Page 1 of 3 123>
Topic Options
#56036 - 06/19/11 02:45 AM The LHP and Philosophical Minimalism
MindFux Offline
member


Registered: 12/27/10
Posts: 174
I've observed a trend within 'on-line Satanism'(if such a thing exists) and the 'LHP' in general of philosophical complexity. Perhaps the driving force behind this propensity for the complex, especially in an on-line setting among some parties is that there is this constant movement towards being perceived at least,as 'more learned' than the other guy. This tends to become whoever is most incomprehensible (and hence beyond any fixed critique as they can so easily modify their 'intended meaning'), or learning philosophies so obscure that one can be perceived as a rare subject matter 'expert' by virtue of having picked up a book alone. (Of course whether or not you are an 'expert' can't actually be tested because so few others are in a position to hold a meaningful discourse on that topic). This results in philosophical machinations so complex that after a while one can begin wondering whether they hold any explicative power what so ever and moreover does it even matter if they do? Does it effect the business of 'doing Satanism' one iota? Sure it may be a sign of a high IQ that one can think about them, but surely there are more appropriate forums for such discussions than Satanic ones? (Surely a discussion around Cognitive Neuroscience should be had in a forum containing...you know, cognitive neuroscientists?)

This may seem like a strange observation coming from a self professed 'Niner' given the 'causal forms' (manifestations, structures, dogmas, whatever you want to call it) that the ONA itself produces are among the most seemingly complex imaginable (causal, acausal, Numinous, Sinister, Honour, Star Game, Esotericism, acausal entities, Wyrd, etc.). The fact is, these terms and concepts are used in part to distinguish the ONA's 'terminology' from 'causal abstractions' (other memes), as the adherent does certain things that are designed to, and have historically provided a certain amount of insight. Those terms, and 'buzz words' can actually be ignored completely, or re-invented by an adherent provided the essence is maintained, but I digress. The point is, much of the business of doing the LHP to my mind, is largely stripping the mind of irrational thoughts, concepts and ideas that either; 1) Do not originate with the individual, and/or 2) are irrational, and/or 3) are of absolutely no use to the progression of the individual in real terms and 4) doing practical deeds with the surviving ideas and insight in a cyclical way. When I look at philosophies like the 4th Way (of which I am no expert), or theistic doctrines, or even 'Quantum theories' of the mind I'm left asking myself, 'so what?'

Take for instance the quantum theory of mind, as proposed by Hameroff and Penrose. The theory which is poetically named, "Orchestrated Objective Reduction" basically runs that the 40hz gamma pattern observed on an EEG are caused by a collection of electrons contained in microtubules in neuron cells in the brain, that are in a suspended superposition, objectively becoming decoherent (i.e. falling out of a state of superposition) at the rate of 40 times a second. In this context, 'objectively' is a term largely invented by the two proponents of this theory that states while most Quantum superpositions become 'decoherent' (the probability wave forms are no longer in a position to interfere with one another) due to interaction with other systems, if an electron, or other Quantum scale object is left in isolation for an amount of time, it will become 'decoherent' irrespective of any external influence (hence objectively). Their thesis then maintains that the 'microtubules' in the human brain suspend electrons in such a fashion for long enough that the collection of entangled electrons in the human brain all objectively reduce (become decoherent) at the same time at the rate of 40hz. They then argue that each time a Quantum object becomes decoherent it is a 'moment of awareness'. (They base this on the 'consciousness causes collapse' interpretation, which is itself critically flawed because to date there is no way of measuring a quantum event just by looking at it, but rather only by forcing the quantum event to interact with a larger system which is more likely to cause the decoherence than the act of observation by a conscious entity, but once again I digress).

Here's the rub in my mind - that entire machination has absolutely no explicative power. They may as well have said, 'the solution to the hard problem of consciousness if 'fairy dust' sprinkled in the brain'. It does nothing to explain what a 'moment of awareness' is, or how that results in human decision making, or human thoughts are formed, or the qualia of the self. Moreover it is of absolutely no use to me as an individual progressing on the LHP, as it doesn't provide a means to acquire 'Left Handed Attainment' which to me means, attainment through experience. It's not like reading a field manual on surviving in the wilderness then going to do it. I do give it credit for at least being rooted in pseudo science however.

The other styles of philosophical complexity tend to center around individual interpretation of qualia. I.e. "When I look inwards I see a coherent self" or, "if I examine that self I am aware that it is fractured", or, "My self has changed over time". These then lead to machinations around 'which self is the real you' etc ad infinitum. The problem with these kind of ideas that I perceive is that they are based on entirely a 'subjective' impression of something that frankly may not extend further than the individual. This leads to some entertaining philosophies based purely on the study of the qualia of experience but always struck me as being rooted in solipsism.

Sure the manipulation of that impression may be of use intellectually, but clinging to the idea, seems hardly as much use as clinging to something that is inherently more usable. Good philosophy may be rooted in the concept of contemplating paradox (absurdity) but a paradox is by definition irresolvable whichever way you slice it, so it ultimately amounts to sitting there and formulating an opinion on something that defies resolution and is hence makes contemplation utterly futile in the first instance.

As I've spent more and more time 'doing the LHP' over the past eleven years I've found the ideas that I hold onto becoming less grandiose. Practical wisdom (i.e. knowledge acquired through doing things) tends to shine a light of either incongruity, or irrelevancy on many ideas which seem so important when being solely contemplated in the absence of experience. As memes, and concepts are burned away in 'The Fire' the ideas built upon them fail by association. I have become less concerned with 'the big questions' and more concerned with, what is rational, and usable, and what I have learned by applying that in a real situation. While I understand that philosophy can 'teach one to reason' through partaking of it, clinging to those ideas 'post learning' rather than formulating one's own based on the 'practical wisdom' innate to arguing those positions seems odd to me. (I.e. to me the value of a good philosophical debate is in what I learn about constructing and/or deconstructing ideas, rather than the ideas themselves).

I'm curious as to where people feel they fall on the 'philosophical scale'.


MF

Top
#56047 - 06/19/11 05:52 AM Re: The LHP and Philosophical Minimalism [Re: MindFux]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Personally I like to think. Not only is it a cheap hobby, I'm usually carrying my brain around anyways. Many people might think I'm a philosophical maximalist since I can ponder about the most ridiculous abstract subject but in daily life, I function on quite simple philosophical parameters.

The only two major subjects I keep in mind during my daily adventures are Will to Power and human need, and even only at a level understanding; those underlying human motivation and thus making it and them predictable. Besides this I function much more on an animalistic level and much is defined by hunches, intuition or raw empathy if you like to call it such. I sense things clearly realizing that is quite contradicting the more logical approaches that are heralded in our day and age.

But it always functioned for me, even when in the past, occasionally, creating internal conflicts.

D.

Top
#56052 - 06/19/11 08:03 AM Re: The LHP and Philosophical Minimalism [Re: MindFux]
Hegesias Offline
active member


Registered: 02/16/11
Posts: 725
I simply see the civilised world as a horror planet where people have the audacity to smile and be content with living their lives without the stimulation nature designed for us. It is the affirmation of a lacking, the wretched contentment, dissatisfaction which urges me to attain the ever out of reach maxim.

I am not complex, my intelligence is used to work back through abstraction and bring about reduction in my life to focus on the natural.

I am the impulse to nature. I have no identifiable emotions except gut impulse toward power, sex and violence, it is only the face of love on a woman that dissipates the subterranean maelstrom momentarily until the resurgence can be directed into her.

Those imposing passivity and peace disgust me, solemn backstabbers are they, weakness, an unworthy enemy makes me feel all the more lethal, nothing more nothing less, I have to make constant effort not to wreck mundane males for being rude enough to speak to me. Upon interacting with mundane males I often immediately imagine them dead, torn to pieces while I engage in charismatic dialogue.

To crush enemies bodies and minds for my appeasement, there is no need to formalise anything in my life except reductionism and minimalism, I am impulsive, I am a gentleman because the disguised form of the will to power is necessary to live in this wretched society of contented subhuman scum.

It takes an iron will to both express and likewise withstand and endure what is frightening and ultimately exhilarating. I have always believed in breaking the boundaries of mundane whoredom and of those lacking capacity for intimacy, dark or otherwise empathy for raw Nature. I adore women. I am a gentleman. There is the innocent, naive type who gets mistreated throughout her life by all and any who would dabble, and for those kinds of female I have no interest for anymore, she is contented by fantastic mediocrity, the promising plentitude of codependency serves to suffice and all I can do is feel the urge to nurture and protect which is not the same as being confident to push boundaries, transgression, with an equal partner.

I have matured to want strong and independent woman with head strong determination and willpower making her "want" strongly.
My ideal woman is uninhibited in her sexual conduct and in her life, culling the weak willed at whim. I believe sexuality is power and nothing is so disgusting as a much too vulgar display of power; the semblance of children playing games. My ideal woman is not easily tormented, not easily dominated, but heaves to be overwhelmed.

But independent behaviour displayed by females is thought to be masculine by most males; makes them feel redundant. Most men don't like these women (which is a good for me and other Satanist). I still have the impulse to nurture and protect just as strong, but I am obviously stronger with a more than adept partner as my equaliser, we call each other "partners in crime" and are cruel and black humoured. This is how I love and also how I walk the left path. There is no need to formalise things beyond what is natural.

So to be blunt, I cannot identify anything inside of me except flux of dark gut impulse; it invigorates me to break inhibiting composure and breathe nature as a beast does— I have always believed in feral sexuality— the impulse to overwhelm the feminine creatures takes over any human rationality— her face is a heavenly dream and her nightmare moans... like warm sun on my face.

It was never complex for me but it's often complex working through the information society imposes as actual reality.
_________________________


Top
#56059 - 06/19/11 04:12 PM Re: The LHP and Philosophical Minimalism [Re: Hegesias]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1647
Loc: Orlando, FL
In discussions and elsewhere, I am an unabashed psuedo-intellectual and an armchair theorist. I love exploring the subtle nuances of mythos and philosophy, even ideas I don't agree with. (I once engaged a conservative Christian in a rigorous theological debate over Radicalism for several hours on a long bus ride, only to leave him completely baffled when my parting words were "Oh by the way, I'm not actually a Christian...")

However, I don't consider myself an ideologue, because I don't actually endorse any particular set of beliefs for anybody, seeing no need for a "greater purpose". Theology and the like are games to me; I see other speculative sciences like Quantum Physics as merely different games that I find boring.

I find myself questioning the essential purpose of "self-actualization" and the whole "will to power" business, as if systematically intellectualizing the entire ordeal is entirely redundant. Are not the "self" and "power" simply more abstracts to wall oneself in with ontological bricks?

I suppose it flows into what LaVey called "nailing jello to the wall". I've studied numerous organized approaches to Satanism and invented a few of my own, but they always end up leading to more restrictions. Apparently Satan doesn't like being filed in little manilla envelopes and neatly stacked in plastic cabinets.

Darkness. Freedom. Chaos. Not that bad a deal when you look at the raw alternative.


Edited by The Zebu (06/19/11 04:14 PM)
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#56063 - 06/19/11 06:44 PM Re: The LHP and Philosophical Minimalism [Re: The Zebu]
paolo sette Offline
member


Registered: 12/12/08
Posts: 263
Loc: IL, USA
 Originally Posted By: The Zebu
Are not the "self" and "power" simply more abstracts to wall oneself in with ontological bricks?


Some comments as to the Self that deserve mentioning:

Let me call the Self you are referring to as the ego-Self. By differentiating itself from other forms of the Self (yes, there are other forms), the ego-Self understands itself in comparison to other forms and disposition. The ego-Self will stand in contradistinction to the other forms when aware of the other forms. It is, thus, unavoidable that the ego-Self puts the question to itself, "Who am I?" This is an inevitable question for the ego-Self because it objectifies everything including itself. But, with regard to this question you must ask, "Who is asking?" Prima Facia, the ego-Self answers, "I am asking." But, in this answer there are two I's: an I which is asking and an I which is responding. The I's are the same, yet different because the I which is asking is the subject of asking; while the I which is asked about is the object of asking. The total Self is divided and partial in two.

The living, acting and subjective ego-Self is the I which is now asking: this is Satanism.

 Originally Posted By: The Zebu
Darkness. Freedom. Chaos.


I agree.

Saguna Brahman
_________________________
tathagata-svapratyatma-aryajnana-adhigama
666
[nig]-ge-na-da a-ba in-da-di nam-ti i-u-tu

Top
#56064 - 06/19/11 07:14 PM Re: The LHP and Philosophical Minimalism [Re: paolo sette]
Hegesias Offline
active member


Registered: 02/16/11
Posts: 725
Ego's are just dispensable clusters of thoughts repeated in the head to go about ones day thinking one is something important to acknowledge, the ego has no substance or meaning but to provide a suit to walk about in this poxy society.

The Ego is the demiurge and he is foolish, shining bright and hubris, casting a shadow over "reality".

The question "who am I" finds no answer as human language and demiurgic phenomena are nothing to do with the self that is not of the hylic lie.

The ego is artifice and necessary for a number of functions in the civilisation, why be consigned to one or two fixations, there is no I but the belief in it.

Being born on some other wretched place on this earth would have imposed another ego on your shadowy tomb of flesh and bone, and so from this we see that such is surely not "self".

Chained to the wheel of life, upon ego death, the demiurge forces us to drink from the waters of Lethe making us forget the struggle against the light.

In absolute darkness; the black flame.
_________________________


Top
#56065 - 06/19/11 07:41 PM Re: The LHP and Philosophical Minimalism [Re: Hegesias]
paolo sette Offline
member


Registered: 12/12/08
Posts: 263
Loc: IL, USA
 Originally Posted By: Hegesias
Ego's are just dispensable clusters of thoughts repeated in the head to go about ones day thinking one is something important to acknowledge, the ego has no substance or meaning but to provide a suit to walk about in this poxy society.


Then from which position is it possible to grasp humankind as a single, living, Self-aware entity?

I believe that this 'foundation' is for each of us that signifies Satanism: that is, each individual must break through a Self-imposed structure; thereby, realizing the true Self (Satan).

The ego is nothing other than the source of all distinctions and oppositions. For example, if you turn your back on the world, there can be no investigation of your ego-Self. A second point, if you avoid your conflicts, there can be no waking to your true Self (Satan). The true investigation of yourself is always an investigation of yourself between the world and conflicts or oppositions.

Ciao.
_________________________
tathagata-svapratyatma-aryajnana-adhigama
666
[nig]-ge-na-da a-ba in-da-di nam-ti i-u-tu

Top
#56066 - 06/19/11 08:07 PM Re: The LHP and Philosophical Minimalism [Re: paolo sette]
MindFux Offline
member


Registered: 12/27/10
Posts: 174
Paolo, this waffle around the 'true self' and then ascribing it the word 'Satan' is exactly what I'm talking about in terms of lacking any real explicative power. You've thrown in 2 external abstractions, the 'ego-self' (whatever that means to you) and then ascribed the 'true self' with the label Satan, but in neither event have you done more than provide a platitude by way of explanation. If you mean, the only way one can assess who they are is by examining themselves against the ideas thrown at them by society at large, or burn those ideas away through deeds, why not just say that? Why add the layer of unneeded philosophical complexity if it provides no actual assistance in -doing- the LHP? After all, assessing one's self and ideas through actions and contemplation of the outside is much more simply phrased and doesn't require naming 'entities' of the psyche with some arbitrary bullshit and trying to live it. The simple fact is, when you're in a fist fight, I doubt you're thinking about what your 'ego-self' is doing, and I doubt it would do you much good even if you were.

MF


Edited by MindFux (06/19/11 08:13 PM)

Top
#56069 - 06/19/11 08:57 PM Re: The LHP and Philosophical Minimalism [Re: MindFux]
Zophos Offline
member


Registered: 03/28/10
Posts: 115
Loc: U.S.A.
Take it from someone who has been no less exasperated with paolo's nonsense: don't bother.

There is no denying that his continued presence here is an insult to the principles of intelligence, cogency, and evidential reasoning (read: "backing your shit up") by which this forum operates; virtually everyone here well knows that his posts are the memetic equivalent of bone cancer. Nevertheless, he has been allowed protection time and time again through the forum rules, despite the 600 Club's long history of banning members who heaved up insubstantial twaddle without breaking any rules de lege legis. Since no one with the power to do so has seen fit to smite him with a deserved and long overdue ban, his gibberish is unlikely to be stopped anytime soon. Your guess as to why this contradiction remains ignored is as good as mine.


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

Top
#56072 - 06/19/11 11:47 PM Re: The LHP and Philosophical Minimalism [Re: MindFux]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Paolo speaks fluent Moronese; it's a very complicated language and lesser gods like us just can't get the pronunciation right.

Like Zophos said, ignore it, everyone else does too. He's the funny guy talking to himself.

D.

Top
#56073 - 06/19/11 11:59 PM Re: The LHP and Philosophical Minimalism [Re: MindFux]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3934
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Ahh the prince of platitudes is again rising the ire of the natives. He is a strange bird isn't he?

But anyhow, as per the original post I actually wrote a blog to this effect a while back (which I recently moved HERE ), and have fancied myself a philosophical minimalist for some time.

For me it boils down to what is demonstrably true vs what is theoretically true. That which I have learned through gnosis rather than epistemology. The theory is often nothing like the deed itself, thus knowledge based on theory alone is always suspect.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#56075 - 06/20/11 01:31 AM Re: The LHP and Philosophical Minimalism [Re: MindFux]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



I have had an interest in the sorts of questions, which philosophers tend to be interested in, for some years now. I am not an academically trained philosopher, nor do I engage in philosophical thinking and writing in my everyday working week.

It is something I do on the side and is primarily done for my own enjoyment and for those moments when an insight is revealed to me, which is important to me.

I have always been interested in what I regard as culturally significant individuals or groups or movements. I have had a deep interest in European and American Modern painting, sculpture, philosophy, film and literature; and also an interest in American music from the 1920’s to the 1970’s, particularly blues, soul and the rock and roll made at Sun Records, the San Francisco sound and many of the writers and thinkers 1960’s and 1970’s generally for a long time now.

From the start I felt a keen sense that there was a freedom to be had out there and that there were, for want of a better word, forces out there which exercised forms of control against the experiencing of this freedom and against individualism in general for whatever reason.

All of the people I really liked had seized their own freedom and had generated their own unique vision as a result, gained their own understanding and they were expressing their vision, their freedom through significant creative works.

In distinction to this concern for the idea of freedom, or a desire for its realisation, was an understanding that I was a real carnal flesh and blood human animal in a real world and that I had to make ends meet, to do what it took to live and flourish. History and my own experience seemed to strongly suggest that my relations with my own kind and my relations with my world and my success were determined by relations of control, of domination, of desire, of empathy etc.

From this understanding I developed an appreciation for politics and history and particularly the history and philosophy of power struggles generally and the ways in which power functioned, the ways in which it was expressed. I realised that any freedom obtained is always balanced against reality, against responsibility. I felt that this was a more mature and real understanding.

My own understanding of Anton LaVey’s works is really quite pivotal in all this. He seemed to have linked all of these basic concerns I had been interested in for such a long time into one package. My understanding was later enlarged upon by readings of other important LHP magician’s and practitioners such as M.A.A etc.

Anyway, these are the basic set of concerns I have had and my philosophical interests tend to be situated within this framework

Top
#56087 - 06/20/11 01:53 PM Re: The LHP and Philosophical Minimalism [Re: MindFux]
SkaffenAmtiskaw Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 06/24/09
Posts: 1318
To some extent I suppose I could be called both a maximalist and a minimalist without any strong objections. I engage in both approaches on a regular basis; sometimes to achieve results, other times just for fun. My own path is defined less by what I can take than what the taking changes within me. I do not imagine the world will change by my thinking about it, nor do I see anything I really need to change about it to become better than I am. The main thing is how I can make myself better by exercising my Will upon the world. So far I've changed a couple of things, and although those things were pretty damn important to me, I was more impressed with how the effort of causing change changed me.

Thinking about high-and-mighty ideals and concepts can cause paradigm-shattering experiences, so that can be useful too, but without the actions to back those experiences up, they're more like guidelines. Or as a friend of mine is fond of saying: "A huge cock is no good without the arse to power it."

I change my Self through the application of Will on the world I inhabit. Thinking is involved. I find it hard to change the world in ways that are disagreeable, but ultimately, the need for growth and improvement of the Self always wins out. Sharing thoughts here is a good way to put them through the crucible, so to speak. Ideas need to be tested to destruction, just to see how robust they really are.

EDIT: In my first paragraph, I say "I do not imagine the world will change by my thinking about it, nor do I see anything I really need to change about it to become better than I am." This may seem directly opposite to my later statements, but is meant to indicate that creating a world with lower standards just to pass myself off as superior is an exercise in futility. You change yourself to be better by drawing experience from the changes you cause.


Edited by SkaffenAmtiskaw (06/20/11 02:03 PM)
Edit Reason: Nonsense and poppycock.
_________________________
"I'd rather be right than consistent" - Winston Churchill

Top
#56091 - 06/20/11 04:24 PM Re: The LHP and Philosophical Minimalism [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
MindFux Offline
member


Registered: 12/27/10
Posts: 174
 Quote:
I find it hard to change the world in ways that are disagreeable, but ultimately, the need for growth and improvement of the Self always wins out. Sharing thoughts here is a good way to put them through the crucible, so to speak. Ideas need to be tested to destruction, just to see how robust they really are.


I agree that a good debate is the best way of testing the fortitude of any concept or idea against rational scrutiny, and indeed engage in such regularly myself.

That said I don't necessarily ascribe all of my 'debates' (arguments) as being useful from a philosophical perspective. (And I'm not suggesting anyone else does either).

Being able to argue the nature of the Self may be intrinsically interesting, but because of the nature of the paradox innate to it (i.e. the hard problem) it actually defies 'usefulness' because it is intractable. That's not to say that such discussions aren't fulfilling and intellectually stimulating (because they invariably are) but I just find myself lacking the 'passion' for them that I once had.

What I ultimately find myself left with is the things that I can use or have acquired through doing taking precedence over ideas that rationally appeal. I do find worth in some 'out there' concepts provided they have underlying utility. Any concept that has such utility, or can be transferred to/from deeds to me makes it a 'minimalist' concept precisely because it can be used. (As opposed to collecting ideas merely because they are obscure, or intellectually interesting).

That said, I'm yet to find a 'high and mighty' concept paradigm shattering per se, not when compared to certain experiences at least. I may have the odd 'ah-hah' moment, but that's about it, and I've rarely found an idea acquired in the mind that's held up in the outside world unchanged. Normally I've found the opposite to be true - that I'm naturally attracted to ideas that gel with my experiences, or seek a new idea out because of something that has happened.

That's not to say it's impossible of course, I may just be reading the wrong books.

MindFux.




Edited by MindFux (06/20/11 04:51 PM)
Edit Reason: clarity

Top
#56095 - 06/20/11 06:19 PM Re: The LHP and Philosophical Minimalism [Re: MindFux]
assault_ninja Offline
Banned--Idiot
stranger


Registered: 06/14/11
Posts: 36
I think that there's a different trend here.

You see, occultism was always filled with lots of pointless or\and incomprehensible stuff. Be it RHP, like theosophy, or LHP, just look at our friend Crowley.

It's just that after LaVey so called LHP became filled with tons of more or less practically minded individuals, who have little tolerance for metaphysical knowledge that has no purpose.

We're pretty much coming back to the same conflict between atheistic and theistic Satanism.

Top
Page 1 of 3 123>


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

Generated in 0.03 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.