Page 4 of 6 « First<23456>
Topic Options
#45128 - 12/18/10 11:57 AM Re: Silly thread retitles are a pointless exercise [Re: Jason King]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Jason King
He is a real person, and quite intelligent. It just so happens he is prone to trolling when bored. And I loved the appeal to authority in your response. It shows a lot about how you view . . . er, um, nevermind.
JK


I don't doubt he's a real person and might even be quite intelligent but he showed that he isn't too smart.

What most forget here is that this place doesn't really care about new people; who or what they are. This place is just as subject to conflict and domination as any other aspect of life. To make it you don't only need to know how to, but also be able to act upon that knowledge.

Not really different from real life.

D.

Top
#45147 - 12/18/10 03:04 PM Re: Silly thread retitles are a pointless exercise [Re: Diavolo]
OrgasmicKarmatic Offline
member


Registered: 08/01/10
Posts: 256
Loc: Michigan, USA
 Originally Posted By: Fnord
I think new people sometimes confuse the tenor of this board with that of others they visit. There are some sections of the board dedicated to levity, but mostly represented here are people who are very serious about their studies in Satanism and how it applies to each individual and to the universe at large.


I agree. I was under no misconception that some of the things that I may or may not have ended up posting may cause problems. I mean, the first time around 600, I kind of fell on my face. I have no issues with the way that 600 is ran. Each site has their own way of working and sometimes putting things out that may have had a different response (positive or otherwise) in other places may have the opposite response here. Again, something I respect about 600. The seriousness in tone sometimes gets to me because I feel as though jokes get taken way out of hand and turn into these incessant theatrical "fuck yous" from everyone involved. Also, including myself.

I take my studies of Satanism very seriously as well but I have view points that I have kept with me from studies in other places that I think fit right in with my Satanic practices. Some of these ideas do not pass into others' ideas of Satanism but that tends to happen when you have a large group of individuals that practice to their own means. I do not try to make a mockery of those that take their form of Satanism seriously. In fact, I'd love to read and take in every form that there is whether I disagree with it or not.

 Originally Posted By: Fnord
Most of the people who stick here are people who have been at this for a long time and who have devoted a LOT of time and personal effort (seeking, self reflection, application, etc) in developing their own individuality within/without the context of Satanic thought.


I will be the first to admit that, while the Satanic Bible resonated with what I was already living, I am rather new to the reading lists that are out there as suggestions for those who are new to the LHP. Even though I feel as though I have always walked the LHP, there is still much to learn and even after the past year or so, I have done immense changes to my perspectives. Whether from learning via constructive criticism or as Morgan put it, being shown things that were not at my reach at the time.

Satanism is a journey just like life is. Some will progress a little slower or maybe in short bursts but I do not think anyone ever really reaches an end point because even though the well read members have some things that they are set in their ways about, there is ALWAYS room for improvement.


 Originally Posted By: Fnord
As such, this is not the friendliest of places for people new on the path and certainly not for those who think they have answers for everyone else.


This is another reason why I like it here so much. You are not easy on newbies here. Attacks happen but there ARE many things to learn. Yes, you are what you type but as the process goes on, what you type may change as you are brought more and more knowledge whether via yourself or others. Some people learn by coddling, others learn when shit hits the fan. I happen to be one that learns by being hands on and taking myself out of my comfort zone. I am not 100% comfortable here, which is obvious due to my first few posts. Another reason why I like to "wrap" what I have to say.

If I stayed in my comfort zone all the time, I would never learn anything. If I was constantly accepted all the time, I would never know what it was like to be on the other side of the fence.


[quote-Fnord]I've seen you take a few beatings and it appears to be mostly because you've forgotten your audience here as compared to elsewhere. If you pay attention, you'll realize that your postings have resulted in valuable responses, despite the occasional claw marks. If it means anything to you, I'd offer you encouragement to soldier on. You show a willingness and desire to learn and you usually don't run away screaming when someone disagrees with your points. That kind of tenaciousness in the face of adversity will take you far. That's probably as gentle handed as I get [/quote]


I have gone through and picked out some good words of advice.. even masked words of warning and linked words to show exactly how the forum runs. I am the type of person that, for the most part, takes value from nearly everything. I enjoy being this type of person because even though I may lose my temper at one individual, there are a ton more that I can take from to replace the nonsense.

I fully intend on "soldiering on" through 600 if it is allowed for me to do so. I am trying to find my own way through all of this and sometimes things that come out in my head to sound right, don't always sound right or like anything to anyone else. I have accepted this as part of my learning process. Not everything that I have to say is going to be accepted. I came into the 600 club knowing this.I won't "run away" because I honestly feel that I DO have a lot to offer. I do have potential, it's just in the raw right now. Thus, the acceptance of said "beatings" from some of the other members here. Especially the ones that have been here for quite some time. Hopefully, I am allowed to continue my journey throughout the two forums I belong to as of the moment; 600 being one of them.
_________________________
I am a ghost.x
http://othermindx.blogspot.com

Top
#45268 - 12/19/10 05:57 PM Bible Bash [Re: ]
Aklo Offline
member


Registered: 08/03/10
Posts: 158
 Originally Posted By: MatthewJ1
And LaVey and his work must be addressed as well I think.

I suppose we are going to have to pick up the slack for ourselves, though. This looks to be as good a place to start as any:

 Originally Posted By: OrgasmicKarmatic
Taking from Jason King.. only the 1st percentile will understand.

When we look at LaVey's Bible with an objective eye, we can see that it has intentional wards around it to keep it from being easily accepted. Even once we get past its foreboding cover, the first real content after whichever preface, dedications and prologue are in your edition is a series of selections from Might is Right. These multi-level blasphemies, placed in the mouth of the Prince of Fire, are calculated to turn away not only Christians of any stripe but also the various atheists and agnostic humanists who are still so weak as to revere old JC as a "wise teacher" or "role model". Nine out of ten were afraid to touch the book; of those that did, another nine out of ten couldn't get past Redbeard.

But those that do cross the second ring-pass-not and reach Lucifer and his rainbow sheets are immediately subjected to a classical cold reading. They are told exactly what they want to hear for page after page, until their heads are nodding rhythmically and a few key ideas can be introduced which will serve as seeds to grow into what you see in the world now.

Once this is accomplished, the rest of the book consists of some examples and references suitable to justify the title for anyone who wants to get started experimenting with the ideas in a relatively safe environment. All in all, it has something for everyone, it satisfies those who study it, those who merely read it, and those who simply see it and shudder.

King's "Postmodern" offering takes a very different tack. It begins with a word cloud, followed by a long conversation with itself about how neat it is to go without an index, table of contents, or even paragraphing. While dense even here, it is at its most coherent at this point, addressing its transient purpose in the is to be:

 Originally Posted By: Jason King
Such are the hazards in
delivering a volume which aims to be
a complete introduction to a broad
approach to life, as is Satanism. And
yes, that is the purpose of this book.
“But wait,” you say, “wasn’t this
already done by one Anton Szandor
LaVey in his seminal The Satanic
Bible?” Indeed, Anton LaVey did
author the definitive work on modern
Satanism in 1969, but as the title of
this treatise makes evident, things
have moved beyond his particular
codification. And that, my friends, is a
big part of the viewpoint being offered
herein: nothing is ground in stone,
and everything progresses to that
which is better. Just as Anton
LaVey’s philosophy has been
superceded, so too will my own, for
such is the nature of the world. No
book has the power to codify reality
for all times and places, whether it be
called a Bible or not. Satanism must
be an energized philosophy instead of
a dogmatic one - I’d rather see people
who agree with me formulate their
own systematic analyses, instead of
quoting me like some authoritative
prophet or guru. Always keep in mind
the Satanic maxim: non serviam!
Somewhat related to this caveat is the
oxymoronic notion of the Satanic
group/church. Satanists should be
leaders, not followers, and the only
reason one would have to join a
group would be to achieve something
of value to the self, such as knowledge
or comradery. Short of such goals, all
a group can offer you is a dilution of
the very individualism which a
Satanist must exemplify. Perhaps the
biggest challenge for the Satanist
(given the nature of man as the “social
animal”) is the necessity of adopting
an approach towards society best
described as voluntary exile.

After a bit more ranting focused around some dude who betrayed the cause because his girlfriend got sick of the riff-raff or whatever, he proceeds to teaching his own style of yoga, which consists of sitting in a white room and then a black one. There are, reasons, of course.

Eventually he gets around to explaining that the universe is inherently predatory or "adversarial", that this quality of the universe must be personalized as "the Master", and that the works of everyone who contributed to our library are unnecessary and outmoded compared to his existential ramblings. For page after page after page, with some diagrams of your spine, the chakras, the tree of life, and whatever, overlapping circles.

Occasionally he breaks up the tide of text with lists of definitions, referred to as "the technology" for example. Though it sounds a bit like Scientology, there's no "space opera" mythology to break up the pressure, it's a continous stream of buzzwords and intellectual self-reflexion. While there may be much here for the person who has a solid grounding in philosophy and academia, I don't see any content that isn't to be found in a more appealing and / or useful form somewhere else.

So, which is more dangerous? Which will give more benefit to the reader? Which is more likely to be forgotten or never remembered to begin with? Which is more likely to be found in some kid's room after the deed was done?

These are rhetorical questions.

_________________________
Behold, I send you forth as wolves among sheep; eat Lambchop for supper and fuck Bo Peep!

Top
#45269 - 12/19/10 07:07 PM Re: Bible Bash [Re: Aklo]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
So, in essence, your biggest concern is that he considers his work better than Lavey's?

The blasphemy; let's burn his house down.

A secure person would shrug and move on.

D.

Top
#45276 - 12/19/10 10:57 PM Re: Bible Bash [Re: Diavolo]
Aklo Offline
member


Registered: 08/03/10
Posts: 158
Nope, my biggest concern left was that I've dealt with this piece from different angles for a couple of days without ever giving it a square review in context. I've rectified that now. I didn't create the context though, I'm just kind of queer about coming round to the topic again when I get my chance.

Do you ever play with dogs? They are funny animals. They will chase their own tails, bark at things that aren't there. You can get them to run after sticks that you don't actually throw! It's an interesting way to pass a dull hour, not only in itself but as an allegory for human society.

Now imagine those dogs were supposed to be in a debate, that they had ideas they supposedly cared about and needed to advance or defend. But that any little bit of confusion so upset them that they forgot their purpose altogether and simply bit at the air and whined. Wouldn't that be a hoot?

I will give you an example of what I'm talking about, just a little one.

 Originally Posted By: OrgasmicKarmatic
 Originally Posted By: Aklo
Assuming he were real, of course. Wouldn't that be hilarious?

Not to you, though. You would want to "service" him, have a nice "go around" to see if you could improve his "lack of follow". All of which would greatly amuse whichever mage has his hand up tdi's ass. I thought it was Jason at first, but now that I'm more familar with his work, I see that he doesn't have the sense of humor.


I assure you, TheDeadIdea, is certainly a real person. Someone I have conversed with on several occasions. Also, more intelligent than anything I have really seen come from you. If it's not one copy and paste warrior, it's another who fails to see the difference between real ignorance and those who are just fucking around with someone to see who has the thinnest skin. AKA Someone who knows how to take a J..OK...E. \:\)

What's the real difference in content, between what I'm saying, and what she's saying? Minus the insults, the substance of either version is that there's a real person back there trolling, putting on a "stupid" act, and she finds that person worth talking to while he enjoys playing with her. All the differences that I can see amount to style.

We run into this a lot in corporate Amerika don't we? If they bother the techs and demand answers, and get told their shit is fucked, they can't stand that. But once we send in a marketing goon to explain that what's really going on is, their excrement is copulated, well! That explains it! And they back off and let the work get done. It's a funny world, man.

The left wing in politics have become experts in this emphasis on style over substance. When Bill Clinton told us he could feel our pain, when he smiled and cared on camera, he was doing his job. When he spent a million dollars making Air Force One circle around while he got a haircut, that didn't detract at all from the wonderful job he was doing. Meanwhile in the background, some good things AND some bad things got done, and most people never noticed the difference.

That's one of the methods by which we are ruled. There are others. It's a good idea to learn them.

_________________________
Behold, I send you forth as wolves among sheep; eat Lambchop for supper and fuck Bo Peep!

Top
#45287 - 12/20/10 04:39 AM Re: Bible Bash [Re: Aklo]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
You know, my mother used to talk like this. I asked her what the weather was going to be and she starts to babble about unrelated stuff for 30 minutes resulting in me checking the newspaper.

D.

Top
#45291 - 12/20/10 07:54 AM Re: Bible Bash [Re: Aklo]
Jason King Offline
Banned/Martyrdom Denied
active member


Registered: 10/24/10
Posts: 731
Loc: 65?1%833Q!92A24 (It's a code)
 Originally Posted By: Aklo
After a bit more ranting focused around some dude who betrayed the cause because his girlfriend got sick of the riff-raff or whatever, he proceeds to teaching his own style of yoga, which consists of sitting in a white room and then a black one. There are, reasons, of course.

Eventually he gets around to explaining that the universe is inherently predatory or "adversarial", that this quality of the universe must be personalized as "the Master", and that the works of everyone who contributed to our library are unnecessary and outmoded compared to his existential ramblings. For page after page after page, with some diagrams of your spine, the chakras, the tree of life, and whatever, overlapping circles.

Occasionally he breaks up the tide of text with lists of definitions, referred to as "the technology" for example. Though it sounds a bit like Scientology, there's no "space opera" mythology to break up the pressure, it's a continous stream of buzzwords and intellectual self-reflexion. While there may be much here for the person who has a solid grounding in philosophy and academia, I don't see any content that isn't to be found in a more appealing and / or useful form somewhere else.

So, which is more dangerous? Which will give more benefit to the reader? Which is more likely to be forgotten or never remembered to begin with? Which is more likely to be found in some kid's room after the deed was done?

These are rhetorical questions.


I have yet to encounter a reader of Postmodern Satanism who truly loathed it, so for that I thank you sincerely. I find it insightful to consider the things you mentioned, and the context within which you did so. And the usages of quotes (some direct, some indirect) are also telling. For example, I never gave a definition of anything called "the technology". This is an obvious mis-remembrance which leads to a comparison with scientology, for whatever reasons that happen to be buried within the reviewer's psyche.

The way the small text on "Symmetry Break" was handled by the reviewer is also quite telling - "with some diagrams of [. . .]the tree of life, and whatever, overlapping circles". Clearly, this person could not find it within themselves to actually critique the idea at hand. Inaccuracies abound, such as "sitting in a black room," which completely misses the point of that section. A white room, yes. But the black meditation requires no "room" for reasons that would have been obvious to anyone who did any better than skim just so they could stand on a soapbox.

My favorite part of the review, if it can be so-called, is this: "While there may be much here for the person who has a solid grounding in philosophy and academia". That, oddly enough, sounds exactly like what I was going for, so maybe this wasn't a shitcanning after all.

Finally, to address the "rhetorical questions" given in closing:

the second and third (questions) await the judgment of history, and only time will tell. I see Satanism as a fluid thing, ever evolving. I don't see either work as ground in stone - that is the mistake made by the other side, and unfortunately it is too often reflected in our own. I hope both volumes will be ultimately remembered as relics of a time when Gnosis was scarce and mankind had no inkling of its true potential.

the first and last (questions) are silly. TSB has been in the possession of, and shown marked influence on many criminals. But I wouldn't say the has any relevance to what is actually presented in the volume. In "academia" this would be called a cum hoc fallacy.

JK
_________________________



Top
#45429 - 12/22/10 05:00 AM Re: Bible Bash [Re: Jason King]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3116
 Quote:
I have yet to encounter a reader of Postmodern Satanism who truly loathed it, so for that I thank you sincerely. I find it insightful to consider the things you mentioned, and the context within which you did so. And the usages of quotes (some direct, some indirect) are also telling.

Not that hard to understand actually. From what I've heard from your videos and the few quotes being used here, the ideas presented aren't that entirely new. Most of them are points almost any Satanist already made his mind up about and whom were already noted in the SB..

The only thing which seemed making it different are but your personal views and stance on certain subjects.



Edited by Dimitri (12/22/10 05:01 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#45432 - 12/22/10 06:24 AM Re: Bible Bash [Re: Dimitri]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I might be wrong but "From what I've heard" doesn't seem a good basis to criticize anything. I don't think it is even good enough to form an opinion.

All it is good for is the type of conversations housewives have at their tea-parties.

D.

Top
#45434 - 12/22/10 06:52 AM Re: Bible Bash [Re: Diavolo]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3116
But if the sentence has been read like it has been written then you'd noticed I was referring to his spoken videos and not so much from summarisation from a talk about a debate which was about...

Housewive conversations can be enlighting.. and hilarious.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#45441 - 12/22/10 10:43 AM Re: Bible Bash [Re: Dimitri]
Jason King Offline
Banned/Martyrdom Denied
active member


Registered: 10/24/10
Posts: 731
Loc: 65?1%833Q!92A24 (It's a code)
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
But if the sentence has been read like it has been written then you'd noticed I was referring to his spoken videos and not so much from summarisation from a talk about a debate which was about...

Housewive conversations can be enlighting.. and hilarious.


I kept the above quote unmolested for a reason (probably the unintentional humor, but who knows).

Seriously "Dimitri," you've been here, there, and literally everywhere looking for respect, and where has it gotten you? I don't even know who you are in any other media, but obviously you know me in several. The very fact that this is the case makes you something of a __________ (let your imagination work here). If you disliked, or had comments to offer on any of my videos, do it on YT. If I took your lunch money on MCoS, bring it there, where it might be relevant. But please, and I do mean please, stop being a butthurt Satanist wannabe. Questions, "Dimitri"?

JK
_________________________



Top
#45446 - 12/22/10 12:43 PM Re: Bible Bash [Re: Jason King]
mabon2010 Offline
member


Registered: 09/29/10
Posts: 259
Loc: The Commonwealth of Great Brit...
I refer to the original opening post of this thread.

The Satanic Bible is a book of philosophy, a hand book of how to approach this world, perhaps from a predator point of view.

I cast no judgements, but it is a book, just one of many ways of seeing and acting in the world.

There is a suggestion that some in Symbolic Satanism are disatisfied with the TSB, so they have built upon the foundation of Lavey's ideas, adding some floors. What is likely to happen is that like most philosophies the TSB ends up as a point of reference mixed with other philosophies.

Luciferians don't have a guiding source like the TSB provides, so we tend to be chaotic in forming our own philosophy, borrowing from all over the place.
_________________________
Monadic Luciferianism is a philosophy of life centered on self.

Top
#45447 - 12/22/10 12:57 PM Re: Bible Bash [Re: mabon2010]
Jason King Offline
Banned/Martyrdom Denied
active member


Registered: 10/24/10
Posts: 731
Loc: 65?1%833Q!92A24 (It's a code)
 Originally Posted By: mabon2010
[. . .}Luciferians don't have a guiding source like the TSB provides, so we tend to be chaotic in forming our own philosophy, borrowing from all over the place.


I'll bite.

According to Mabon2010, what are (at least) three defining characteristics of "luciferianism"? And you'll get extra points for each if they are defined in contrast to "Satanism".

JK

p.s., don't go overboard here. remember, less is more . . .
_________________________



Top
#45451 - 12/22/10 01:37 PM Re: Bible Bash [Re: Jason King]
mabon2010 Offline
member


Registered: 09/29/10
Posts: 259
Loc: The Commonwealth of Great Brit...
@ Jason King

A Luciferian:

1. worships no entity.
2. seeks self empowerment.
3. expresses the higher self rather than the beast in man.
_________________________
Monadic Luciferianism is a philosophy of life centered on self.

Top
#45452 - 12/22/10 01:51 PM Re: Bible Bash [Re: mabon2010]
Jason King Offline
Banned/Martyrdom Denied
active member


Registered: 10/24/10
Posts: 731
Loc: 65?1%833Q!92A24 (It's a code)
 Originally Posted By: mabon2010
@ Jason King

A Luciferian:

1. worships no entity.
2. seeks self empowerment.
3. expresses the higher self rather than the beast in man.


You got no points for contradistinction, but I'll give you a full 3 for brevity. These almost sound like a new version of "duck-billed platitudes," but whatever.

JK
_________________________



Top
Page 4 of 6 « First<23456>


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

Generated in 0.03 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.