Page 2 of 2 <12
Topic Options
#55434 - 06/03/11 10:05 AM Re: Postmodernism and Satanism [Re: Jason King]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I think Fnord mistook "not being carved in stone" for "being carved in stone" which I assume hints to Moses and his stone tablets.

D.

Top
#55435 - 06/03/11 10:07 AM Re: Postmodernism and Satanism [Re: Jason King]
Fnord Moderator Offline
Moderator
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2084
Loc: Texas
Godammit, I did that wrong. (wasn't clear)

'nothing is carved in stone' = there is nothing written that cannot be erased = progress.

Of course, then there's guys like George Bernard Shaw who further try to confuse the issue by saying things like "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

\:\)

I gotcha now, thx.


Edited by Fnord (06/03/11 10:08 AM)
_________________________
Stomping on your fluffy bunnies.

Top
#55437 - 06/03/11 10:43 AM Re: Postmodernism and Satanism [Re: Fnord]
Jason King Offline
Banned/Martyrdom Denied
active member


Registered: 10/24/10
Posts: 731
Loc: 65?1%833Q!92A24 (It's a code)
 Originally Posted By: Fnord
Of course, then there's guys like George Bernard Shaw who further try to confuse the issue by saying things like "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

\:\)

I gotcha now, thx.


This is one of the most interesting commentaries I've had on Postmodern Satanism in some time (though I do realize it was more of a direct rejoinder). Why do I say the prior? This is exactly the dichotomy I was dealing with.

Self. World. LHP. RHP. Interaction. Synergy.

One of the things that has disappointed me the most about critiques of the work is that I've heard sparsely next to nothing about my complete re-evaluation of LHP/RHP. Not that it's completely novel, but it does cut against the inherited grain. I'd give ten paypal dollars to the first person who can define LHP/RHP without recourse to Aquino or his ilk.

I digress . . .

JK
_________________________



Top
#55443 - 06/03/11 01:13 PM Re: Postmodernism and Satanism [Re: Jason King]
MattVanSickle84 Offline
stranger


Registered: 05/23/11
Posts: 42
Loc: London, UK
Thanks for your response Jason,

If you don't mind I'll just dive right in at the beginning.

"Wagging the dog is when you spend a post intended as criticism of a work dealing, by and large, with a single word in the title."

The first part of my post deals with postmodernism (which I pointed out, and we both agree, is not a single "thing"). The point at which I proceeded to specifically address the book itself is indicated roughly halfway through by: "Now to the some of the contents of the book itself…"

You correctly state that the purpose of the epilogue is not to prove your treatise wrong. Further evidence of this is indicated on the third page (sorry to count): "I’d rather see people who agree with me formulate their own systematic analyses, instead of quoting me like some authoritative prophet or guru."

This statement allows no room for those whose views actually depart from your own, imploring only the converted, those in agreement, to engage. Are you excluding dissenting views and are we simply to assume the validity of the book's contents and then proceed?

I should clarify that my statement that "postmodernism is, on the whole, extremely dismissive of the scientific method, of empiricism and it's conclusions", does not bear upon contents of the book (see above), which certainly does allow for empiricism, alongside myth and various incompatible interpretations of reality, which it attempts to align.

I would be most interested in discussing any underlying philosophies which Hawking may be harbouring and how these specifically relate to and impact upon his scientific work. Seems like an extremely relevant topic and an excellent idea and I shall try to think of a specific way to address this in relation to this forum, unless you can think of a way. (I missed the joke there, so good call on that one! Pronouncement?! Ha!)

It seems to me that the problem of object-subject is unresolved, despite Kant, and I think that scientific empiricism is the only hope of solving it. You will notice that this is a personal assertion or intuition with no firm grounding, like all other attempts to answer this question thus far. Certainly grounds for another intriguing discussion.

"You are a materialist, so let me ask you, what is matter?"

My understanding of matter is that it is scientific theory that goes some way to understanding the fundamental nature of reality, assuming there is any such thing. The alternatives are unhelpful and do not elucidate anything, they are also seemingly outside the realms of scientific testing. The ideas surrounding matter are, in principle at least, observable and falsifiable.

"I'll ask for just FIVE (5) works that intentionally do not number pages. And I'll press you every rejoinder you don't. Get to work."

You will be waiting a very long time.

Obviously the statement was meant thus: "There are no page numbers, and no references as is common with these kinds of tomes"

Badly put, I'll admit, but you have sparked in me an interest in the revolutionary idea of not numbering pages and the many deep implications of this…

Perhaps though, this was unfair as the work is clearly not meant to be peer reviewed or scrutinised in the interest of originality/plagiarism, but is only a treatise. A discussion of certain established ideas, in accordance to a particular criteria and how these bear upon one another, excluding those which do not comfortably fit.

The bold statements (!) are also the main ones in your "…in under 3 minutes" YouTube video. The overarching idea being the emphasis on the idea that nature is above all adversarial. So they are clearly relevant and central to your philosophy. They are also quite apart from any general criticism of postmodernism or any specific usage of the word itself.

I would argue that a more useful way to understand man in nature is not your adversarial paradigm but by simply survival and gene propagation, which to a large extent is adversarial, but that this is the not it's defining characteristic. This is not entirely out of step with what you say. But If there are any clear and defining characteristics of the universe they may well be indifference and apparent hostility to life (also, as far as we know, true of most of our solar system). Randomness is also to be taken into account, another long discussion to have.

Your ideas would certainly validate some of my own personal intuitions, philosophies and observations. So it's actually in my interest that, in this respect at least, you're on the mark. You certainly could be.

I'm just not so sure about this as you are. Obviously.

"Newton - was he a scientist or esotericist primarily?"

Newton was both and to the extent that he was an esotericist, he was mistaken and failed to substantiate his alchemical beliefs. His science has stood the test of time, being open to falsification for 300 years or so, informing modern science and having a massive impact on our species and the world. His esoteric ideas, in stark contrast, have done nothing of the sort. If they were valid they would just be just another part of science as we presently understand it.

Don't get me wrong, alchemy is a big interest of mine, despite my own skepticism. It'd better be, I have an alchemical symbol tattooed on my arm! In full awareness of it being strictly symbolic. I would not do away with it in it's entirety. (Sorry to include such trivial, personal info).

"Give me five (5) books you've read that have proved anything."

If you mean the sense in which I used the word, none. That was my point. In the other sense of proof, the mathematical sense, there are many proofs in existence. I'm not going to trawl the depths of the internet because there's no need, there are many and they are widely known. Others can do so if they like.

At this point I should mention, that you have actually pointed out a massive flaw in my post which cannot go ignored and which it would be unforgivable not to address.

You quoted me as saying "Much of the rest of the book is taken up by the familiar impenetrable, obscurantism we have come to expect from postmodernism and I'm extremely confident that once deciphered is largely vacuous."

In this post I did in fact separate an adjective from its noun with a comma and whilst I realise the implications of such a massive blunder, I can only hope it will not have the appropriately devastating effect of nullifying the entire enterprise. I also hope other readers will take some mercy on such contempt for grammatical conventions.

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
#55446 - 06/03/11 01:38 PM Re: Postmodernism and Satanism [Re: MattVanSickle84]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: MattVanSickle84
I would argue that a more useful way to understand man in nature is not your adversarial paradigm but by simply survival and gene propagation, which to a large extent is adversarial, but that this is the not it's defining characteristic. This is not entirely out of step with what you say. But If there are any clear and defining characteristics of the universe they may well be indifference and apparent hostility to life (also, as far as we know, true of most of our solar system). Randomness is also to be taken into account, another long discussion to have.


And this is where you, and so many others, go wrong even when most of science, these days, tends to agree upon these assumptions.

I used to think the main drive of life was survival, or as an extent of that, survival of the genes and thus reproduction. But this premise does make one wonder when observing certain behavior. One could wonder why so many animals not reproduce or why, in the case of humans, people die for others, often not even related. All sorts of theories have been proposed to support the basic premise. Then I started to reread Nietzsche and finally understood what he implied with WtP at this level.

While survival nor reproduction is common in all lifeforms, dominance is and this revelation made the behavior of life, and humans, much easier to understand and predict, at least for me.

Reproduction is merely a side-effect of dominance. Survival is often less important than the rewards of a conflict. This Nietzschean premise describes the world much clearer and, at the same time, shines a light upon the real tragedy of humanity.

D.

Top
#55448 - 06/03/11 04:10 PM Re: Postmodernism and Satanism [Re: MattVanSickle84]
Zophos Offline
member


Registered: 03/28/10
Posts: 115
Loc: U.S.A.
I have no dog in this race, but I would like to offer one clarification.


MattVanSickle84:

 Quote:
Newton was both and to the extent that he was an esotericist, he was mistaken and failed to substantiate his alchemical beliefs. His science has stood the test of time, being open to falsification for 300 years or so, informing modern science and having a massive impact on our species and the world. His esoteric ideas, in stark contrast, have done nothing of the sort. If they were valid they would just be just another part of science as we presently understand it.

Incorrect. The clean division you draw is almost entirely a modern anachronism. It must be understood that the concepts, procedures, and beliefs which are now placed under the term "alchemy" come in large part from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, not from anything understood by alchemists themselves. The inextricable connection between alchemy and chrysopoeia (gold-making by use of the Philosophers' Stone), while certainly an important part of the larger scope of alchemical desiderata, should by no means be understood as the whole or even necessarily as the "core" of its practice. Moreover, Newton's alchemical endeavors, while built on a mistaken (but highly influential) matter theory, did have a fascinating impact on the history of science, contrary to your claim. Please see the website of which I am an editor:

The Chymistry of Isaac Newton

For more on Newton's alchemy in historiographical context, I recommend:

Newton and Newtonianism: New Studies (Essay 10, "Reflections on Newton’s Alchemy in Light of the New Historiography of Alchemy" by Lawrence M. Principe)

Gehennical Fire: The Lives of George Starkey, an American Alchemist in the Scientific Revolution ("Isaac Newton and Eirenaeus Philalethes")

Lastly, to liberate you (and anyone else) from the notion that alchemy is somehow historically separable from other facets of medieval and early modern natural philosophy as a distinctively "esoteric" practice, the following book is ideal:

Alchemy Tried in the Fire: Starkey, Boyle, and the Fate of Helmontian Chymistry



Diavolo:

 Quote:
I used to think the main drive of life was survival, or as an extent of that, survival of the genes and thus reproduction. But this premise does make one wonder when observing certain behavior. One could wonder why so many animals not reproduce or why, in the case of humans, people die for others, often not even related. All sorts of theories have been proposed to support the basic premise. Then I started to reread Nietzsche and finally understood what he implied with WtP at this level.

Try your hand, if you haven't already, at a textual contrast of Nietzsche's Will to Power with Schopenhauer's Will to Live. The subtlety and erudition of both thinkers on the topic of Will is very engrossing.


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

Top
#55449 - 06/03/11 04:34 PM Re: Postmodernism and Satanism [Re: Zophos]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I bought WWV 1&2 ages ago, even before I encountered Nietzsche and was enamored with Schopenhauer for a while. I must have a weak spot for the mildly depressing.

D.

Top
#55450 - 06/03/11 04:46 PM Re: Postmodernism and Satanism [Re: Diavolo]
Zophos Offline
member


Registered: 03/28/10
Posts: 115
Loc: U.S.A.
Schopenhauer was an indisputably profound human being, a genius of his time possessed of the utmost clarity in his writing and penetration in his thought. Enthusiasm for his work is, I think, an extremely useful foundation for understanding Nietzsche, who built his philosophy very much on the basis of Schopenhauer's critique of Kant, emphasis on the Will (an aspect of Nietzsche's thought virtually always misunderstood through adolescent sensationalism), analysis of the human condition, and anti-egalitarian worldview. Freddy's essay, "Schopenhauer as Educator," is an excellent piece of work which highlights just how indispensable Hegel's great enemy was to this edifice.

Be that as it may, the philosopher should be studied in his own right rather than merely as a John the Baptist to the coming Antichrist. Schopenhauer has much of value to say.


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

Top
#55451 - 06/03/11 05:27 PM Re: Postmodernism and Satanism [Re: Zophos]
MattVanSickle84 Offline
stranger


Registered: 05/23/11
Posts: 42
Loc: London, UK
Thanks for the recommendations Zophos. I will add them to what is a growing list. I have looked at the website briefly, which looks very interesting and can hopefully go some ways to broadening my horizons. Your clarification is duly noted.

On a separate note, for all I have said in criticising Jason's book, the adversarial approach of the very arguments I've been engaged in on the forum so far are certainly extremely worthwhile in clearing out any cobwebs within this skull of mine! Value of the dialectic and whatnot. If you're reading this Jason I take it all back (only kidding).

I'm certainly forced to retract any previous arrogance on my part regarding the level of debate here. The quality and range of the debate has surpassed any expectations I may previously have had about the 600 Club, which were certainly not low.

I'm even rather enjoying having my arse continually handed to me on an intellectual level! Character building as it is.

Much wisdom here for sure. Now I sound like Yoda. Christ.

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
#55467 - 06/04/11 11:02 AM Re: Postmodernism and Satanism [Re: MattVanSickle84]
Fnord Moderator Offline
Moderator
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2084
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: MattVanSickle84

I'm even rather enjoying having my arse continually handed to me on an intellectual level! Character building as it is.


Well, it can be a blow to the ego at times for sure. Especially if you've convinced yourself that you have it all figured out (been there a time or two).

To me, though, true character building comes into play when one fails in real life (OU) versus in an intellectual sort of setting. I've noticed a trend in Satanism, more so of late, where the intellect is honored over achievement. Obviously, Satanism requires intellectual pursuit and an in depth understanding of the world (aka the playing field) so that one may use this greater/enhanced wisdom to manipulate obstacles toward favorable conditions. Intellectual development, though, is barely 1/3 of the overall game. To my reckoning, one has to be able to gather up all of this wisdom (1), formulate a plan (2), and use those components to execute (3) (create the match > create the strike > light and apply the fire). After that, one has to have the ability to evaluate the result, adjust for improvement, and continue down the path.

I'm not criticizing the fact that, at 600, we push a lot of rocks around and do our fair share of spit balling. My post is only a meant as a reminder that Satanism is about action and personal power just as much as it is about sharpening the mind.

I was thinking about this several months back, and made a back room post about the value of knowledge without a pragmatic plan to use it in some way. Another member suggested that much of it could be seen as very useful in the context of lesser magic. To an extent, I find this to be true but it reminded me of my brother in law who is now 38 years old. He has had a short career in academia (teaching philosophy) and does hold a PHD in philosophy. He's studied at some of the best known institutions and has just now completed law school and passed the bar exam. I hope that he will now be able to argue an Eskimo into buying ice cubes but, to date, I see no plan that would justify, to me, his investments (debts) as legal folk in the market place are now commonplace and often work for salaries that can be surpassed easily in industries that don't require advanced education at all.

He has a match and a strike but no place to put the fire.

Anyway, apologies for my digression. I enjoy the intellectual back-and-forth as much as the next guy (though I'm not as good at it as some here). I just thought it an appropriate place to play Devil's Advocate (I am, on occasion, good at that). \:\)

_________________________
Stomping on your fluffy bunnies.

Top
#55468 - 06/04/11 11:46 AM Re: Postmodernism and Satanism [Re: Fnord]
Jason King Offline
Banned/Martyrdom Denied
active member


Registered: 10/24/10
Posts: 731
Loc: 65?1%833Q!92A24 (It's a code)
 Originally Posted By: Fnord
I enjoy the intellectual back-and-forth as much as the next guy (though I'm not as good at it as some here).


You're as good as anyone here. Mainly because you recognize intellectual ping-pong for what it is.

To Matt: the only thing I'd remove from your delivery is the continual apologetic. You are doing just fine; everyone is both teacher and student, just at different times and places. And honestly, one gains far more from being a student . . .

JK
_________________________



Top
#55473 - 06/04/11 03:03 PM Re: Postmodernism and Satanism [Re: Fnord]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
In agree that character building is mostly at work in real life and that experience is the key to that. Online debating at best makes one grow some emotional skin, but that is a part of character too.

Of course Satanism is fundamentally about real life application and quite often, intellectual knowledge is of little value there. Understanding Nietzsche's perspectivism doesn't help much when being in a fist-fight and having read Tolstoy doesn't really improve one's qualities in bed, or at work for that matter.

But identical as abstract accomplishments or specific knowledge are of little value in real life, practical accomplishments and real world merit have little value at the internet, which is an abstract environment in itself. The fact that one makes a 100k doesn't quite help one in an intellectual argument and being an accomplished mechanic doesn't provide much benefit to understanding Kant.

To a degree that is an advantage of the internet, what you did doesn't count for much if you can't bring it to the table and to your benefit right now. That's kinda sweet isn't it?

D.

Top
Page 2 of 2 <12


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

Generated in 0.026 seconds of which 0.001 seconds were spent on 25 queries. Zlib compression disabled.