Page 8 of 16 « First<678910>Last »
Topic Options
#50258 - 03/01/11 12:08 PM Re: Are LaVey's Core SB Principles Outdated? [Re: nocTifer]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2573
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 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, 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.

The SB, SR. & CW all have fairly extensive analytical chapters to themselves in my Church of Satan. The obstacle to an annotated edition of any of these continues to be its copyright. By comparison, the Crowley copyright was so internationally disputed for so long that all sorts of reprints & annotated editions of his works appeared.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#50290 - 03/01/11 07:29 PM Re: Anton LaVey's Satanism is "outdated?" [Re: Diavolo]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



To Diavolo,

“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.” Xiao

“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.” Diavolo

I would argue that Nietzsche is in fact more popular than LaVey. I think you will find that more of Nietzsche’s books are sold than LaVey’s in a given year.

I would also argue that many more people are reading Nietzsche on college campuses than are reading LaVey.

I would also like to argue that Nietzsche isn’t really even a Satanist. Why? Because Nietzsche does not have a relationship with something called Satan, whether Satan is regarded as a symbol, or as a conscious entity, or as a principle or form etc.

I invite you to provide me with some quotes from Nietzsche works, where he talks about his relationship with Satan.

There is another reason why Nietzsche is not really a true Satanist in my eyes: he does not develop and engage in the religious ritualising and magical practice which is the hallmark of an aware and accomplished Satanist.

What is Nietzsche’s magical practice?

Nietzsche is an aspect of Satanism, his work is drawn on to build something greater, but he is not the great well spring of Satanism – LaVey is. He took the pieces of a jigsaw and then put it together and gave a name to a rare type of human being who has always been.

The real crux of this criticism of LaVey’s work though is, of course, his apparent “simplicity.” A book like The Satanic Bible is intended to be straight forward so a person can identify themselves as a Satanist, or not as a Satanist, and then can act accordingly with some sort of initial guidelines in place. But I personally think you need to take another look at LaVey’s total body of work and at the influences on his work (besides Nietzsche, please) to get a better grasp of his complete thoughts.

To Noc T,

I don’t understand your position.

You use names like NocTifer, or Nagasiva Yronwode and you apparently identify or have a relationship with Kali? Is that correct? I think I read that somewhere and listened to you on a program on The Ooze about it?

If so, then isn’t it also true that this Kali has come from a specific cultural context, a religious/philosophical tradition? Yes?

Why/how is this Kali and its cultural context or religious/philosophical tradition of more value than Satan and the cultural context or religious/philosophical from within which Satan emerged?

How can you deny one and affirm the other and justify that as legitimate, particularly given the fact that the Judeo-Christian system has had so much more impact on our western societies?

How/Why is TSB superseded, but any significant documents/treatises regarding Kali are not?

I honestly don’t think anybody has shown how The Satanic Bible or any of LaVey’s works have been superseded or outdated at all.

Top
#50299 - 03/02/11 12:06 AM Re: Anton LaVey's Satanism is "outdated?" [Re: ]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



One more post from me in this thread. I apologise if this post is perceived as a simple and obvious one.

I question the assumption that the most powerful message is the most complex message.

The more complex a message is the less people there are who are going to understand it; and the less people there are who can advocate it and explain it correctly.

Again, a complex message will tend to be more misunderstood and more misinterpreted then a simple and straight forward message.

Power and control (in my view) are primarily exercised in a society through messages which name and which define or classify, and which advocate a type of response or action.

Most people (I would argue) tend to believe that Satanist’s are devil worshippers, and many would argue that Satanist’s are criminals who engage in all sorts of illegal activities. Some people would attempt to advocate certain actions be taken against Satanist’s as a result of these claims.

How do you convince people that you are neither a criminal, nor a devil worshipper if this above definition offends you?

How do you explain what Satanism is, so people actually know why you call yourself a Satanist; how you see the world, and what your sets of values may be?

The more complex your message is, the more likely that it is wrong or is going to be misunderstood by both your opponents and even by your supporters.

The more complex your message is, the more likely that your opponents are going to take advantage of you by deliberately twisting and confusing your position so as to gain the support of others.

To have no definition is to desert the field and leave the enemy with a victory.

To rely on a complex definition which is more subject to possible error, misinterpretation and a lack of consensus is to potentially hand the enemy a weapon in their battle to define you and that label which you hold dear.

The Satanic Bible by Dr. LaVey is a simple straightforward book which I think adequately explains what Satanism is and what Satanism is not, and as such it can be relied upon when you need to explain your basic position. Or you can just say: look just read the book.

There is great power in clarity and simplicity in my view, particularly in the battle to explain your position against the enemy. This is one of the reasons why I like the book so much.

Top
#50300 - 03/02/11 12:08 AM Re: Anton LaVey's Satanism is "outdated?" [Re: Diavolo]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1139
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
But the idea that TSB is deep or Lavey is a deep thinker is simply not true...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.


I don’t think LaVey is especially deep--just deeper than one would initially think if they were to ask the kid at the local Hot Topic to comment on LaVey. I know he’s not exactly Schopenhauer, but there’s a little more to him than “I hate Jesus!”
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#50304 - 03/02/11 01:12 AM Re: Anton LaVey's Satanism is "outdated?" [Re: XiaoGui17]
Dave Pellani Offline
Banned. Moron.
pledge


Registered: 02/27/11
Posts: 66
Loc: Hawaii USA
I totally agree. Deep he is not, but intelligent, and crazy like fox. A prankster who loves to play with paradox and people's minds. Actually, what i really like about him is his blunt, straightforward, take no prisoners, no nonsense approach. It a little complicated, but that matches his personality. His message is rather simple. That is what baffles me, how this guy could be so misunderstood.

It just doesn't need to be that complicated. Lay it out, brief and to the point. It makes it much easier for the solitary practitioner. Eventually, one reads, studies, and then one must act and think for himself. I think LaVey lays the groundwork for that very well.
_________________________
Welcome To The Abyss

Top
#50306 - 03/02/11 02:12 AM Re: Anton LaVey's Satanism is "outdated?" [Re: Dave Pellani]
Hegesias Offline
active member


Registered: 02/16/11
Posts: 725
Bare in mind that LaVey was somebody that had not finished explaining things in his mind.

The consciousness does not define a persons depth it is the mirror between objective reality and our Will, desire, and our subjecture. Is perceptual depth what defines a persons depth? his/ her emotional depth? What is this depth you are talking about?

Complexity of character or transparency of character? does this define depth?

An intricate portrayal of a complex mind at work, is this depth? A simplistic portrayal with an object made clear, is this showing depth?

What is depth? The intensity of our mind and heart at the time of expression which is to be received by others?

Even the most complex philosophical thoughts will always stem from a base desire to think them, some of us trace back from complexity and may portray that which is closer to the cause of thought and feeling itself. This applies to Satanism because the root is the simplicity of ourselves, to discover ourselves and trace back from whichever abstractions we are at in the modern world to the source of ourselves—and all that which makes us carnal.

I'm not sure if anyone here was correlating depth with complexity but a deep person would either be they who never arrive at a conclusion always with a gravity towards the deeper meaning, they who also recognise the deeper meaning of things without the need to complicate or embellish these understandings, they are something which cannot be fathomed. Who are these deep people? No person can be understood fully, to think you know somebody is to render oneself conceited and this may be considered as a self rendered shallowness which is unnecessary.

Certainly, I do not consider myself more intelligent than others or deeper than others in any regard of emotional or philosophical terms but that I recognise there are those who are easily distracted from their own emotion, subjective thought, and objectives being tantalised by extrinsic comforts. Most people cannot concentrate on what is intrinsic in their own lives let alone ponder over somebody else's depth that they never even met or ever had a personal esoteric empathic link with.

What is depth? Certainly not anything which can be portrayed in an extrovert sense but something which only personalised contact can recognise? how can anyone assume they have reached the centre of another's dark soul... from reading a book.

However LaVey was just a man. Women are something else.

Insight and simplicity. Depth.
_________________________


Top
#50314 - 03/02/11 06:18 AM Re: Anton LaVey's Satanism is "outdated?" [Re: Hegesias]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3138
 Quote:
What is depth? Certainly not anything which can be portrayed in an extrovert sense but something which only personalised contact can recognise? how can anyone assume they have reached the centre of another's dark soul... from reading a book.

The depth of a persons writings and actions does not so much lie within the words and actions itself, but moreover the interpretation and continued thinking of the perceiver of these words and actions.

*While some may find great philosophical depths in LaVey, Myatt, Anton Long, Plato, Nietschze, Aristotles, Rand, Rabelais,....
Others just may find them dull, boring and childish rebels without a cause. It is only to those whose views are more or less in line with the other ones view that depth might be found. The factor of recognition and the ability to mirror ideas to ones own life and position is important to find depth.

*To those that think Anton LaVey's Satanism is outdated it is but an indication that their views might possibly be not in the same line as his. Agreed there might be given various facts like that it was written in the 60ies - 70ies and that a bit of the reactionary or social spirits are embedded along the lines etc...
But as in Satanism as I live it: take out the things which are of relevance and pay respects to those persons who enabeld to steer or helped to form the biggest part of your current views.


* These are more or less general responses and not really adressed to a person in particular.


Edited by Dimitri (03/02/11 06:20 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#50319 - 03/02/11 07:38 AM Re: Anton LaVey's Satanism is "outdated?" [Re: Dave Pellani]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1139
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: Dave Pellani
Actually, what i really like about him is his blunt, straightforward, take no prisoners, no nonsense approach... His message is rather simple. That is what baffles me, how this guy could be so misunderstood.

It's not so much hard to understand as it is hard to swallow. ;\)

Ayn Rand was the same way. One of the reasons Atlas Shrugged would break your toe if you dropped it is because Rand got sick of people misunderstanding her message. She made a point of driving her points into the ground, just to make darn sure it wasn't the slightest bit ambiguous...and people still missed the point.

People misinterpret TSB for the same reason they misinterpret the Bible: they don't match it, but they want it to match them.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#50322 - 03/02/11 09:34 AM Re: Anton LaVey's Satanism is "outdated?" [Re: XiaoGui17]
Autodidact Offline
member


Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 428
 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17
People misinterpret TSB for the same reason they misinterpret the Bible: they don't match it, but they want it to match them.


Very true. Being able to see things from a point of view not your own; being able to view reality objectively; being able to understand your view/opinions/beliefs may not be correct; being able to actually change them based on improvement or correction; these are all skills that many do not possess.

It's far, far easier and more comforting to mentally whitewash things that don't line up with your current reality tunnel.

A possible contributing factor, I understand, may also be that the skills generally bundled under "liberal arts" seem to have been declining in the teaching curriculum over time. If this is actually true (lots of hearsay, I have not verified myself), then new, young readers of TSB (or the Bible, for that matter) will have less ability to think critically about it, less experience to compare it with, and less of humanity's great literature (much of which deals with human nature) to verify with.
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

Top
#50324 - 03/02/11 10:55 AM Re: Anton LaVey's Satanism is "outdated?" [Re: Autodidact]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
General Response regarding depth:

I think as far as Satanism is concerned, it's up to the individual to apply the basics and create the depth for themselves (Satanism demands study). Too much framework means too much prescribed dogma and at some point someone is gonna have to make some shit up to fill in the blanks to make it more widely palatable (i.e. every other religion on the planet).

Satanism, i.e. TSB, doesn't attempt to establish itself as a rule book, but is rather an observation of truth that often flies in the face of conventional wisdom (RHP stuff).

At its core it's an observation of the human animal with the false covers stripped off.

If it were any more 'in depth' it might serve to do folks thinkin' for 'em (which would be markedly un-Satanic).
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#50325 - 03/02/11 11:24 AM Re: Anton LaVey's Satanism is "outdated?" [Re: ]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: MatthewJ1
I would argue that Nietzsche is in fact more popular than LaVey. I think you will find that more of Nietzsche’s books are sold than LaVey’s in a given year.

I would also argue that many more people are reading Nietzsche on college campuses than are reading LaVey.

I would also like to argue that Nietzsche isn’t really even a Satanist. Why? Because Nietzsche does not have a relationship with something called Satan, whether Satan is regarded as a symbol, or as a conscious entity, or as a principle or form etc.

I invite you to provide me with some quotes from Nietzsche works, where he talks about his relationship with Satan.

There is another reason why Nietzsche is not really a true Satanist in my eyes: he does not develop and engage in the religious ritualising and magical practice which is the hallmark of an aware and accomplished Satanist.

What is Nietzsche’s magical practice?

Nietzsche is an aspect of Satanism, his work is drawn on to build something greater, but he is not the great well spring of Satanism – LaVey is. He took the pieces of a jigsaw and then put it together and gave a name to a rare type of human being who has always been.

The real crux of this criticism of LaVey’s work though is, of course, his apparent “simplicity.” A book like The Satanic Bible is intended to be straight forward so a person can identify themselves as a Satanist, or not as a Satanist, and then can act accordingly with some sort of initial guidelines in place. But I personally think you need to take another look at LaVey’s total body of work and at the influences on his work (besides Nietzsche, please) to get a better grasp of his complete thoughts.


Being popular implies, in my book, suited or intended for the masses and even when some might vehemently disagree, that is exactly what TSB is. Nietzsche I would not really consider as such. The fact that the masses don't embrace TSB doesn't change the fact that it is written at their level and in their tongue. It is a book for the average person, with this implying someone having an average understanding or average level of knowledge. Of course, as such, it is an ideal introduction to proceed from, but as ever, introductions just introduce. If people consider TSB deep, I seriously wonder what else they read.

I don't think I ever said Nietzsche was a satanist but when looking at his ideas, one can't deny he was more satanic than most other satanic spearheads. He took it to the level it is supposed to be and didn't stop where it got hot. If there is one satanic master out there, it is Freddy. Of course he never considered himself as such and his magical practice, well let's not get into that. As is well known, I find magic a tool for the weak and the greater it gets, the weaker it appears. Not intending to insult anyone but I can't look at it without thinking; go out there and get your hands dirty instead of praying in a funny manner.

Of course when it solely resides in the realm of amusement or personal exploration, I am not bothered at all. Then it's almost action-meditation. Even when that's not my thing, I can see the value it can have to others.

I have taken enough looks at Lavey's work and it doesn't change my opinion; it is not for me. If it is the thing others prefer, have a go at it, but don't try to convince me it is the Best of the West. I don't see that.

Btw, the fact that you ask if Nietzsche ever called himself a satanist, makes me wonder if you consider Satanism solely a matter of labeling and as such, begs the question if you think satanists ever existed before TSB.

D.

Top
#50327 - 03/02/11 11:31 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 don’t think LaVey is especially deep--just deeper than one would initially think if they were to ask the kid at the local Hot Topic to comment on LaVey. I know he’s not exactly Schopenhauer, but there’s a little more to him than “I hate Jesus!”


Mind you, I think Lavey was excellent at what he did and what he created was a darn great product. I'm not arguing that or him.

It's like thinking "Rambo" is a great movie; there is nothing wrong with it but when people start to say "Rambo" is about the deepest philosophical cinema there is, others will say "oh really?"

Of course the typical Hot Topic Teen will not know much about Lavey or understand it, often not because he doesn't get it but because all he knows about it are some fragments or second hand information. Reading books isn't what many consider a fruitful pastime any longer. But the same goes for Nietzsche; I'd bet of all satanists wielding the inevitable Nietzsche quotes or parts, only a minority has read or is reasonable familiar with his ideas.

D.

Top
#50329 - 03/02/11 12:30 PM Re: Anton LaVey's Satanism is "outdated?" [Re: ]
Autodidact Offline
member


Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 428
 Originally Posted By: MatthewJ1
Power and control (in my view) are primarily exercised in a society through messages which name and which define or classify, and which advocate a type of response or action.

Most people (I would argue) tend to believe that Satanist’s are devil worshippers, and many would argue that Satanist’s are criminals who engage in all sorts of illegal activities. Some people would attempt to advocate certain actions be taken against Satanist’s as a result of these claims.

How do you convince people that you are neither a criminal, nor a devil worshipper if this above definition offends you?

How do you explain what Satanism is, so people actually know why you call yourself a Satanist; how you see the world, and what your sets of values may be?


Communication has at least two processes, transmitting and receiving. The receiver filters the message through their current world view/understanding/beliefs/etc.

As you said, most people as the receiver believe Satanists are devil worshipers and criminals. When you tell them you are a Satanist, what do you suppose is the mental model they're going to immediately jump to?

To do so is to start behind; for those who work solely on their own belief or understanding, it is to have already lost the discussion, as they have already permanently classified you. For all others, it's an uphill battle just to get back level, because you are not using the same vocabulary - "Satanist" means two different things.

If communicating to someone else (not a Satanist) your beliefs and philosophies is really that important, leave the word "Satanist" until the end of the discussion - it'll save you both a lot of time.
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

Top
#50342 - 03/02/11 03:54 PM Re: Anton LaVey's Satanism is "outdated?" [Re: Diavolo]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1139
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
Of course the typical Hot Topic Teen will not know much about Lavey or understand it, often not because he doesn't get it but because all he knows about it are some fragments or second hand information. Reading books isn't what many consider a fruitful pastime any longer. But the same goes for Nietzsche; I'd bet of all satanists wielding the inevitable Nietzsche quotes or parts, only a minority has read or is reasonable familiar with his ideas.


Quite true. I knew a guy who (on his MySpace page) listed some of his favorite authors as Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, and Herman Melville. Turns out, he hadn't read any of them; he picked up the reading list from Tupac and copy-pasted it onto his profile. He also had a (bad, cheaply done) tattoo of Nefertiti on his chest (because Tupac did), but he couldn't even recall her name, much less her significance.

Sometimes people will name-drop anything if they think it will help them look cool/get laid...
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#50343 - 03/02/11 05:06 PM Re: Anton LaVey's Satanism is "outdated?" [Re: XiaoGui17]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17

Sometimes people will name-drop anything if they think it will help them look cool/get laid...


Hey, baby... Thomas Jefferson. George Washington. Colonel Sanders. Barney the Dinosaur. Are you horny yet???
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
Page 8 of 16 « First<678910>Last »


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

Generated in 0.032 seconds of which 0.004 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.