing you've given up on making things fly with me. \:\)

Not at all: I always recommend Jefferson Starship or the IGTB

But please re-read what I said about En/Ec more carefully. Entropy exists universally and as a "default", while ectropy always requires an external force. [Cf. my earlier postings about fields as one such organizing force.]

 Quote:
To recap: it seems that our main difference in outlook centres on your theorem that something as ordered as the Universe cannot have come about without intent. Something has its finger on everything, guiding and commanding it.

That goes too far. The neteru simply set up and continue the natural laws of the universe; the interaction of those laws can be anything from hazard to human will.

 Quote:
Why this force needs to be intelligent, sapient or even remotely interested in living creatures is beyond me.

There is no inherent reason why the neteru should or do pay any attention to the random or deliberate application or interaction of their principles. However true initiation into the wisdom of one or more of the neteru requires an understanding of and respect for it, leading to harmonious and positive invocation of it. As previously mentioned, the Trinity bomb is a good example of true blasphemy.

 Quote:
I do recognize that making blanket statements about anything happening pre-Big Bang is pretty much a guessing game, but arriving at some hokey pretend f(r)iend's existence as true by observing a naturally occurring phenomenon as entropy is really stretching it.

I think we previously discussed, and I dismissed the "Big Bang" as nuts, requiring as it does a spontaneously-popping-into-existence primal ylem complete with a fuse and a Zippo lighter. This is just knuckle-dragging Judæo-Christian-habitual eschatology to keep the grant money coming.

The universe is rather in a state of beginningless, endless, and timeless oscillation, as realized by the humans Hannes Alfvén and Oskar Klein and summarized here.

 Quote:
Why does there have to be purpose or intent to the universe? It does what it does. The laws of nature are laws only to us. The universe doesn't have an agenda. It just exists. It doesn't stop and think whether a given event will break the laws of nature.

I feel moved to recount Sauron's words from the Morlindalë:

 Originally Posted By: Sauron
“Against the serene, unending bliss of the Ainur on Arda,” I said, “I see brief, bitter, and toilsome life for all other creatures here of Eru Ilúvatar. Manwë has said to me that this is a gift to the Ainur, that they are the more aware of their power and glory as the first and greatest of Eru Ilúvatar’s creations. What does Melkor say of this?”

“Alone of the Valar I question the purpose and will of Eru Ilúvatar,” Melkor answered. “Alone of the Valar do I exist apart from him, hence can do so. And so I tell you this: He is not cruel, any more than he is benevolent. He is a force of indifference and hazard in this universe, and what appears here upon Arda is the result of that and no more. That is the truth and the curse of this world: that it is bereft of purpose. It is merely here, and it continues as its patterns, and accident, and the force of contesting wills press it. Finally, as all energy upon it is drawn inexorably out into the cosmos from whence it was fashioned, it will fade, grow cold, and go out.”

“How then can you, who see this, endure it, O Melkor?” I asked. “Why linger in this terrible place? Why do you not return to the great spaces beyond, that such sad troubles dwindle to nothingness in the distance?”

The Vala stood then, took my arm, and bade me keep silence. Back through the halls and caverns of Utumno he guided me, the Orcs and other strange beings bowing to him as we passed. Finally we stood at the Gate of Utumno, looking out over the starlit sky of Endor. He swept his hand across it that I should attend, then spoke again: “O Sauron, if Endor has no purpose, it is I - we - who can give it. If untended it knows only struggle and death, we can teach it pleasure and rest, if only a little, despite them. If it would by itself only slowly decline, we can see it marshal its energies to rise now in power, then in artistry, and still again in love. Each of these may be bought only by its opposite, so its misfortunes shall also grow and ebb in currents and waves. But from all of this we shall raise its creatures beyond themselves as fashioned by Eru Ilúvatar and the Valar; and some of them, perhaps, beyond the Ainur themselves.”

_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#33806 - 01/10/10 05:38 AM Re: Atheist RHP [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Baron dHolbach Offline
member


Registered: 12/29/09
Posts: 162
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
 Originally Posted By: Baron dHolbach
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
I find myself wondering if atheism can co-exist with an RHP orientation! Something to research, up has popped.

This is not a quote by me.


Very true. I apologize for my fumble-finger. I was quoting and responding to myself. Thank you for pointing out my failure to edit properly.
_________________________
The baboon is the soul of man.



Top
#33816 - 01/10/10 03:28 PM Transcaucasian Airmachine Blues [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2573
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: MawhrinSkel
I see what you're saying regarding entropy/ectropy, but my argument's essence remains unanswered. There is nothing inherent in the existence/non-existence of entropy/ectropy that says your neteru exists. It is wishful thinking.

Also, ectropy is an invented concept, cooked up by someone with an agenda to make the universe seem dualistic ...

I am moved to a "Grasshopper ..." response: You have tripped over your own argumentative feet here, because my point was that ectropy is a non-naturally-occurring [absent external force] universal phenomenon, while entropy is naturally-occurring [and inductively universal]. So we are surrounded by organization, so "you do the math" about the neteru - and remember we are talking about forces/presences on the metaphysical/abstract level of Plato's Forms here, not hawk- or cat-headed people wandering around this planet. [Those are Goa'uld and present a different sort of problem.]

 Originally Posted By: MawhrinSkel
I remember our discussion of what you termed 'ylem', yes. Bringing plasma cosmology into it is a wild goose chase. Plasma cosmology as a discipline has been discredited for its lack of hard evidence and indeed outright disproven in many regards. Cosmic background radiation is one of these.

I didn't bring the "Big Bang" into this discussion, and ylem was George Gamow's et al. term to make the absurd notion of the universe [miraculously] preexisting as a big firecracker with a fuse & Zippo sound "technically profound". As for cosmic radiation, that's exactly what ambiplasma is all about. Dressing it in drag as exhaust fumes from the "BB" is just flailing around. Let me know when you see the scorched Zippo flying by.

 Originally Posted By: MawhrinSkel
If I take your quote from Morlindalë to mean what I think you mean, any intent in the universe springs from humanity, and I can agree with that.

In that idiom the Valar and Maiar, actually. Humanity has a different significance, as observed to the Blue Wizard Pallando by the King of Angmar:

 Originally Posted By: King of Angmar, The Morlindalë
I often wonder, Blue Wizard, at how little of Númenor was known either to the Ainur in Valinor or to the several races and realms of Middle-earth. Had it been otherwise, that island might still be above the waves of the Belegaer today, nor Beleriand itself broken. The Men of Númenor had, in their three thousands of years as a culture, grown beyond the Men, Elves, Dwarves, and other beings here, and indeed beyond also the Valar in Aman themselves.

Before you disbelieve, for I see that you would, remember that the Elves, beautiful of form and immortal upon Arda as they may be, are yet thus bounded in their existence. As for the Valar, while they may bend and hurt this world mightily, still dare they not but as allowed by Eru Ilúvatar, to whose mindless, changeless service they are eternally enthralled, save only one.

But we Dúnedain - for indeed I am Númenorean - discovered that, though our lives be limited on this world, neither are our bodies entwined with it as the Elves and Dwarves. We Men are not thus imprisoned to it, but by our will may continue beyond it through all dimensions and distances of the universe. Nor are our minds condemned never to venture beyond that of Eru Ilúvatar, as are those of the Ainur - save only one. Indeed, Blue Wizard, as you are of the Maiar, I speak here beyond your own ability to comprehend. But this that you cannot understand is the Gift and Doom of Men, and that is what Númenor learned, and that is why the Valar feared, and destroyed, Númenor.


 Originally Posted By: MawhrinSkel
While your notions of neteru are charming, not to mention a beautifully structured paradigm, they nonetheless rest upon assumptions drawn from wonky pseudoscience and logical jumps straight out of RHP. If these give you peace of mind and spiritual satisfaction, I say go for it.

Personally, I reserve my skepticism in this regard. I see you have an argument for this as well, namely that hesitating to apply the notion of an ordering force to the universe means refusing to move forward or beyond what we know.

I disagree. I think doubting the existence of an ordering force in the universe means dismissing fast & simple explanations of a pseudoscientific nature, like what xtians do when explaining everything by saying "God did it." Now, admittedly, your theory is far more advanced than simple xtianity, but 'advanced' does not mean 'true'.

"How very dull of you, Mr. Urfe."

 Originally Posted By: John Fowles, The Magus
THE PRINCE AND THE MAGICIAN

Once upon a time there was a young prince, who believed in all things but three. He did not believe in princesses, he did not believe in islands, he did not believe in God. His father, the king, told him that such things did not exist. As there were no princesses or islands in his father's domaines, and no sign of God, the young prince believed his father.

But then, one day, the prince ran away from his palace. He came to the next land. There, to his astonishment, from every coast he saw islands, and on these islands, strange and troubling creatures whom he dared not name. As he was searching for a boat, a man in full evening dress approached him along the shore.

"Are those real islands?" asked the young prince.

"Of course they are real islands," said the man in evening dress.

"And those strange and troubling creatures?"

"They are all genuine and authentic princesses."

"Then God also must exist!" cried the prince.

"I am God," replied the man in full evening dress, with a bow.

The young prince returned home as quickly as he could.

"So you are back," said his father, the king.

"I have seen islands, I have seen princesses, I have seen God," said the prince reproachfully.

The king was unmoved. "Neither real islands, nor real princesses, nor a real God, exist."

"I saw them!"

"Tell me how God was dressed."

"God was in full evening dress."

"Were the sleeves of his coat rolled back?"

The prince remembered that they had been. The king smiled. "That is the uniform of a magician. You have been deceived."

At this, the prince returned to the next land, and went to the same shore, where once again he came upon the man in full evening dress. "My father the king has told me who you are," said the young prince indignantly. "You deceived me last time, but not again. Now I know that those are not real islands and real princesses, because you are a magician."

The man on the shore smiled. "It is you who are deceived, my boy. In your father's kingdom there are many islands and many princesses. But you are under your father’s spell, so you cannot see them."

The prince returned pensively home. When he saw his father, he looked him in the eyes. "Father, is it true that you are not a real king, but only a magician?"

The king smiled, and rolled back his sleeves. "Yes, my son, I am only a magician."

"Then the man on the shore was God."

"The man on the shore was another magician."

"I must know the real truth, the truth beyond magic."

"There is no truth beyond magic," said the king.

The prince was full of sadness. He said, "I will kill myself."

The king by magic caused death to appear. Death stood in the door and beckoned to the prince. The prince shuddered. He remembered the beautiful but unreal islands and the unreal but beautiful princesses "Very well," he said. "I can bear it."

"You see, my son," said the king, "you too now begin to be a magician."


 Originally Posted By: MawhrinSkel
Oh, and I relish being called a space cadet. I used to dream of being an astronaut. \:\)

"I believe in magic ... and I still believe in dreams." - Grace Slick, Dreams
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#33825 - 01/10/10 07:08 PM Re: Transcaucasian Airmachine Blues [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2573
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: MawhrinSkel
And the moment Goa'uld turn up, I'm heading for Mars. Those fuckers are creepy! ;\)

We've already got one of them as President.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
Page all of 2 12>


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

Generated in 0.046 seconds of which 0.003 seconds were spent on 42 queries. Zlib compression disabled.