Page 7 of 16 « First<56789>Last »
Topic Options
#49432 - 02/23/11 12:41 AM Re: Anton LaVey's Satanism is "outdated?" [Re: XiaoGui17]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



To Dear Xiao,

You are far too likeable to argue with over this whole modern/postmodern Satanism guff so I must concede.

You win!

P.S. Please post more often here at the 600C. Thank you.


Edited by MatthewJ1 (02/23/11 01:18 AM)
Edit Reason: Too much thinking on mod/post mod Satanism

Top
#49445 - 02/23/11 05:13 AM Re: Anton LaVey's Satanism is "outdated?" [Re: ]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1146
Loc: Amarillo, TX
That was a little too easy, but I'm relieved that I won't have to prepare another book in response. :P I considered discarding the post entirely halfway through, but then I figured I had put so much into it I may as well finish.

But thank you. \:\) I try not to post for the sake of posting, but to stick to when I actually have something to say. My activity correlates with the number of active and interesting threads, as well as how much spare time I have.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#49449 - 02/23/11 09:30 AM Re: Anton LaVey's Satanism is "outdated?" [Re: XiaoGui17]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17

Satanism is about thinking and evaluating ideas for oneself, not necessarily coming up with novel new ideas.


And that, along with several disparaging remarks I read about LaVey's work(s), was the impetus for starting this thread. There is nothing outdated in the core principles outlined in TSB, which speaks directly to taking the onus upon oneself. Those ideas are timeless, and the fact that LaVey drew inspiration from earlier texts only speaks to the truth of this. I can see how some might be off-put by the presentation as that was, indeed, a product of its time, but the core values remain relevant and perhaps even more so with each new generation.

 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17
I see Satanism as more about skepticism than originality.


Yes. Doubt is the underlying key. Doubt leads to exploration which leads to wider understanding(s). It's precisely the thing god didn't want to happen to men because it would cause them to have misgivings about his word (opposite of faith). And then, along came Eve, a child of his own creation, to send it all into turmoil. Or was she designed that way? ;\)

Disclaimer: To the retarded, I do not believe that bible stories are literal truth... being that they are widely known, they can occasionally serve as tools to make one's point.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#49464 - 02/23/11 02:46 PM Re: Anton LaVey's Satanism is "outdated?" [Re: Fnord]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
The question reminds me of a comic series called Slaine.



The underlying story in the first books was about the battle between the old horned god and Slaine. The old horned god refused to die when his seven year reign had ended and through “unnaturally” prolonging his life, slowly turned into a rotting infertile corpse, the very antithesis of what he was. Slaine could not do else but battle and destroy Slough Feg and his followers. Through this victory he became the new incarnation of the horned god, someone similar but new, but only for the seven year reign allowed. After that he embraced his necessary death.

D.


Edited by Diavolo (02/23/11 02:58 PM)

Top
#50052 - 02/27/11 08:42 PM Re: Anton LaVey's Satanism is "outdated?" [Re: XiaoGui17]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



To Xiao,

I have decided to respond to your post with one of my own, which you can assess and critique if you wish to. I think that is the more courteous approach than just saying you win! Most of this post will be in the form of quotes.

I believe you and others will be able to join the dots together in order to gain a vision of the larger picture.


In Relation to Hegesias’ Post, My Responses to his Post and Xiao’s Comments

“2) Postmodern Satanism never states that LaVey is trapped in the 60’s. It does state that LaVey’s philosophy is superceded, but it doesn’t attribute it to any particular time period.
3) Postmodern Satanism never denies that LaVey addressed the concept of re-evaluating all values.” Xiao 600C. 22/02/2011

“The word Satan and any connotations with past paradigms ought to be discarded soon as possible in ones mind and see what lies beneath the aestheticism and rectory faculties of the past, because Satanism is something else now being the same in concept—anti-contemporary society and re valuation of all values. Today's values being different to the 60's we must apply an adaptable mindset to Satanism.” Hegesias 600C. 21/02/2011

“To think that LaVey and his work is somehow trapped in the 1960’s and therefore superseded misses the point: LaVey was a man of the 1930’s and 1940’s – his ECI comes from that period of time.

The re-evaluation of all values is already addressed in LaVey’s work.

To discard the word Satan and any of its connotations with past paradigms means to discard Satanism itself.” MattJ1 600C. 22/02/2011


In Relation to LaVey and his Work as a Reaction to the Judeo-Christian System

“1) Postmodern Satanism never states that LaVey is only a reaction to the Judeo-Christian system. Xiao 600C. 22/02/2011

Postmodern Satanism is an attempt to offer a proactive vision of the Satanic philosophy, one which does not depend on the Judeo-Christian model for the interpretation of its labels. Now granted, this cannot be avoided entirely, given the historical development of the term "satan," however, it can be done ontologically, which is the entire point of the volume. LaVey was incapable of doing this, which is why I have moved beyond his reactionary model towards an understanding of the Adversary as an evolutionary hypostasis, rather than the "other team's bad guy". JK 600C. 16/12/2010

“When I use the term "reactionary" to determine the Satanic stance of Anton LaVey, I am not using it as a political descriptor (pace Aquino). What I am saying is that his "satan," and hence his Satan-ism is a reaction to Christian memes and mores.” JK 600C. 02/02/2011

“To think that the work of LaVey is only a reaction to the Judeo-Christian system is to fundamentally underestimate LaVey and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the wide variety of things he was into and insights he had to make.”
MattJ1 600C. 22/02/2011


In Relation to the Ontological and Ontological Adversarialism

“In short, Postmodern Satanism begins with the ontological realization that the world is adversarial to the core, i.e. Satanic.” JK 600C. 02/02/2011

“When I say "ontological adversarialism" (i.e. the Satanic Current) I am referring to how the world operates. Its mechanism for producing change and betterment. Lions hunt gazelles and gazelles elude lions. This process makes both the lion and the gazelle (or the surviving members of said species) stronger. THIS is the adversity. THIS is the Satanism.” JK 600C. 03/02/2011

“A claim may be raised that this Postmodern Satanism is about transcending the so - called limited and historically and culturally specific viewpoint of LaVey by articulating a new ontological position, but postmodern thought itself militates against the whole notion of objectivity, or universal truth. In which case how can one claim that the adversarial or that might is right constitutes a science of being, or essential, or core truth, or reality?” MattJ1 600C. 22/02/2011

“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…” – JK Postmodern Satanism (Provided by Xiao)

Satanism has been thought of as being synonymous with cruelty and brutality. This is so only because people are afraid to face the truth - and the truth is that human beings are not all benign or all loving.” LaVey TSB in relation to Love and Hate. (Provided by MattJ1)

“In this arid wilderness of steel and stone I raise up my voice that you may hear. To the East and to the West I beckon. To the North and to the South I show a sign
proclaiming: Death to the weakling, wealth to the strong!” quoting MIR. LaVey TSB (Provided by MattJ1)

There are a lot of Might is Right passages in the 'Book of Satan' that I could quote to show how Dr. LaVey’s thinking about this Satanic current ran.” Matt J1 600C. 3/02/2011


And Finally – the Modern/Postmodern Question in Postmodern Satanism

“On a more serious note I think any work which attempts to describe a postmodern Satanism is going to have to define its terms carefully and then position itself within the current modern/postmodern debate, or else set its own position and explain that position and how it differs from the current debate.

There should at least be some reference made to Baudrillard, Lyotard, Habermas, Jameson etc. and possibly the more prominent Post-Structuralist’s.

I am not sure whether JK has addressed these issues in his work, but I feel they must be addressed. And LaVey and his work must be addressed as well I think.” MattJ1 600C. 14/12/2010

“Just so further straw men are avoided, it should be clear that the usage of the designator "postmodern" is a reference to moving the idea of Satanism beyond the "modern" (i.e. LaVeyan), and NOT a reference to the school of thought so-called. The work defines itself, and attempts to baste it in the juices of unconnected philosophies is to fail to be truly critical of the thing in question.” JK 600C. 16/12/2010

“I would propose that myth and science are closer than many modernists are willing to admit.” JK Postmodern Satanism

“…it may be helpful to quote from W.V.O. Quine (a modern, even if deceased, analytical philosopher)…” JK Postmodern Satanism

“Both quotations are taken from Quine’s seminal essay “Two Dogmas of Empiricism,” one of the most foundational pieces in the modern philosophies of science and
mathematics. “ JK Postmodern Satanism

“However, my approach is colored by the very same postmodern spirit in which Quine’s observation is offered. To be precise, if there is no place within the modern mindset for Satan, then, like Zeus, Hermes, and Apollo, he becomes a flawed analytical posit. But on the other hand, if the mythic character of Satan presents relevance to the modern mind, then it seems justified to regard him as being just as valid a concept as the electron or the null set. And this is nothing more than a postmodern way of saying that Satan is real.” JK Postmodern Satanism.

The above last four quotes tend to suggest that the words modern and postmodern are being used in different ways in the book P.S.

Unfortunately, I feel that there is a great deal of confusion underlying this work Postmodern Satanism, but there is also an enormous potential here as well.

I definitely want to make more time to really read into this book to see what other things are there.

Cheers

Top
#50065 - 02/27/11 10:25 PM Re: Anton LaVey's Satanism is "outdated?" [Re: ]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1146
Loc: Amarillo, TX
First, thank you to Fnord whose post I did not see until just now. I'm not sure why that is. I'm glad I was able to express what you were getting at.

To MatthewJ1...

I can definitely see where you got 60's-limited from Hegesias's post, but if he considers himself a Postmodern Satanist, this is news to me.

You have a point about Jason King describing LaVey as a Judeo-Xian reaction. I hadn't seen that in Postmodern Satanism, but it's clear that King has asserted that. For some reason, in his book he's very diplomatic regarding LaVey, but on YouTube/forums he's a little more abrasive.

As for the meaning of "postmodern" in Postmodern Satanism, you've definitely demonstrated its different use.

I'll stand by my assertion that King's work has value, but I will note one particular bias of his. King tends to assume the popular is also the shallow, and prefers to develop deeper understandings of the obscure. As such, he tends not to see LaVey beyond the surface of popular perception. (I honestly think he does the same with Richard Dawkins.) I take his criticisms of popular figures with a grain of salt.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#50086 - 02/28/11 04:46 AM Re: Anton LaVey's Satanism is "outdated?" [Re: ]
nferno6 Offline
stranger


Registered: 02/27/11
Posts: 11
Loc: Sweden
Even if it was outdated, what could one add or take away from it?
It is and should be the common sense of any realistic satanist.
To any others who aspire to learn, it is the easiest teaching material available. (I doubt that common sense could be tought though) But I am from a small little country on the bottom of Africa, so for all I know there are hundreds of other books by now.
_________________________
Lost and alone on the road to the end
Look to the east and smile at the dark

Top
#50098 - 02/28/11 10:29 AM Re: Anton LaVey's Satanism is "outdated?" [Re: XiaoGui17]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17
King tends to assume the popular is also the shallow, and prefers to develop deeper understandings of the obscure. As such, he tends not to see LaVey beyond the surface of popular perception. (I honestly think he does the same with Richard Dawkins.) I take his criticisms of popular figures with a grain of salt.


And he is very right to see it as such. Popular is by definition created for, understood and accepted by the populus, and therefor does not have depth at all, since depth starts there where the popular ends. Mind you, one can still enjoy the popular but anyone considering it deep is by definition of a lower intelligence than the average man considering it obvious.

D.

Top
#50212 - 02/28/11 08:35 PM Re: Anton LaVey's Satanism is "outdated?" [Re: Diavolo]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1146
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
Popular is by definition created for, understood and accepted by the populus... (emphasis added)


Not necessarily. Sometimes things that were never intended to be popular nevertheless catch on in the crowd, due to misunderstanding caused by the crowd's shallowness. Sometimes fads cause people to like something for the sake of being 'cool,' without actually appreciating its full value. It reminds me of Transmetropolitan, in which Spider Jerusalem is incessantly pissed off that his work has become popular because he feels the major portion of his fans, despite their expressions of adoration, don't 'get' him.

I think of LaVey like that. Lots of people claim to like him, to the point that he could be considered 'popular,' at least among those who consider themselves Satanists. But what percentage of the folks who name LaVey as an influence actually understand what he had to say?
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#50213 - 02/28/11 08:51 PM Re: Anton LaVey's Satanism is "outdated?" [Re: XiaoGui17]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17
I think of LaVey like that. Lots of people claim to like him, to the point that he could be considered 'popular,' at least among those who consider themselves Satanists. But what percentage of the folks who name LaVey as an influence actually understand what he had to say?


Exactly.

It's been said that if Jesus returned, he wouldn't recognize Christianity... same thing with Anton LaVey. Look... the guy was larger than life when he was alive, and the myths and legends continued after he died. You see me here on the boards constantly telling people that what they've heard about LaVey isn't reality... was he a rock star... did he do drugs... any number of things. The reason people make up the silly crap about him is because they are trying in some way to glom on to his image and his cache. They take snippets of The Satanic Bible, perhaps a chapter name, and try to weave a whole life's story out of it and make everything LaVey ever said or did into some mysterious or inscrutable cypher.

LaVey's vision of Satanism isn't that hard to understand, and if you are of the same relative mindset, not that hard to accept. For some reason, people who can't fit the mold decide that they'll make the mold fit them and it'll be just the same. It's not. It's simply people afraid to say, "LaVey's Satanic Bible was good and interesting, but it just doesn't fit my life as completely as I would like." Still others will define their own values as far in left field as you can get from LaVey's and still, for some ungodly (pun intended) reason, still try to find a way to include him. Flattering, but wrong. The correct idea would be to say, "I'm a Satanist who believes that A +B = C, and while others may not agree, it's my core understanding of myself."

There's no crime in not agreeing with LaVey. There's only a crime against one's own sense of self to enslave themselves to an ideal they can't REALLY embrace. LaVey said a lot of things, and many of them work for ME... but I AM me. If they don't work for you... great. He wouldn't really give a rat's ass.

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


Top
#50226 - 03/01/11 02:20 AM Are LaVey's Core SB Principles Outdated? [Re: Fnord]
nocTifer Offline
pledge


Registered: 11/07/09
Posts: 87
Loc: Khazakstan
Hi Fnord,
 Originally Posted By: Fnord
...My primary interest in starting this thread {examining the basis for whether Anton LaVey's Satanism is 'outdated'} is to get very specific about what it is, in precise terms, that is out dated about Satanism as codified by Anton LaVey.
I was specific regarding 2 things: A) the SB as a magic book, and B) the Black Pope or his church as a Satanic authority. You additionally asked that we
 Originally Posted By: Fnord
...specifically cite examples of what is out dated about it (preferably examples from The Satanic Bible, but other works stem from that and so could be included in the discourse).

As this thread proceeds I notice a failure to cite anything interior to the Bible with any specificity as you have requested. My impression is that this primarily is a result of it containing insufficient substance, and being in sufficient disarray, as not to make too serious a treatment feasible. Secondarily, those who might have an interest in the task are either not up to it or the focus of analysis would be too insubstantial to warrant the effort. That said, I will make a preliminary attempt here prior to examining the effort by Chris Mathews as a service to Satanians. I will try to be unbiased in my evaluation, though surely some will be offended by my expressions.

 Originally Posted By: Fnord
...There is nothing outdated in the core principles outlined in TSB, which speaks directly to taking the onus upon oneself. Those ideas are timeless ...

I would be more convinced of this if some intellect from the Satanic subculture were able to sift out from the SB these 'core values' for examination. That nobody seems to have done an annotated version of the SB (see above in this thread), not even online(!) that I can see (compare the dearth of attention to Commentaries on Crowley's scripture by 'Thelemites' - appalling!), and that no such exegesis yet exists, some 50 years after its publication, is perhaps a testimony to its lack of importance as a document, or to the general low intellectual calibre associated to the cultus.

 Originally Posted By: Fnord
 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17
I see Satanism as more about skepticism than originality.
Yes. Doubt is the underlying key. Doubt leads to exploration which leads to wider understanding(s). ...
I'll try to keep this in mind as I proceed through its sections with a general evaluation. I grounded myself before ever coming to Satanist materials in philosophical, religious, and occult studies. I have owned and read several SBs, have read much of the literature on Satanism in both book and periodical form, have followed out secondary literature, and developed my own ideas separately and NOT in competition with Anton LaVey, Michael Aquino (the latter's Church of Satan was quite helpful to an understanding of the SB!), their successors or groups. During the 1980s and 1990s I contrasted this with moral panic literature which I also study, on into Y2K alarmism.

I'll make a very brief start on the SB, pinpointing outdated aspects and will attempt to identify core principles. The 'Underground Version' seems to be missing a a bit of text, so while I will ignore Introductions and Enochian Calls, I'll refer to my hard text and old notes concurrently.
  • Preface: "Here is Satanic thought from a truly Satanic point of view." Nice.
  • Prologue: It is arguable that there is no way to easily identify all of these 'demon gods of the past' with the left-hand path. One might criticize the repeated and persistent emphasis on light, sparks, and flames which a 'religion of the dark' might seem to rationally prioritize either in comparison or reaction (i.e. the outdatedness of some of its thematic symbolism).
  • Nine Statements: Identifying the rational limit to indulgence, the character of undefiled wisdom, the optimum time for vengeance, and any actualities there may be to spiritual and intellectual development, have proven troublesome for those who took these words to heart. Locking Satan into what Christianity calls 'sins' seems a reactionary and dated choice. Not having come from a Christian background, I cannot see that their embrace is so liberating (quite the opposite in the Satanist subculture).
  • Book of Satan, Infernal Diatribe: Its stark dualism and simplistic evaluation of religion (Christianity in particular) may set the proper context for the following rant, and yet this context is dated. Neopaganism, Dark Paganism, Demonolatry, and other alternatives to Christianity exist, and form a part of that of which Satanism was but a segment of reaction.

    For those of us who weren't raised with the demonizing of nonChristian religions, with testaments, a golden rule, ten commandments, see no reason for redemption, believe in no evil, have been subjected to no dogma, think of Jehovah as some invading warrior god, and have no interest in or understanding of whited sepulchers, this first section is of little use. If we proclaim that might is right, perhaps it serves to underscore this.

    Likewise the second, with its crucifix, prophets, creed, and enthroned lie, as it presents to us nothing new in its testing standard, so its religious detritus seems outdated.

    In its third, more than half of its verses are queries and not well-founded by mere implication. As for the last verses, they underscore an aggressive, hateful principle which some within the Satanist subculture find essential, identifying. Is its spiteful vengeance 'the Law of the Jungle'? Not as I was taught it. Is the supposed respect gained in carrying out this retribution 'in {their} brains and sinews' truly immortal as proclaimed? Hardly. That appeal to immortality, everlastingness, and enduring existence, are outdated also. We who do not fear death and are content with our lot and the influence we shall have in our lives need no principles of 'immortal spirits'. This is a mere displacement upon a greater lie - one that those such as I never bought.

    The fourth, while sound in its pronouncements upon the importance of the present, once more focusses upon Christian religious doctrines for its contrast. I never have understood who needs, or what the value is for, 'redemption', aside from the empty bottles that I 'delivered' to the corner store.

    The fifth is set in the form of the Sermon on the Mount, and therefore dated to those force-fed on its capitulations (I was not). Its 'vassals', 'Messiahs', 'lambs of God', 'righteousness' and 'eternal flame' ... "{dwelling} within the flesh of the Satanist!" are contextual to the Christian or post-Christian culture. Those such as I, had I not steeped myself in and made great effort to unravel the puzzles of these terms I found amongst the religious who seemed so odd and whom I curiously questioned, might never become familiar with what they mean or to what they relate.
Not even touching on 'the core principles'? Perhaps people get this far and determine its character is too anti-Christian or power-glorifying to be interesting or useful to them. Perhaps I'll continue in this thread to evaluate the SB. Maybe someone else will take on the Book of Lucifer. ;\)
_________________________
Troll Towelhead, Grand Mufti of Satanism
http://www.facebook.com/Tr0llT0welhead
http://www.gospel-of-satan.com

Top
#50230 - 03/01/11 02:49 AM Re: Are LaVey's Core SB Principles Outdated? [Re: nocTifer]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1146
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: nocTifer
That nobody seems to have done an annotated version of the SB (see above in this thread), not even online(!) that I can see (compare the dearth of attention to Commentaries on Crowley's scripture by 'Thelemites' - appalling!), and that no such exegesis yet exists, some 50 years after its publication, is perhaps a testimony to its lack of importance as a document, or to the general low intellectual calibre associated to the cultus.


Or, ya know, it might have something to do with it being pretty straightforward in the first place and needing little explanation. That, and those who need it explained to them probably aren't ever going to get it anyway. I'm jes' sayin'.

 Originally Posted By: nocTifer
Identifying the rational limit to indulgence, the character of undefiled wisdom, the optimum time for vengeance, and any actualities there may be to spiritual and intellectual development, have proven troublesome for those who took these words to heart.


Really? I hadn't had that hard of a time.

 Originally Posted By: nocTifer
Neopaganism, Dark Paganism, Demonolatry, and other alternatives to Christianity exist, and form a part of that of which Satanism was but a segment of reaction.


I'm pretty sure that omission wasn't an oversight.

 Originally Posted By: nocTifer
For those of us who weren't raised with the demonizing of nonChristian religions, with testaments, a golden rule, ten commandments, see no reason for redemption, believe in no evil, have been subjected to no dogma, think of Jehovah as some invading warrior god, and have no interest in or understanding of whited sepulchers, this first section is of little use.


I wasn't raised a Christian, but the ideas expressed in the Book of Satan are still invigorating to me. Slave morality pervades every corner of our culture, far beyond the Judeo-Christian paradigm. The idea that selflessness is virtue is widely accepted, even by non-Christians. Christian metaphor and imagery are useful in that they are commonly recognized, so much that New Testament analogies have now become common colloquialisms (blind leading the blind, pearls before swine, straight and narrow, beam in one's eye, etc).

Goodness forbid someone express himself effectively instead of obscurely. Crowley is deliberately esoteric--which is why he requires analysis and explanation. It's a convenient way to be if you want to be the final authority, because you can never contradict yourself if you've said nothing. LaVey is up front enough that anyone who's ready to hear what he has to say can understand without assistance. I'd hardly consider that a failure.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#50246 - 03/01/11 08:11 AM Re: Are LaVey's Core SB Principles Outdated? [Re: XiaoGui17]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3934
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
General response -

Satanism was born of it's time, a reaction the same way any other philosophy or religion, including Mr. Kings PS, is a reaction. Nothing is born in a void, and I would wager to say that if not for LaVeys work(and the Satanic subculture that was born of it), no posmodern Satanism, in the same way that if not for the judeo-xian culture of the early 20th century, no TSB.

Everything comes from the last thing(s), nothing is born in a void.

Satanism is a very distinct philosophy, and PS is distinct from THAT. Nothing is superseded, only a new audience catered to. Personally I am of the sort that still finds much value in LaVeys core ideas, and have developed my philosophy on top of them.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#50254 - 03/01/11 11:03 AM Re: Are LaVey's Core SB Principles Outdated? [Re: Dan_Dread]
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: Dan_Dread
General response -

Satanism was born of it's time, a reaction the same way any other philosophy or religion, including Mr. Kings PS, is a reaction. Nothing is born in a void, and I would wager to say that if not for LaVeys work(and the Satanic subculture that was born of it), no posmodern Satanism, in the same way that if not for the judeo-xian culture of the early 20th century, no TSB.

Everything comes from the last thing(s), nothing is born in a void.

Satanism is a very distinct philosophy, and PS is distinct from THAT. Nothing is superseded, only a new audience catered to. Personally I am of the sort that still finds much value in LaVeys core ideas, and have developed my philosophy on top of them.


You are correct to remark (as some guy did a few centuries ago) that there is nothing new under the sun. However, every sunrise brings novelty, which makes for a most interesting panorama. Hence, everything is superceded in a mere lifetime.

Dan, I'm only so good at reading the branching tree in it's lateral extensions, so I don't know if PS would never have occurred without LaVey. I do know that it never would've existed without Bloom, or some other "natural Satanist". LaVey is not that important in my development, honestly. I encountered him early in my life, but he struck me as an empty gong. At that point in my development, Crowley, GD, and the Simonomicon held far more promise.

I've grown up in the last twenty-plus years, but that relative valorization still pretty much holds (except for the fact that I've since substituted even better shit, I guess I did some Supercedin').

JK
_________________________



Top
#50255 - 03/01/11 11:27 AM Re: Anton LaVey's Satanism is "outdated?" [Re: XiaoGui17]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17
I think of LaVey like that. Lots of people claim to like him, to the point that he could be considered 'popular,' at least among those who consider themselves Satanists. But what percentage of the folks who name LaVey as an influence actually understand what he had to say?


That's besides the point. It is not because the dumb can't see the obvious, the obvious becomes deep.

Look, I'm not going to diss Lavey here or TSB, some here see it as valuable and if it is to them, who am I to disagree. Like Jake said; if it works, it's good. But the idea that TSB is deep or Lavey is a deep thinker is simply not true. To state it a bit blasphemous but it illustrates my point quite well; Lavey was a deep thinker in the same respect Mickey Mouse was a great actor.

There are parts of the SB or "mashed up" influences one can frown upon and wonder why the hell anyone would try to combine those. It claims being influenced by some thinkers but at the same time shows it didn't know them too well or only picked that what was fitting and disregarded anything conflicting.

Personally I don't think TSB was intended as a deep philosophical work and I also don't think Lavey had those qualities. It was a lighter work, more intended as amusement and such is many of those living by the philosophy. There's nothing wrong with it; they sure could do worse but it simply can't be considered deep.

D.

Top
Page 7 of 16 « First<56789>Last »


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

Generated in 0.027 seconds of which 0.003 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.