Page 2 of 2 <12
Topic Options
#55252 - 05/31/11 11:12 AM Re: Nobody is a mover, shaker or authority in the LHP [Re: MattVanSickle84]
Ghostly1 Offline
member


Registered: 04/10/11
Posts: 147
Loc: NY
I am gathering then you wish to unite Satanists under one political banner? A collaboration of sorts to further a LHP agenda?

Anton knew this would be futile and he even said so in TSB. If you put 100 Satanists of the garden variety in a room and asked them to come up with a consensus 90 of them might be in the process of killing one another for a myriad of reasons. I dont think there can be a collective political body of the Left Hand simply because of the lack of altruism among its members. With the decidedly independent mindset so many of us have, you would be hard pressed to find more then a few who would be willing to undertake such a task. Even more so to have an openly Satanic or otherwise political candidate. This has been mentioned on other threads here that I have read.

Having a collective of Anarchists planning a political coup is sort of self defeating by which I mean all the anarchistic media I have read has been totally against rigid political parties and governments in general. My definition of anarchistic could be too broad as well.

 Quote:
There is almost nothing in common with the idea of "all men created equal" which fuels a collectivist mindset and equal rights or opportunities. The only connection is the use of the adjective "equal". What I am advocating is the latter: meritocracy, the much-maligned concept that some can do things "better" (the word is vague, I know) than others. This can only be achieved on a level playing field.


This sentiment screams "Stratification" to me. We may all start out as unlearned, small pink infants but somewhere DNA kicks in, as does the environment for growth and education. Someone with better opportunities will fare better then someone who has none and must fend for themselves. But the smarter of the two, lets say the poorer can still outmatch their supposed rival despite the handouts. This still spells out stratification in my mind. The personal pursuit for growth.

"But whatever the solution to this perceived contradiction, need not entail the complete eradication of cooperation or the concept of solidarity..."

Those who have, pay those that dont to work for them. Whether its a common goal like a roadway, or a bridge the commonality of the endeavor overshadows the personal reasons each agreed to take on the work. The Boss sees profits for the project, and the employees see a paycheck. Both are under mutual terms and that seems to suffice for most circumstances. I apologize for reading into that sentence specifically.
_________________________
Become a force of nature.

Top
#55253 - 05/31/11 11:14 AM Re: Nobody is a mover, shaker or authority in the LHP [Re: MattVanSickle84]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Hierarchy is a very sensitive subject in Satanism which directly triggers aversion. It is strange since Satanism differs from most others by accepting we are just another animal and even when being different than other animals, nothing about us is special or divine. And exactly there one finds our natural drive towards hierarchy.

The moment humans interact, or inhabit the same environment, hierarchies appear and it isn't because we think we are not part of them, or even outright reject them, that they are not there, or do not control us. It is all about power and if you'd observe any human environment, you'll notice who has power and who has not. It doesn't matter if they use of abuse it, or if one validates it or not; the fact that they have reveals the hierarchy and what rank one holds in it. Hierarchy can only be avoided through solitude. Anarchism, even when charming as an idea, exists only in people's minds; to make it function a pure egalitarian society has to be constructed, inhabited by purely identical people and even then, probability will mess it up.

When grouping, we can't work around hierarchy, we even shouldn't. Groups have power since they enlarge the collective Will to Power exponentially but at the same time they increase the vulnerabilities which can and will be exploited by the individual Will to Power. The larger and more powerful the group, the greater the odds inner exploitation will happen.

That is the price to pay for human cooperation.

D.

Top
#55256 - 05/31/11 11:36 AM Re: Nobody is a mover, shaker or authority in the LHP [Re: Ghostly1]
MattVanSickle84 Offline
stranger


Registered: 05/23/11
Posts: 42
Loc: London, UK
"I am gathering then you wish to unite Satanists under one political banner? A collaboration of sorts to further a LHP agenda?"

I fail to see how anyone could deduce that from what I have written on this post or anywhere else on this forum (where you will also notice my disdain for other LHP groups).

I have explicitly asserted the opposite of what you are accusing me of, if you care to read the rest of the post that you have been selectively quoting from.

Did I not write, in the very same post, in plain English:

"I view my own Satanism as I view all religions: as a personal pursuit and not a public one. This would be why I have never joined a Satanic organisation (a contradiction in terms in my opinion), why I never will and why it has taken me 12 years even to join an online forum!"

Also, If you are going to invoke the written arguments of another individual in attacking arguments I did not make, namely Dr. LaVey, please provide the relevant passage from the relevant book (in this case The Satanic Bible).

Go back and read it again, preferably in it's entirety, and please do not manipulate my arguments a second time. I have better things to be doing.
_________________________

The mind is its own place, and in itself

Can make a heav'n of hell, a hell of heav'n.

Top
#55259 - 05/31/11 12:10 PM Re: Nobody is a mover, shaker or authority in the LHP [Re: MattVanSickle84]
MattVanSickle84 Offline
stranger


Registered: 05/23/11
Posts: 42
Loc: London, UK
I've just realised that the wording in one of my own posts is potentially objectionable.

I said, in the context of my impressions of this group, since joining: "I'm very glad I did by the way but, anecdotally, most of the Satanist I've come across have been dunces. Not so here, obviously."

I meant that as: literally not so on this forum, not just in regard to who I was responding to. I would not like dismiss the members of this forum so prematurely and in such a manner.

Thanks.

M V-S
_________________________

The mind is its own place, and in itself

Can make a heav'n of hell, a hell of heav'n.

Top
#55370 - 06/01/11 10:29 PM Re: Nobody is a mover, shaker or authority in the LHP [Re: MattVanSickle84]
Ghostly1 Offline
member


Registered: 04/10/11
Posts: 147
Loc: NY
The questions you speak of weren't posted as accusation. They were actual questions, directed at you...simply because possibly, my time was limited and I didnt have the time to read every single post in this thread.

Ive read the Satanic Bible, and Anton LaVey's other books more times than you would give me credit for. I wasn't aware it was a requirement to have them all memorized. Mistakes will be made.

As for accusations...if Im to accuse anyone of anything I wont sugar coat it.
_________________________
Become a force of nature.

Top
#55371 - 06/01/11 10:54 PM Re: Nobody is a mover, shaker or authority in the LHP [Re: Ghostly1]
MattVanSickle84 Offline
stranger


Registered: 05/23/11
Posts: 42
Loc: London, UK
I didn't mean that I wanted you to re-read The Satanic Bible (and I would never suggest memorising it, and nowhere have I. That's called fundamentalism.). I meant that you should re-read my post since you seem to have deduced from it that I was advocating something that is the exact opposite of what I had written in it.

They were pointless questions and the answers had been addressed extensively in what I posted.

No doubt you have read the Satanic Bible many times. I would be surprised if someone in a Satanism group hadn't. But I don't know where in it he discussed the specific topics that I was, so if they are in there, by all means let me know where. It might clarify. It also might not, and I wouldn't defer to that book on every question.

That would be stupid indeed.

M V-S
_________________________

The mind is its own place, and in itself

Can make a heav'n of hell, a hell of heav'n.

Top
#55420 - 06/02/11 07:13 PM Re: Nobody is a mover, shaker or authority in the LHP [Re: MattVanSickle84]
Zophos Offline
member


Registered: 03/28/10
Posts: 115
Loc: U.S.A.
MattVanSickle84:

 Quote:
Thank you for offering such a considered rebuttal Zophos, I hope I can do it justice.

My response was intended more as a clarification than a rebuttal, but I appreciate the compliment. As you said, there is a reasonable degree of consensus between us, but on the evidence of your responses, most of your interpretations seem not to square with my own points.


 Quote:
I do wonder though, whether you have read what I wrote as an appraisal of the concept hierarchy in and of itself. That I have not done so is manifestly obvious and I have been careful to highlight contradiction or instances of possible false dichotomies and popular fallacy.

To your indirect question I would respond in the negative; quite honestly, I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion based on my words. In the first place, my sole mention of hierarchy was in the much larger context of group organization in general, making it clear that hierarchy as such was a subject of only peripheral interest, and in the second, I made explicit note of "instances of possible false dichotomies and popular fallacy" myself by pointing out the inherent challenge of my points to "the hasty acceptance of received sentiment about the incompatibility of nonconformists and groups, and about the conditions under which they 'must' work to survive." There seems to be no room for the ambiguity you adduce.


 Quote:
I am going to take this into the realm of political ideas which are extremely similar in terms of the organisational and underlying ideological aspects.

I believe I already did that by invoking social contract theory and mentioning the relevance of David Gauthier in my last post. That isn't to inhibit you from discussing your own ideas in the context of politics if you wish, but rather to express concern that you have not understood what I've said. You seem to be suggesting that there was no previous attempt to "take this into the realm of political ideas," which is plainly contradicted by the central importance of political concepts to the points I last raised.


 Quote:
I am persuaded by many an individualist argument whether political or in an aesthetic sense (like Baudelaire or Wilde) and yet I realise that to be completely autonomous, and self-interested can be tantamount to the pathology of the sociopath.

If by "completely" you mean "exclusively," in the narrow sense that one is so self-interested that cherishing anyone else is impossible, you are indeed describing antisocial personality disorder.* Consequently, though self-interest is certainly at its core, I would not describe such a state as being predicated on autonomy in any meaningful way. The psychopath (see below) does not choose to be one, and very often, through nigh-total irresponsibility, violent tendencies, and an inability to learn from mistakes, acts in ways that are as destructive to him- or herself as they are to other people. "Complete" (or "well-rounded" if you like) self-interest would take these destructive consequences into account and seek to minimize them rather than, as Rita Mae Brown famously described insanity, "doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results." (The common attribution to Einstein is false.) The distinction between psychopathy and rational self-interest is one of kind, not degree.

*Given that your focus is on affective temperament, it seems useful here to rely on the officially obsolete term "psychopath" as employed by experts Robert D. Hare, James R. Blair, and Ralph C. Serin, since its criteria distinguish it from the much broader and less predictive basis of outward behavior alone. Debate continues on whether or not psychopathy per these criteria should be considered a separate diagnosis.


 Quote:
The concept you've discussed as self-interested cohesion, and which I have heard others refer to as enlightened self interest, is an important one because inherent in it is the idea of equality of opportunity, something which seems at first glance (to some) to be totally out of step with Satanism. It isn't remotely.

Alexis de Tocqueville's concept of enlightened self-interest, while related, is distinct from self-interested cohesion, and may occur prior to, following, or independently of it. A collection of students working daily but independently in a library is a clear example. Light conversations and research-oriented discussions may come and go among them, but each student has his or her own specific reasons for being there, and no effort has been made (let us suppose) to form a fixed group; nor is there practical impetus to do so. They may be called a group only insofar as the term refers to a mathematical set of individuals.

I should stress that, despite its use, the term "self-interest cohesion" is not especially significant in itself, but only insofar as it describes the "ground state" of self-interested individuals in contrast to (and as a precondition of) active cooperation.


 Quote:
What I am advocating is the latter: meritocracy, the much-maligned concept that some can do things "better" (the word is vague, I know) than others. This can only be achieved on a level playing field.

While it is possible, as you seem to do elsewhere, to claim that meritocracy may be best or most transparently achieved "on a level playing field," your assertion here that it is the only way is manifestly false.

This semantic quibble aside, it nevertheless points to the most serious defect in your position, if I understand your meaning correctly. While basic rights and equal status before the law are necessary for a free and secular government (more below in my response to Diavolo), the dream of equal opportunity in the sense of a "level playing field" is completely nonsensical. Please clarify and explain your position so that I can be sure before taking the time to respond.


 Quote:
In all honesty I personally care very little how Satanists organise or how cats are herded (and to me that analogy is about independence of mind and not individualist autonomy or anything so significant and the rats thing isn't my own creation nor does it represent my views, just food for thought.)

If the topics of self-interested human interaction and their relevance to Satanism are of no interest to you, why did you respond to my post at all, and why have you continued to waste your own time by discussing them here?

The fact that you furthermore draw a dichotomy between personal autonomy and independence of mind reinforces my suspicion that, as Morgan put it simply in another post, you sometimes "don't pick up on nuances."



Diavolo:

 Quote:
Hierarchy is a very sensitive subject in Satanism which directly triggers aversion. It is strange since Satanism differs from most others by accepting we are just another animal and even when being different than other animals, nothing about us is special or divine.

Ironic, isn't it? While there is no proof I can offer, my personal conjecture is that the aversion you describe is driven by a personal fear, often unacknowledged and even more often unrecognized, of being forced to put money to mouth in physical reality.

In his major work, A Theory of Justice, American political philosopher John Rawls famously argued for a "justice of fairness" based on his concept of the "original position," a hypothetical state in which the individual, assuming no qualities about him- or herself (the "veil of ignorance"), should evaluate principles of justice. As a heuristic device and rule of thumb, the original position would (he claimed) allow one to see the need for a social system that maximizes fairness to all both legally and economically, since no self-interested person would create a system in which he or she would be impoverished, ignored, coerced, or discriminated against.

The virtues and numerous flaws of this argument are not important here. Considered as a purely descriptive model of what people do rather than a normative claim of what they should do, however, Rawls aptly puts his finger on the very real necessity of both a numinous unknown and a primal fear of that unknown to the viability of egalitarianism. For his ethical system to make sense, the subject must first expel all objects of value and attributes of personhood and, fearing the possibility of systems that would be self-detrimental, construct a framework of justice to obviate these potential sources of fear. Likewise, it is my own opinion that, for all their pretensions and rhetoric about hierarchical stratification, people at large (including most self-proclaimed Satanists) are hostile to their own knowledge or fear of mediocrity, if not outright incompetence, in their own chosen vocations (loosely defined) and spheres of activity. The idea that their inward quality might be reflected in an outward form, even if not practically realizable, is enough to instill paralyzing fear—in sum, they are terrified of being found out.


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

Top
#55423 - 06/02/11 10:55 PM Re: Nobody is a mover, shaker or authority in the LHP [Re: Zophos]
MattVanSickle84 Offline
stranger


Registered: 05/23/11
Posts: 42
Loc: London, UK
Zophos, I can see that in pressing my own arguments I have failed to address adequately and specifically the ideas you have mentioned and you have quite correctly pointed this out. I have read between the lines which is an insult to the lines themselves and I apologise for this. I will stick to the specifics in attempting to address them more adequately. I will also try to clarify the content of some of my previous points and any of your own that I may have skirted over.

From your posts I see that you're certainly a wiser man than myself, more analytical, and I can see you have put more thought into these particular matters than I. As an artist, I find that words come secondarily to images with me and quite often the point is lost in the styling of the point, this could explain a possible aversion to more nuanced offerings!

It's quite likely that disagreements will remain but neither of us is looking for reinforcement I'm sure and you seem resolute in your positions. In reverse order:

When I say that I personally care very little about how Satanists organise I mean this literally. It has no baring on my own conduct. I should mention that this in not meant in relation to this group, however I would consider myself a contributor and nothing more. I understand that there are 600 Club members and moderators that may have an interest in organising. That's fine and I respect it.

But to me the thought of being an "active" Satanist or part of a group of Satanists is anathema. I don't approve of organised religion of which that could be considered a form (albeit on an entirely different level). This is not a hostile position, It's no different to me than when a friend invites me to a football game. No thanks, no harm done and no malicious intent. Just not my thing. This doesn't mean I'm not interested in discussing it, I'm very interested in discussing many things, some of which I have no personal stake in. I don't consider that a waste of my time in any way. This is why I have responded to your posts and why I do now.

I would still draw a distinction between personal autonomy and independence of mind. I don't see them as the same, but as distinct in that one implies action, the other does not. I conceded the point about missing nuances generally, but not here. Hairsplitting perhaps but that would not constitute not picking up on nuances, quite the opposite.

You could be right about the origins of meritocracy being not only achievable on a level playing field, I know of no other way of achieving this and would be very interested to hear more from you on this, if you would indulge me or point me to another thread.

I agree that the concepts of "self-interested cohesion" and "enlightened self interest" are related but distinct, I would imagine that the latter would precede the former, which to me implies more specifically the acknowledgement of others, but this is intuitive on my part and there is little difference in the outcome, if any.

As to my point about sociopathy, you may take "completely" to mean "exclusively". I was pointing out a popular leftist observation that is erroneously applied to political forms of individualism such as Thatcherism. You may be aware of her comments about the non-existence of "society". I don't agree with this. One thing to add to this point is to say that (at a stretch) it is conceivable that the cognition of a sociopath and, say, an Objectivist could manifest the same behaviour. I highly doubt this myself and would personally find that to be quite an obscene assertion. I have heard similar sentiments from leftist friends and often.

I did not mean to imply that you had not addressed political ideas in your previous post and will be doing some research on Gaulthier, whose ideas I am not familiar with. I have come across game theory but am not well-read on the subject so I will have to come back to you on this point at a later date.

The point about highlighting fallacious contradictions is an example of my over enthusiasm in projecting my own intentions and missing or ignoring similar points that you had also made along the same lines, again apologies for this.

The point of agreement then, is that cooperation is the appropriate way in which Satanists should organise and this is achieved through voluntary consent. The point of departure is that you seem to be asserting that this as the only desirable form of action, even obligatory, for those of a Satanic mindset and I do not. My reasons for this are based upon a personal disinterest, perhaps a suspicion of group behaviour whether voluntary or not.

Thanks

M V-S
_________________________

The mind is its own place, and in itself

Can make a heav'n of hell, a hell of heav'n.

Top
#55427 - 06/03/11 05:45 AM Re: Nobody is a mover, shaker or authority in the LHP [Re: Zophos]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Zophos
While there is no proof I can offer, my personal conjecture is that the aversion you describe is driven by a personal fear, often unacknowledged and even more often unrecognized, of being forced to put money to mouth in physical reality.


I think the rejection of or opposition toward hierarchy in Satanism, at least to those that rank higher, arises, ironically, from the same “drive” that makes hierarchy itself manifest. In rejecting hierarchy, one places oneself not outside but above it and this creates an illusion of dominance. Animals express their WtP rather direct but in humans it doesn't seem to matter whether one's dominance is established in reality, or in an abstractness. As such, an ascetic hermit will still express his WtP over others. “Us vs Them”, a rather familiar human theme, builds upon the same and when acknowledging real world hierarchy, one simultaneously and unavoidably compromises one's ranking in the abstract.

There might be a fear factor involved since lower hierarchical positions increase the odds for exploitation but I consider the drive itself more of a factor than the fear related.

D.

Top
#55457 - 06/03/11 09:13 PM Re: Nobody is a mover, shaker or authority in the LHP [Re: MattVanSickle84]
Zophos Offline
member


Registered: 03/28/10
Posts: 115
Loc: U.S.A.
MattVanSickle84:

 Quote:
In reverse order:

"If I help you, Clarice, it will be 'turns' with us too. Quid pro quo."


 Quote:
When I say that I personally care very little about how Satanists organise I mean this literally. It has no baring on my own conduct. I should mention that this in not meant in relation to this group, however I would consider myself a contributor and nothing more. I understand that there are 600 Club members and moderators that may have an interest in organising. That's fine and I respect it.

That is only tangentially relevant to what I asked. My simple point was that if you have no interest in how consciously self-interested human beings (Satanists or not) cooperate—and I here pause to remind you that the topic was opened with your own comments on an image I posted to illustrate what I thought was a simple point—then wasting your time by continuing to discuss it and mine by feigning the interest that has kept me responding to you is senseless. If you want to be disingenuous, kindly do it on someone else's time.


 Quote:
I would still draw a distinction between personal autonomy and independence of mind. I don't see them as the same, but as distinct in that one implies action, the other does not. I conceded the point about missing nuances generally, but not here.

Independence of mind is a form of personal autonomy, and personal autonomy is predicated on independence of mind. (Just ask a member of Jonestown.) If there is a distinction, it isn't a significant one.


 Quote:
I agree that the concepts of "self-interested cohesion" and "enlightened self interest" are related but distinct, I would imagine that the latter would precede the former...

Highly doubtful, since de Tocqueville's definition of the latter involves active group formation and a furthering (as an extension of self-interest) of the group's success, which self-interested cohesion does not.


 Quote:
As to my point about sociopathy, you may take "completely" to mean "exclusively". I was pointing out a popular leftist observation that is erroneously applied to political forms of individualism such as Thatcherism.

How could I possibly have known that this was what you were talking about based on what you actually said? Every indication was that you were articulating your own views.


 Quote:
One thing to add to this point is to say that (at a stretch) it is conceivable that the cognition of a sociopath and, say, an Objectivist could manifest the same behaviour. I highly doubt this myself and would personally find that to be quite an obscene assertion.

Try "Bullocks."

"The key principle of the Objectivist ethics is rationality, as against mysticism and whim. The ethics is a code of benevolence and justice toward other people: holding evil-doers to account for their vices, but treating rational and productive people with good will and generosity. It entails integrity, allowing no breach between our principles and our actions. A rational being practices honesty, loving the truth more than deception; and he lives first-hand, on the basis of his own judgment and effort, so independence is a virtue. The Objectivist ethics places industry and productivity in one's chosen work at the center of life's concerns." [bold in original] (Source)

Sociopaths by definition are largely, in the worst cases totally, incapable of acting with even one of those principles. Those claiming that sociopathy and Objectivism intersect at any point are either misinformed or unable to read.


 Quote:
You could be right about the origins of meritocracy being not only achievable on a level playing field, I know not of another way of achieving this and would be very interested to hear more from you on this, if you would indulge me or point me to another thread.

Simply put, you seem to be working under the false assumption that meritocracy only exists when it exists absolutely—i.e., when it approaches a one-to-one correspondence of merit and rank for all of its members. Completely ignoring the epistemological hurdles inherent to this task (hint: what counts as merit when?), a cursory glance at the history of meritocratic systems and governments makes clear that most were very far from offering equality of opportunity. Is it correct, then, to say that they weren't meritocratic at all? No.

Again, if we assume such a thing is plausible, it may be argued that meritocracy would be best achieved through a "level playing field" (having overcome every possible disadvantage and emerged the more powerful for it, I'm inclined to disagree), but it isn't by any means the only way.


 Quote:
I did not mean to imply that you had not addressed political ideas in your previous post and will be doing some research on Gaulthier, whose ideas I am not familiar with.

Gauthier.


 Quote:
I have come across game theory but am not well-read on the subject so I will have to come back to you on this point at a later date.

I recommend these sources as starting points:

Game Theory: A Non-Technical Introduction

Game Theory: Analysis of Conflict

Game Theory and Political Theory: An Introduction


 Quote:
The point of departure is that you seem to be asserting that this as the only desirable form of action, even obligatory, for those of a Satanic mindset and I do not.

I've said absolutely nothing of the kind anywhere in my posts. On the contrary, the very fact that I appealed to subjective and self-interested valuation at all should have made it abundantly clear that the notion of a universal Satanic directive, besides being an oxymoron, is antithetical to my worldview. (How could I as a Satanist support an "obligatory" goal for other Satanists, even in principle?) If you were able to conclude anything else from what I have written in this thread, consider yourself disabused. As you said when your own words were hopelessly misinterpreted, "I have better things to be doing."

If there were any doubt in my mind that you have failed to understand me, your statement above singlehandedly destroyed it. Since, despite my clearly stated views, you have demonstrated only minimal capacity to grasp what I have said and ample capacity to misconstrue it, compounded by your own professed disinterest in a topic central to my posts, I feel no desire to participate further in this line of discussion.



Diavolo:

 Quote:
I think the rejection of or opposition toward hierarchy in Satanism, at least to those that rank higher, arises, ironically, from the same “drive” that makes hierarchy itself manifest.

...

“Us vs Them”, a rather familiar human theme, builds upon the same and when acknowledging real world hierarchy, one simultaneously and unavoidably compromises one's ranking in the abstract.

If we accept at least the core argument of Feuerbach's Essence of Christianity (and I'm very dubious about accepting much more than that), I would add that the drive and process you outline are remarkably similar to those by which, according to Feuerbach, man externalizes himself in the creation of gods. (In the immortal words of Sir Richard Burton, "The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never worshipped anything but himself.") In part for this reason, I maintain that this drive is firmly bound to that mother of morality, fear, in that it is experienced among human beings as a need to convince oneself of dominance over others in the abstract (including domination by principle, whether morality, devotion, obedience, etc.). Indeed, the entire concept of the Will to Power, at least in its Nietzschean articulation, collapses if it is other than this; in plain language, a basic psychological drive is always expressed as a need, consciously or otherwise. Every societal hierarchy based on propitiatory service to a god or gods illustrates this principle in action, with its laity anxious to perform the rites that will insulate themselves from unseen forms of domination, and the priests acting as guards of the community against these. The possibility of domination, whether by unknown, blind forces (nature) or calculating motives (other people), drives the engine of religious fictions and transcendental morality in the first place, the frightening alternative being not only exploitation, as you say, but also subjugation and despair. Thus the compromise of one's assumed rank, be it spiritual or merely interpersonal (which is almost never lacking), is most certainly a primary object of fear, but without that fear of compromise and a felt need to deflect it at all costs, no Will to Power, "the same 'drive' that makes hierarchy itself manifest," would be expressed, leastwise through aversion and hostility to stratification.


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

Top
#55463 - 06/04/11 06:14 AM Re: Nobody is a mover, shaker or authority in the LHP [Re: Zophos]
MattVanSickle84 Offline
stranger


Registered: 05/23/11
Posts: 42
Loc: London, UK
Thanks for the recommendations Zophos, It's unfortunate that the discussion has only been fruitful for one of us but you have given me much to ponder and research.

I think it would be pointless to attempt to convey, in any real detail, my motives for trying to bring into focus my own views on the topics covered. Only to say that I have been reasonably candid about any prior uncertainties and misconceptions I have had. My mind is far from made up on some of these matters, which is why I chose to involve myself in the conversation.

I see nothing untoward about any such uncertainty which only brings to mind the following quote attributed to Bertrand Russell (I am unaware, as I write this, of it's source. This need not bear upon the intention of the quote itself.) :

"One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision."

I agree with this sentiment which by no means implores Man towards uncertainty, simply asserts the value of it as a starting point. I am at such a staring point on a number of issues and see no reason to dismiss any subsequent interest because of it, disingenuous as this may be perceived by others. I am also no stranger to being viewed as unperceptive, being at a disadvantage of being both an artist and a drummer (humour...).

Thanks for bringing to my attention minor grammatical errors I have made. This can only contribute to the betterment of any further posts I make on this forum, whilst having a minimal effect on the substance of them.

I shall not repost in any further discussion of the topics with yourself, owing to your stated desire not to do so. I am, however, appreciative of the lengths you have gone to so far.

M V-S
_________________________

The mind is its own place, and in itself

Can make a heav'n of hell, a hell of heav'n.

Top
#55465 - 06/04/11 10:24 AM Re: Nobody is a mover, shaker or authority in the LHP [Re: Zophos]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
If the mother of morality is fear, the father is domination. Maybe both go hand in hand; domination being the drive while fear being the motivator. If all human interaction is based upon the fulfillment of needs, which I find a compelling premise, regardless of the more divine motives we attribute to these, then the inability to see one's needs fulfilled could be regarded as fear. I've always wondered what exactly defines the difference between individual WtP, and while I assumed it might be dependent upon one's biology, a vague argument I admit, it might very well be regulated by one's capacity of fear. The more fearful we are, even when not conscious about it, the more driven to domination. It would at least explain why individuals are so willing to sacrifice basic freedoms and rights to annihilate an opponent, even when he is nothing but an abstract phenomena like “terrorism”.

Hierarchy driven by WtP while motivated by fear implies a rather ironic consequence; while we as satanists uphold stratification and participate in the game of dominance, simultaneously we do fear the idea it might apply to us. We admire it when it when "they" are subject but abhor the idea we could be.

D.

Top
Page 2 of 2 <12


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

Generated in 0.03 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 25 queries. Zlib compression disabled.