Page all of 2 12>
Topic Options
#55050 - 05/25/11 06:08 AM Nobody is a mover, shaker or authority in the LHP
mabon2010 Offline
member


Registered: 09/29/10
Posts: 259
Loc: The Commonwealth of Great Brit...
Those that claim to be, or claim others to be an authority or a mover and shaker in the Left Hand Path are misguided.

The Left Hand Path is an individual thing, an individual who is attempting to manifest their full human potential using knowledge, skills and tools that are available to them in their personal paradigm. Since the individual is unique, and follows a path that must be individualistic in nature reflecting their individual needs and potential, how can they be an authority or mover and shaker, other than in their own lives?


The idea that an LHPer is a mover and shaker or authority infers a master and a bunch of followers, and this moves against the spirit of LHP, which is about manifesting the individual will, in an individual way, to achieve an individual state of apotheosis.


The LHP in spirit should be about a bunch of gods with no god above any other. If a person is considered a mover and shaker, it means they have become a master over a bunch of sheep. If a person is an authority it means they are the master and the follower is the slave. Sheep and slaves have no place in the LHP.

An individual may be considered to have more knowledge, or greater skills, or greater influence than another, this just means they are more advanced in their journey than the others in the LHP, but since the path is unique and individualistic they are not a master of the LHP, no man is master of anything other than in his own life.

Lets get away from thinking in terms of authorities, movers and shakers in the LHP, these are incorrect and retarded ideas to hold for the LHP.
_________________________
Monadic Luciferianism is a philosophy of life centered on self.

Top
#55052 - 05/25/11 08:44 AM Re: Nobody is a mover, shaker or authority in the LHP [Re: mabon2010]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3883
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
However I might agree with the premise that there is no central authority in Satanism as a philosophy, the overarching undertones (thats right, I said it) of egalitarianism here are certainly sigh-worthy.

Satan is a face of a living philosophy under the banner of which some offer real insight and crystalization , while others do not. The only standard of authenticity lay with how this insight is vectored and the sinister sorts that might resonate with it , but it is a standard none the less. One that many are either blind to or find very inconvenient when peddling their ideas.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#55056 - 05/25/11 12:31 PM Re: Nobody is a mover, shaker or authority in the LHP [Re: Dan_Dread]
MindFux Offline
member


Registered: 12/27/10
Posts: 174
Mabon,

There is a difference between someone's ideas having an effect, thus making them a mover and a shaker, and said individual being a 'leader' per se with followers. The fact that you struggle to separate an individual who could propose ideas that generate thought in more than one person from a leader, and individuals that find those ideas useful from a 'bunch of sheep' seems to indicate a deep seated mental problem that you've clearly been wrestling with for a while.

Egalitarianism is not the fuel for the LHP. The LHP should be Gods among Gods? Maybe so, but stratification doesn't stop the second someone decides to lace up their boots and walk the LHP. Like minded individuals will seek to extract usefulness from their thoughts and philosophies for their own ends. Those that provide such food for thought will naturally garner interest. Those that don't (you being one of that number Mabon) will naturally not.

Trying to heap, 'being of interest' to 'being a leader' or 'being counter the LHP' is a bitch move, from unsurprisingly, a bitch.


Edited by MindFux (05/25/11 12:34 PM)

Top
#55058 - 05/25/11 12:38 PM Re: Nobody is a mover, shaker or authority in the LHP [Re: mabon2010]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: mabon2010

Lets get away from thinking in terms of authorities, movers and shakers in the LHP, these are incorrect and retarded ideas to hold for the LHP.


I also agree with the general tenor of your post, but don't personally see it as a problem. There are people who I encounter who I suspect either have the capacity to understand in equal measure to myself or in perhaps greater measure than myself in a wide variety of subjects. These people I respect for various reasons, the least of which would be the ability to gather a following. That said, that's only my perspective. Gathering a following IS a skill and talent that could reap many benefits when employed with the correct intent/control.

Please refrain from using presumptuous words and phrases like "Let's get away from..." as if your implication is that your reader isn't already aware of your point(s), or worse, that we are somehow complicit in being fooled by the same things that have fooled you. I won't rail against your post too much since you did have the foresight to put it in the 101 forum. In the future, though, you would do well to not presume to speak for others. Your point would have been better served, in my opinion, as presented as a personal epiphany rather than a revelation that most here are already painfully aware of.

And so now that you've seen the point, will you stop attempting to garner a following flock or will you continue in your present vein?

It will be somewhat interesting to see what you choose to do with your new found knowledge.


Edited by Fnord (05/25/11 12:57 PM)
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#55124 - 05/28/11 12:32 PM Re: Nobody is a mover, shaker or authority in the LHP [Re: Fnord]
Ringmaster Offline
member


Registered: 04/07/08
Posts: 205
Loc: Salem Oregon
A lot of people agree with there not being a supreme authority within the satanic culture. However I would say that this statement is misinterpreted. The dictionaries definition of authority is as follows –noun, plural -ties. “The power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine.” When you take this definition literally the statement made above concerning there being no authority in the LHP is quite false. I say this because if you take one good look into the mirror you are gazing into the eyes of the only authority when it comes to the satanic belief system… Yourself. You have the right to control yourself, you are the only one who commands yourself, and you are the only one who determines your own mentality and your own outlook on life. Satanism is the philosophy for the selfish.

While one can argue that certain laws dictate actions so on and so forth; I find that argument to hold no validity whatsoever because your acquiescence of societies laws coincide with your own personal beliefs OR in the interest of self-preservation. However no matter your personal feelings of certain laws you act on your own authority by choosing to abide by said laws. Just because there is a generally accepted method of practice and understanding when it comes to Satanism doesn’t mean that is the way it goes all the time. Even TSB (while this is paraphrased I can do direct quote if so desired) mentions at times throughout the text that some things are up to the individual.

CHEERS,
RING
_________________________
Get off the cross and save yourself, I feel no pity for the cries of a weak man.

Top
#55125 - 05/28/11 02:00 PM Re: Nobody is a mover, shaker or authority in the LHP [Re: Ringmaster]
MattVanSickle84 Offline
stranger


Registered: 05/23/11
Posts: 42
Loc: London, UK
The central issues you're addressing mabon2010, are authority, individualism and collectivism and the conflicts between these particular modes of operating. Since Satanism is accepting of hierarchy or more specifically encouraging of stratification or meritocracy, there may be a conflict between this and individualist autonomy.

It could be argued, very persuasively in my opinion, that there is such a thing as illegitimate authority and domination (which would go against Might Is Right though this is a discussion for a separate forum) which must then infer that there is the corollary: legitimate authority. It seems to me that such authority is always one based upon brilliance or exceptionalism.

For example (though this might appear counter to the scientific method, which is inherently non hierarchical) an individual such as Stephen Hawking is clearly, both outside of scientific communities and to a large extent inside them as well, an authority on certain matters. So his authority is one based upon intellectual, scientific and creative brilliance: natural hierarchy or meritocracy. The idea (and truth) of the carnality of man as beast goes hand in hand with Herbert Spencer's ideas of survival of the fittest, in this case in the arena of ideas. It is also worth mentioning that such authority can by no means be necessarily hereditary.

Now, we can apply this to Satanism in the sense that those individuals with such a mastery and breadth of knowledge and experience of the subject would be akin to the all seeing eye at the top of the pyramid (supposedly all Satanists belong here, though I tend to doubt that). Dr. LaVey, for instance, is rightly seen as an authority on Satanism based upon his synthesis of various related strains of thought and practices and his mastery of these. Therefore he has earned his place of high regard.

The most inescapable contradiction, if it is that, is that the central symbol of the Satanic religion was a defiant, anti-authoritarian figure who would not be a serf. So a case could be made that Satanism is actually anarchistic in nature based upon this position of hostility to authority. However I hardly think we can count the Biblical God as a legitimate authority, either intellectually or actually!

Left Hand Path groups (though I see no reason to care about most of them), are characterised by a distrust of the status quo and they say organising atheists is akin to herding cats and that certainly applies to Satanists as well. Nothing inherently sacred about authority, if we believed there was we perhaps wouldn't call ourselves Satanists...
_________________________

The mind is its own place, and in itself

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

Top
#55126 - 05/28/11 02:40 PM Re: Nobody is a mover, shaker or authority in the LHP [Re: mabon2010]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
I would argue that all who walk the LHP are movers, shakers and an authority. But only insofar as it concerns oneself. I am the one who moves my life forward, I am the one who gets things done, I am the ultimate authority in my life.

Indeed, I am a Leader, however, I neither have nor want any followers. And there certainly is no room for followers on the LHP either. I would discourage anyone from following me or anyone else. Remember: If you follow someone you can only end up wherever they do; and where they end up might not be where either of you intended.

Therefore, to truly be "on the LHP" one must be those three things which you said they aren't/can't. Otherwise you are just following the flow of traffic and will most likely miss your exit.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#55139 - 05/28/11 11:29 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:
Left Hand Path groups (though I see no reason to care about most of them), are characterised by a distrust of the status quo and they say organising atheists is akin to herding cats and that certainly applies to Satanists as well.

While your words are undeniably true, I feel compelled to note the value of collaboration and cooperation. It is hardly uncommon to encounter self-proclaimed Satanists who, knowingly or not, envelop themselves in the rhetoric and outer accoutrements of individualism solely to justify (or even to encourage) indolence, unqualified personal ineptitude, and a complete lack of civility and social graces. In my experience such people consistently broadcast their pretensions to power in order to shield themselves and others from the fact that they have none. Seemingly unable to fathom the possibility that cooperation with anyone could be other than weakness—its continuous practice by scientists, for example, does not occur to them—and too fixed on the most perfunctory image of "the rebel" to realize that a strong ego is not threatened by pragmatic troth, they either imbibe a glut of titles to lord over the servile or devolve into blindly malignant idiots. This forum has seen people (I refuse to call them "members" in any but the most technical sense) of both inclinations come and go dozens of times.

The formation of a group, provided that its existence is conducive rather than inhibitory to individual excellence, is not anathema to Satanism. Nor, it should be noted, is a broad sense of community based on good conversation, earned respect, and the exchange of ideas. I hazard to say that a respected member here would be fiercely defended en masse in the event that he or she were treated carelessly, not because it would be needed (the Satanists here are more than capable of defending themselves), but out of basic esteem. Sharp debate and some internal tension is contributive to the betterment of all willing to draw from it, but so is a working cabal. A simple comparison of the quality of discussion here with that found on any other Satanic forum emphatically bears this out.

Organizing Satanists may be like herding cats, but I speak from experience when I say that herding cats is entirely possible; they simply need something of shared interest to pursue.




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

Top
#55143 - 05/29/11 04:31 AM Re: Nobody is a mover, shaker or authority in the LHP [Re: Ringmaster]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3138
 Quote:
A lot of people agree with there not being a supreme authority within the satanic culture. However I would say that this statement is misinterpreted. The dictionaries definition of authority is as follows –noun, plural -ties. “The power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine.” When you take this definition literally the statement made above concerning there being no authority in the LHP is quite false. I say this because if you take one good look into the mirror you are gazing into the eyes of the only authority when it comes to the satanic belief system… Yourself. You have the right to control yourself, you are the only one who commands yourself, and you are the only one who determines your own mentality and your own outlook on life. Satanism is the philosophy for the selfish.

While I think many will agree with your take I think a nuance should be made.
The egoistical view/stance of authority which is common amongst the likes of us almost seem naturally. But, in comparisation with others here, in the short time I have been dwelling around in different Satanic "communities" an almost unspoken feeling of egalitarianism was present while most were trying to cover it up with self-reference. Only to be smashed down by social pressure from the inside.

It is all nice and dandy to say you can call yourself an authority to your own Satanic belief system, but there are always those who are unofficialy regarded as an authority.

You are right by giving the hint that there is an authoritive stance within LHP. But in my opinion wrong when you say that it is only yourself being the authority in the Satanic belief system. Just take a look at "the stars" of Satanism and their gatherings.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#55150 - 05/29/11 07:18 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
I concur with what you've said and you seem to be advocating or referring to a form of voluntary association. I don't see this as necessarily problematic and it could indeed be that a false dichotomy has erected between this and hierarchical systems.

To digress, this reminds me of the supposed conflict between liberty and equality. Obviously I don't mean tedious and ungrounded "all men are created equal" sentiments, but equal rights to establish a just meritocracy which need not limit anybody's personal liberties. This is Just a thought, and if persuaded I could see how this may amount to a kind of cognitive dissonance.

I think that in many instances voluntary consent and cooperation would be the appropriate way for those with a common interest or philosophy to operate and organise. It would be merely polemical to caricature this as collectivism, and it can be just as easily agued that hierarchy is naturally conducive to totalitarianism, another enemy of individualism.

It may be that we are talking about a genuinely difficult contradiction here, but remember what Ayn Rand said about those. (Please note that I'm not putting Rand on a pedestal, and never will. I only invoke her as a relevant thinker and someone whose ideas I respect.)

The cats picture shows the very opposite of collaboration and cooperation. I wonder how many of those cats stuck around once their bellies were full?

Consider this: http://img.chan4chan.com/img/2009-03-26/teamwork_rats.jpg
_________________________

The mind is its own place, and in itself

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

Top
#55194 - 05/29/11 10:09 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
I was glad Zophos covered what I was going to say.

It is possible to herd cats, although briefly, and only if they are interested. Cats being a simplified example for Satanists, even if you manage to get them together...some will wander off after they take what they want, not always what you are offering.

I did alot of thinking on this premise, and how it related to, for instance CoS. Good example of herding Satanists...I mean cats. There is something which draws them in, be it food(for thought) light petting and story time. And evidence proves some do leave, like members of this forum. Sometimes we just get lucky and we all find the same watering hole which was left out in the open. We weren't herded but by chance found each other in the same place. All differences aside.

Eventually the drinking truce ends and the word jousting returns.
_________________________
Become a force of nature.

Top
#55211 - 05/30/11 12:38 PM Re: Nobody is a mover, shaker or authority in the LHP [Re: MattVanSickle84]
Ringmaster Offline
member


Registered: 04/07/08
Posts: 205
Loc: Salem Oregon
I was trying to touch on it being a voluntary association you happened to word it better than I. Also there will always be voluntary association within the LHP or anything in society for that matter, however just as the authority is unofficially (or pseudo-officially) given it can always be revoked if the masses aren’t appeased properly. A “falling from grace” so to speak. A good example being; a member within the CoS is acting against what the CoS deems against the desired collective interests of the group, so the strip him/her of membership. The same works on an unofficial level within a group. I would venture and say this is why true anarchism can never truely exist (that topic though would best be put in a separate thread so I won’t go into detail).

But it would all go back to that being an individual choice being that the masses individually choose to pay respect where they think the respect is deserved. But that is if you argue literal semantics. It really wouldn’t be against individualism for a person to have the same opinion or acceptance of totalitarianism provided it is in tune with what they as an individual want. Because if one rebels for the sake of rebelling it isn’t individualism in my mind it would be counterproductive pride and ignorance. There are times when a person has to make a sacrifice in their choice because more often than not the reality is that one won’t get everything they desire from one source. As long as the person makes a decision based of the pros and cons of said decision I think it would still be exorcising an individualistic mentality.
But also it never really is not a false dichotomy or hierarchy because while the authority that is give may or may not be officially given, it still is given. I guess that would be like saying a tree that falls in the woods with no one to hear it; it won’t make a sound because it isn’t officially validated.

If this is hard to follow I apologize I just got off work and running on very little sleep.

CHEERS,
RING
_________________________
Get off the cross and save yourself, I feel no pity for the cries of a weak man.

Top
#55241 - 05/31/11 03:28 AM 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:

In the interest of logical presentation (mine, not yours), please allow me to respond to your post in reverse order.



For a person of strong and intelligent constitution, the rewards of a calculated risk with the mutual support of one's friends and peers are sometimes greater than those offered by a solitary venture. (But not always, right Diavolo? ;\) ) All historical evidence suggests that this appraisal formed the predominant ethos of the early Church of Satan, for example, as even Dr. Aquino has acknowledged.


 Quote:
The cats picture shows the very opposite of collaboration and cooperation. I wonder how many of those cats stuck around once their bellies were full?

Would an answer of "None" to the latter necessarily imply the truth of the former?

My use of that picture was intended to represent a concept closely related to but ultimately distinct from the social contract—let us call it self-interested cohesion and define it as the fact of individuals consistently being in the same place at the same time for the same personal reasons without actively forming explicit articles of incorporation, legal or otherwise. Obviously I do not have in mind an afternoon at the DMV or a night at the bar. (Indeed, one may be reminded of Galt's Gulch in Atlas Shrugged, the "voluntary association of men held together by nothing but every man's self-interest.") My point rather was that, given a goal shared in common by a collection of individuals, its value to each member as an individual will continue to encourage him or her to pursue that goal (in this case, like-minded people and intelligent conversation therewith) through the most favorable venue or venues (in this case the 600 Club, I'm happy to say). As Ghostly1 stated, "Sometimes we just get lucky and we all find the same watering hole which was left out in the open. We weren't herded but by chance found each other in the same place." I would add that, having done so and found the water plentiful, refreshing, and cleaner than in most other places on the often-barren Internet savanna, visitors have colluded (composing the informal "working cabal" mentioned in my previous post) out of shared self-interest to protect it from unwanted company. Make no mistake, I and many others here are greatly appreciative of specific fellow members, even perhaps to the point of seeing a few as friends or close acquaintances, but I would surmise that the mechanism underlying the long-term participation of most members here is largely other.

This recognition also serves to check the hasty acceptance of received sentiment about the incompatibility of nonconformists and groups, and about the conditions under which they "must" work to survive. Although the simile of herding cats is most often used innocently as a humorous illustration, I have sometimes spoken or corresponded with individuals (yourself excluded) who deployed it purely as a thought-terminating cliché to justify the fact that their own group, due to the solipsism of its members, had failed to accomplish anything, or worse that their group had no intent of being more than a name in the first place.

In short, if we follow our simile to its logical conclusion, there is no demand for any cat to remain when its belly is full. Hunger will reappear, and as long as satisfaction continues to be found in a given cat's basic reason for congregating, it is likely to return. (Just watch those claws!)


 Quote:
I think that in many instances voluntary consent and cooperation would be the appropriate way for those with a common interest or philosophy to operate and organise.

With very few exceptions, I would go further to say that such cooperation is the only course of action that would be at all appealing for someone of a Satanic mindset. Some degree of obligatory cooperation is inevitable, but as a Satanist seeks to minimize compulsion in his or her life, agreements and group formations involving submission rather than healthy cooperation are highly unlikely to be pursued.

In this vein, I think every Satanist would benefit in some way from reading David Gauthier's Morals by Agreement. Gauthier's neo-Hobbesian contractarianism is not without flaws, but contributes overwhelmingly to a model of cooperation rooted in subjective and self-interested valuation.


 Quote:
I concur with what you've said and you seem to be advocating or referring to a form of voluntary association. I don't see this as necessarily problematic and it could indeed be that a false dichotomy has erected between this and hierarchical systems.

The problem lies, I think, in a basic social paradox well-known among Satanists, especially those adroit or seasoned enough to recognize its manifestation in real time (e.g., in the Church of Satan). As a group becomes more tightly organized, it also tends to become both more effective in meeting its ends and more prone to various forms of collectivism, especially sycophantic behavior, obsession with a "positive" public image, and the equation of merit with intra-organizational rank. (Additionally, there is a tendency toward what might be called the "Leviathan effect," in which a group's leadership begins to justify contravention of the group's own goals solely to maintain unified authority, leading ultimately—as with Ayn Rand's circle—to cultish mandates and restrictions.) By contrast, as a group's framework becomes looser, it allows for greater personal freedom, but usually at the cost of diminishing its ability to accomplish meaningful goals. Atheist organizations, as Diavolo noted in the "New Atheism" and it's Value thread, often fall under this category (although there are exceptions which have attained at least some tangible successes).

Because Satanism rests on the bedrock of both goal-oriented pragmatism and rational autonomy, the minimal criteria for any level of voluntary cooperation at the group level would be very hard to find outside of a Gauthierian social contract or the aforementioned phenomenon of self-interested cohesion. The most immediate example, again, is furnished by the 600 Club itself, which employs both simultaneously as a matter of course.


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

Top
#55245 - 05/31/11 10:16 AM Re: Nobody is a mover, shaker or authority in the LHP [Re: Zophos]
Ghostly1 Offline
member


Registered: 04/10/11
Posts: 147
Loc: NY
I can finally see why someone would bait you into working with them at a university.

If this were Facebook, you would have a lot of "Like" thumbs pointed in your direction.

There will always be some level of cooperation amongst like minded individuals. Some goals simply cannot be completed successfully without mutual support. And as you have so eloquently stated the CoS suffers from a self image problem. Its a popular girls club with limited opportunities to those who wont kiss ass or buy into the persona one must comply with to associate and mingle with the perceived elite.

I see the sycophantic behavior as a kind of hero worship for the most part. Anton is not around anymore and they feel by association they can somehow gain something from him indirectly in this manner, be it prestige or unearned credibility. Its easy to see all this behavior in posts made at the LTTD forum which although I am not a member I do visit time to time just to feel the pulse of current topics. Joy of Satan, well.... one must use a telescope to see if the mother ship is approaching.

In either case the "whats in it for me" person might be surprised if they ever realized all they gained by being a member is possibly a red card, and time devoted to a group instead of themselves. Exercising ones Satanic views by joining a group is like paying for an NRA membership and only wearing the t-shirt out in public. To me this rigid view of Satanism is one reason I didnt buy a red card. If Im going to be an outspoken individual then I wont let anyone speak for me. Especially if doing so costs me my precious membership card.

There is less risk in being anonymous. One could theoretically still be a mover or a shaker in society with hidden goals and we needn't ever know about them. Just because you dont see the young girl in front of you on line's labia ring and devil tattoo doesnt mean it isnt there.

I appreciate this venue. And even with disagreements this has to be the best watering hole out there.
_________________________
Become a force of nature.

Top
#55248 - 05/31/11 10:33 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
Thank you for offering such a considered rebuttal Zophos, I hope I can do it justice. There appears to be many areas of consensus between us. 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.

What interested my in this topic is these very contradictions which present difficulties and clashes between my own arguments, as I said: cognitive dissonance. 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 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. This has been pointed out to me by my leftist friends, many of them extremely intelligent and worth listening to, though ultimately by my estimation, misguided.

I often wonder whether my perceiving of these conflicts is residual from my own false start as a younger man (not that I am that old now of course!) with an interest in the politics of the left. Having read collectivist tracts, Marxist and otherwise, and being of an anarchistic, anti-authoritarian persuasion myself (a tendency that I see reflected in much of Satanic literature - Baudelaire, Stirner, Nietzsche, some Orwell, Milton's Satan) I can sympathise and place myself beside the anarchist in principle. The anarchism of the right soon comes into focus the more you look of course, so it's not merely an egalitarian phenomenon.

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.

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. The former is at best a failure to acknowledge that, somewhere along the line, "God" fucked up.

This would obviously lead to some hierarchy or maybe multiple ones or crossover ones, who knows, certainly this is not the path of least resistance, and I'm not making any predictions on the outcomes of such schemes. I'm simply not qualified to do so. I lack the sociological expertise. But whatever the solution to this perceived contradiction, need not entail the complete eradication of cooperation or the concept of solidarity, which is a good thing because I'm not interested in impossible goals!

To sum up this mess, for me this is an academic problem or a pragmatic one, ultimately for other people to be having. I don't mean that to be a denigration of this extremely thought provoking argument (sincerity not sarcasm). I practice Satanism as an applied philosophy or a convergence of various strains to be more precise. It has informed my outlook on life and my reflections and musings upon it.

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.)

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! 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.
_________________________

The mind is its own place, and in itself

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

Top
#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 all of 2 12>


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

Generated in 0.047 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 40 queries. Zlib compression disabled.