Page all 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: 172
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: 1631
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, ˇoh 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: 172
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: 3705
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: 172
 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
#56097 - 06/20/11 07:09 PM Re: The LHP and Philosophical Minimalism [Re: assault_ninja]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3705
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
One does not need to be a theist to clutter ones worldview with layer upon layer of extraneous garbage, to either project the image of wisdom or to actually mistake it for such. Nor does one need to be an occultist for this. Many build up cluttered word soup beliefs that they only half understand in all walks of life.

Many theists have very simple and streamlined systems of belief that just happen to sit on the axiom of blind faith, just as many build or draw from incomprehensibly complex systems based on same (Hi MAA).
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#56106 - 06/20/11 09:07 PM Re: The LHP and Philosophical Minimalism [Re: assault_ninja]
Hegesias Offline
active member


Registered: 02/16/11
Posts: 725
Do atheistic Satanists here affirm entropy in all manifestations of cause and effect, and likewise do theistic Satanist affirm the same as Satan simply going about the countercurrent expression in different gradients of somatic/extrovert vs. cerebral/introvert?

What does this nonsense mean?

Below is a brief outline of my personal representation of what is Satan or otherwise madness to ponder.

Although Satan may be the the signifier of liberation from the imposed duality "good and evil" of the Judeo-Christian paradigm. The counter current is much more than an individualist symbol of perfectly natural human functioning against slave morality. The anti-cosmic or Gnostic Satanist cultivates polarised hyperbolic disciplines and all schools of nihilism holding the will toward lawlessness as absolute against the creation which is shaped and limited by the false light, although not spiritual as the death of the individual is also the death of the universe because perception ceases upon death therefore the black flame is fully risen to blanket the universe in darkness insofar as cessation of causality would indicate an instantaneous merge with the heat death of the universe, the one black hole state. The sciences of quantum physics and string theory reveal that solidarity as we perceive it is not as it would appear to the senses, that matter is subatomic particle waves vibrating at variants of flux beyond what makes up our perception of the observable universe, therefore shedding some light on the lie of the light at least for those equating all "truth" with "certainty" but demanding scientific or empirical knowledge relating to antinomian Gnosticism is a tough task to achieve as it's more of an inexplicable understanding that the will, the self, is not bound to the imposed rules of existence, circumstance, or even ones own sense boundaries.

For example "pain", both physical or emotional, is considered an interesting defiance for the Gnostic heretic to spite the character known as the demiurge which is both one in the same phenomenal form of it's idea, the world by which the individual perceives also being representative of the artifice that is ego. The individual being trapped in shadowy tomb of flesh and bone, his body is also part of the bastard creation and for the will to reign absolute, experiences thought undesirable, or inhuman, must be overcome, including pain and suffering imposed by the imperfect creation's rules of existence, hence, in the anti-cosmic cerebral discipline, the true blessing of Satan is self-torture. Man would not dare face a little pain now and deny that he would bare immense agony later.

It is always through way of pain one arrives at pleasure.— de Sade

Thereby exists the duality of the true black light of which the individual's dark unconsciousness and will burns as the black flame, and the false light of the observable universe which is hylic darkness, a shadow cast by the false light of ego. Situations of mortality are to be mocked and situations of somatic pleasure are to be savoured without inhibition, the desolate one laughs at suffering and death for it makes him blithe and smiles inwardly in defiance at his accumulated power. The individual is beyond the imposed rules of the external and how others expect him to react.

The archetype of opposition to stasis "Satan" the vector of entropic destruction / renewal. The entropic anti-force which destroy to recreate "solve et coagula" the occult words written on the feminine receptacle / masculine inseminator "Baphomet" – "Baphe Metis" translating as "the baptism/baptiser of wisdom". The universes functioning state of perpetual chaotic flux is not an orderly settlement. "Sinistral" or "sinister" translates as "of the left" in Latin, signifying the universe's entropic counter current which goes against the right, or normality. With the direction of ones will towards disruption and disorder upon the "images and ideas about reality" imposed as "actual reality" by society and civilisation – "heresy" – there emerges anarchistic causal change and social entropy within the closed system of Judeo-Christian society and civilisations memeplexs.

The self-destructive pseudosatanists proclaim themselves to be Satanists but what in nature consumes drugs and alcohol on a path towards sickness of mind and body, death? Methinks some Satanist took the "what does not kill makes strong" out of context. Toward transgressive evolutions and revaluations of values. The feral and death affirmation as opposed to the spiritual as opposed to the negativity of contentments. Satanism— a means.

Arrogance of Satan.
_________________________


Top
#56116 - 06/20/11 11:51 PM Re: The LHP and Philosophical Minimalism [Re: MindFux]
paolo sette Offline
member


Registered: 12/12/08
Posts: 263
Loc: IL, USA
 Originally Posted By: MindFux
Why add the layer of unneeded philosophical complexity if it provides no actual assistance in -doing- the LHP?


Experiences are endless, and this endlessness creates distinctions which lead to the sense of seperateness of things.

 Originally Posted By: MindFux
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.


In pure experiences, the Intellect, Emotions and Will are undivided. They are a single activity without any opposition between subject and object. Since that opposition arises from the demands of thinking, it is a fact of immediate experience (fist fighting). In immediate experience (fist fighting), there is only a single, independent, Self-sufficient event. There is neither a subject nor object only the event (fist fighting). In the instant of immediate experience (fist fighting), so-called Reality is immediately present. For example, it is like two men exchanging smacks, blows and slams, forgetting themselves and everything around them, and sensing nothing other than the fight. Since the thought that the fight is two men hitting each other, it derives from thought apart from that state of Reality (fist fighting). At that point, they are already seperated from the "fist fighting" Reality...for it is not undivided.

 Originally Posted By: Zophos
Take it from someone who has been no less exasperated with paolo's nonsense: don't bother.


You're already on the back-burners of my stove.


Edited by paolo sette (06/21/11 12:42 AM)
_________________________
tathagata-svapratyatma-aryajnana-adhigama
666
[nig]-ge-na-da a-ba in-da-di nam-ti i-u-tu

Top
#56122 - 06/21/11 09:02 AM Re: The LHP and Philosophical Minimalism [Re: paolo sette]
MindFux Offline
member


Registered: 12/27/10
Posts: 172
 Quote:

Experiences are endless, and this endlessness creates distinctions which lead to the sense of seperateness of things.


Platitude of the month. 'People have lots of experiences so those experiences seem separate'. There is no way you can actually think that added anything to the discussion, surely?

 Quote:
In pure experiences, the Intellect, Emotions and Will are undivided. They are a single activity without any opposition between subject and object. Since that opposition arises from the demands of thinking, it is a fact of immediate experience (fist fighting). In immediate experience (fist fighting), there is only a single, independent, Self-sufficient event. There is neither a subject nor object only the event (fist fighting).


To my original point around worthless philosophizing, this pretty much takes the cake. What does this understanding actually add to you -doing- the LHP?

You have just written a paragraph of pseudo-philosophical nonsense around something I can sum up in a sentence - "People tend to have singular focus when involved in a violent altercation", so I ask once again, what does the sea of platitudes you produce do to aid in your ability to -do- something?

Or is it as I suspect - you carry these things around like layer upon layer of pretense?

It's actually fitting that you posted because you're an example of the 'problem' (or vagrancy) I was referring to in my original post.

MF





Edited by MindFux (06/21/11 09:04 AM)

Top
#56125 - 06/21/11 10:51 AM Re: The LHP and Philosophical Minimalism [Re: MindFux]
SkaffenAmtiskaw Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 06/24/09
Posts: 1318
I think what you touched upon in your response is vitally important in the Grail Quest / Great Work / Whatever You Want To Call It. It is a much-lamented trend that at a certain point in your development things tend to grow stale. You've had a certain kind of discussion a million times over, and those frank exchanges of ideas that had you drinking Scotch at four in the a.m. and questioning your sanity seem things of the past. Nothing touches, disturbs, excites or moves you. You start thinking it's settled.

It's a little like being in love. It can, and invariably does, come back to hit you with renewed force. I've been fortunate enough to have conversed with several great minds here, who have gone on to nuke my brain repeatedly, leaving me reeling and insensate as I processed the ideas they shared.

Of course, it is to a certain extent as you say; you focus on being pragmatic as time goes on, ever hopeful that some new idea will fulminate you and spur you down some dark and exciting alley you've never paid attention to before.
_________________________
"I'd rather be right than consistent" - Winston Churchill

Top
#56130 - 06/21/11 01:07 PM Re: The LHP and Philosophical Minimalism [Re: MindFux]
Autodidact Offline
member


Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 428
I have not studied much of the philosophy that I probably should have, so it's possible I'm missing something. Nevertheless, here's what I think.

"Philosophy" encompasses too many things to treat as a single unit for general statements. The original post, for instance, seemingly lumps both big-question philosophy in together with the actual physical mechanics of the brain. In addition, the topics / examples brought up in this thread cover multiple areas of human experience.

I tend to start such thought processes, when I have the luxury, from the standpoint that Man is an animal. My experiences and observations lead me to believe that basic animal instinct and physiology drives nearly all human behavior. ("Wait, we were talking about philosophy ..." - have patience, I'll get there.)

Maslow's pyramid is a good model - but look at it as if Man was mostly animal. People tend to intellectualize too much, which causes them only confusion. Here's a good example of what I mean: When a man is his family's breadwinner, and something happens at his job that even hints at the possibility that he may lose it, for most men it's not intellectual at all: he may say, aloofly, even to himself, "It's God's will" or "This could be an opportunity" or even "This sucks", but he reacts to the reality of an emotional lightning bolt straight to the animal foundation: My ability to feed myself and my family is threatened.

Man is evolutionarily tribal. That means groups, with all that entails, especially group behavior ("us" and "them", trust, initiation rituals, et al.) and leaders (will to power and deference to authority).

Man has developed a great pattern-matching brain, which is great for creating and combining tools, but which is heuristically based (meaning not data-driven).

Already, just using those building blocks, Occam's Razor can explain (to my satisfaction, at least) many of the things brought up.

Younger, less experienced humans have a natural propensity to look to leaders and/or tradition (which is by de facto established by other leaders) for direction or explanation. With such innate trust, and the relatively new mass communication and "mass default tribes", it should be evident that anybody with any idea can gain some adherents. With such innate trust, the more complex ideas gain the benefit of the doubt and automatically appear "better", because pattern-matching says more complex means more time and effort has been spent on it, which pattern-matching then associates with "better".

That's why you see philosophical complexity.

Deference to authority explains the whole lack of questioning a "subject matter expert" - never mind that most people really don't have the education or will to actually do so, the power of authority weighs abnormally strong in such discussions. Witness not only Alan Greenspan's statements about not believing there was a housing bubble, but the number of people who turn that into "fact".

Man's achievement of consciousness implies nothing. The pattern-matcher looks for a reason, a cause, or a purpose. Add the need to have a leader and bam, that's all you need for theism.

It seems to me the same blocks underlie some subset of philosophy - any of the 'why are we here' answers, any of the attempts to deduce morals, all of those are very large circular arguments that prove their own assumptions.

I think the human species has expanded quickly into an evolutionary state where it has consciousness. In an instant it's developed tools and all manner of ways to use them - massively de-risking basic survival, extending life, conglomerating into a huge number of intertwined "tribes". There is no purpose - the pregenitor of "purpose" was "follow the leader", but there is no replacement in our modern world.

Most people can't handle it.

That, to me, is the genius of Satanism. It recognizes that one must doubt and question to assure understanding of the facts. It recognizes that Man really is carnal, in all ways - most people just think that applies to sex (hey, Heg, if you find that woman see if she has a sister! ) It recognizes that there is no purpose other than what one Wills.

My answer, then, is not really an answer - most "big question" philosophy is pointless and unnecessary.
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

Top
#56133 - 06/21/11 02:29 PM Re: The LHP and Philosophical Minimalism [Re: Autodidact]
MindFux Offline
member


Registered: 12/27/10
Posts: 172
 Quote:
"Philosophy" encompasses too many things to treat as a single unit for general statements. The original post, for instance, seemingly lumps both big-question philosophy in together with the actual physical mechanics of the brain.


That wasn't my intent - but rather to demonstrate an area where practical knowledge of an area has no inherent usability and it was the only example that readily came to mind. Your thrust however is salient that 'Philosophy' is an extremely wide boat to heap things into.

 Quote:
"This could be an opportunity" or even "This sucks", but he reacts to the reality of an emotional lightning bolt straight to the animal foundation: My ability to feed myself and my family is threatened.


I would regard this is a fairly minimalistic philosophical concept, and one that I can resonate with. That kind of knowledge is of tremendous use in 'doing' the LHP, rather than discussing it in flowery language. In fact I find myself becoming increasingly aware of what's an animal drive set against an intellectual one as I go along. So in short, I concur. Lol.

 Quote:

ith such innate trust, the more complex ideas gain the benefit of the doubt and automatically appear "better", because pattern-matching says more complex means more time and effort has been spent on it, which pattern-matching then associates with "better".


You've hit the nail I was aiming for squarely on the head. I think it's more than pattern matching though, I also think its to do with obscurity. Whenever I hear someone say something that transcends my understanding I have an initial reaction of, "Wow they really must know what they're talking about".

I try and curb that reaction as far as I can - but the truth is subject matter experts are by definition more at ease using terminology and concepts that non subject matter experts may not be familiar with. That normally drives me to pick up a book and read rather than blindly accept these things at face value.

What I've noticed on many a web forum is that many nod along in support, as by association, the very appearance of 'getting' what the other person is saying passes that implied expertise onto them. It's a fairly effective social technique that is employed in the work place all the damn time (read too damn much). It does lead to the ballooning appearance of complexity (and often irrelevancy) where people lose site of the wood for the trees.

I always like to point out Brian Greene as an example of someone who does it right. A subject matter expert that can break it down to a level that's innately comprehend-able. Any true expert can do such things and the old chestnut of "I'm not going to spoonfeed you anything, you need to learn it yourself" rarely washes when the subject being discussed requires a phd level of understanding to even begin a conversation.

If that's the case it shouldn't really be posted on any forums not frequented solely by people with that innate level of experience with the concept. (That 'old chestnut' does of course hold true when one is using basic philosophical concepts that are familiar to anyone with a reasonable level of intelligence). To do otherwise is to set an absurd standard for discourse that results in mute confusion, or nodding along for the sake of it.

The added bonus of course is that no one can call bullshit, and even if they do, no one else is familiar enough with the concept to judge who is 'right' and who is 'wrong' making the whole discourse unnecessary. (I actually fell into the trap of engaging in such a discourse not so long ago, and not so far away ;))

 Quote:

Man's achievement of consciousness implies nothing. The pattern-matcher looks for a reason, a cause, or a purpose. Add the need to have a leader and bam, that's all you need for theism.


Well said.

 Quote:
Of course, it is to a certain extent as you say; you focus on being pragmatic as time goes on, ever hopeful that some new idea will fulminate you and spur you down some dark and exciting alley you've never paid attention to before.


Indeed, but the dark alley I'm currently scurrying down requires little thought that isn't practically usable. That indeed may change, but I definitely see it as part of the Path. As to how long it is remains to be seen.

MindFux.



Edited by MindFux (06/21/11 02:33 PM)
Edit Reason: clarity

Top
#56135 - 06/21/11 02:58 PM Re: The LHP and Philosophical Minimalism [Re: MindFux]
SkaffenAmtiskaw Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 06/24/09
Posts: 1318
I think we're talking about the same thing seen from two different angles. I, too, need to be pragmatic about my approach, because otherwise I'd just be floundering about. The only way to get anything done is to know you're going about it the right way and do that to the best of your ability.

As for the cerebral part of it, it represents - to me - the contemplative level of the quest for self-improvement. You consider the results of the approach you took and the resulting outcome of your actions. Upon considering this, you gain a degree of insight into yourself and where you're going. The first time I noticed this taking place, I thought it was as simple as prosaically listing what I'd done and staking out the best course forward, but in essence it is a fine-honing of the Self. There is another type of improvement taking place, and it is at the same time both all about the actual actions and completely removed from them.

In essence, it is - once again, to me - a little like the Taoist quest toward inner peace, only with the purpose of fulfilling one's Will rather than a spiritual circling of the drain.
_________________________
"I'd rather be right than consistent" - Winston Churchill

Top
#56138 - 06/21/11 05:26 PM Re: The LHP and Philosophical Minimalism [Re: MindFux]
Autodidact Offline
member


Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 428
 Originally Posted By: MindFux
I try and curb that reaction as far as I can - but the truth is subject matter experts are by definition more at ease using terminology and concepts that non subject matter experts may not be familiar with. That normally drives me to pick up a book and read rather than blindly accept these things at face value.
[...]
I always like to point out Brian Greene as an example of someone who does it right.


More and more I find myself automatically not believing somebody if they cannot explain something simply. Einstein said (well, no, actually he didn't, but everybody thinks he did), "If you cannot explain something to your grandmother, you don't understand it." Maybe it's because now I understand my craft (and a few other things) well enough to explain some bits to someone who is not a master that I don't trust an "expert" who cannot do the same. Lately that's a lot of people ...

(As an unnecessary aside, I like the general apprentice-journeyman-master motif, but because of the above I add another step - wizard. (I actually got that from a book somewhere.) A master is a professional who can support himself by his own hand ... but a wizard is somebody who knows something so well he can explain it to apprentices at a level they can understand and use, synchronize with other areas easily, make breakthroughs, and synthesize new cross-discipline areas. Many would start to say "Ph.D. ..." but I know too many of them - my bar is higher, and the membership sparse.)

I see the expansion of these "sub-experts" as an effect of the increasing specialization of society - not a direct effect, because clearly things can be explained to non-experts; but an unfortunate, self-imposed effect of the mentally lazy. We have specialized and delegated work, not thinking. Again we see doubt serves us well - whereas you would pick up a book and figure it out, the herd dumbly nods their head.

(As another unnecessary aside, once you consciously reach this point, it's a short step to realizing that everybody falls into this category. Many otherwise intelligent people I know still fall for "expert" talk in all manner of ways, especially business and politics, even when I can prove otherwise.)

The flip side of that, of course, is that one cannot automatically assume that someone who can explain something simply is automatically correct ...
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

Top
#56148 - 06/22/11 07:11 AM Re: The LHP and Philosophical Minimalism [Re: Autodidact]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



I would like to express my support for your post Autodidact.

I was recently looking through some of the threads in a philosophy forum, a pretty good one too.

I noted that there were many seemingly complex posts using a great deal of rather professional looking jargon from a lot of the members there.

Suddenly Professor John Searle posted in the thread in question and his post was rather startling when compared to the posts which had preceded his.

Searle's post brought the issue down to an individual's day to day experience in the world, and it used clear simple English to explain the viewpoint he was putting forward.

The post did attract attention from the other member's there.

I do think that there are questions and answers which may require one to adopt a language others are unfamiliar with, but I do think that questions and answers can be explained, at least in simple terms, by using a commonly undertsood language.

Top
#56149 - 06/22/11 07:59 AM Re: The LHP and Philosophical Minimalism [Re: ]
Asmedious Moderator Offline
Moderator
senior member


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 1708
Loc: New York
I do find it interesting that a large number of intellectuals are able to express themselves in a manner that the average person can comprehend. As an example I own two DVD’s from the “Foundation For Reason and Science.” The people on it are of high intelligence, yet most of them can express complex views clearly and coherently in a way that I believe most people can understand without running to the dictionary or the encyclopedia for reference.
With that said, I am not in favor of watering down a conversation to the level of “Ebonics,” but I am in favor of plain and simple language to express complex ideas if it is possible to do so.

I am reminded of an English teacher that I had briefly in one of my high school classes. It seemed to me that she was a black woman with a chip on her shoulders because she spoke in away that most of us didn’t understand. She often used foreign words, mostly French (how’s that for irony in an English class?) To express her views.
_________________________
"The first order of government is the protection of its citizens right to be left alone."

Top
#56166 - 06/22/11 04:41 PM Re: The LHP and Philosophical Minimalism [Re: Asmedious]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
I am very much rooted in the process of thinking. That is definately in my nature and the big questions have always been a part of me and I have dedicated alot of time thinking about them. I was never one who would just do something. I always analyze it and think about it from many different angels. This comes as no effort for me and it has both good and bad results. With that being said I am not passive either but my basic nature is definately one of an ideologue rather than an activist if I can draw a parallel with the political meanings of the words.

One of the more interesting things I've seen however is how the inner dialogue changes my. Or in other cases do not change me. This is also something I have come to study lately in regards to bigger groups of people. It is sometimes necessary to build a mythos or culture or alike that first implements a certain idea or worldview. This seed is sometimes necessary for the tree to grow and for a person, or a larger amount of people, to break a paradigm and enter a new one (hopefully a better one for the given time). In that way I believe metaphysics can have a visible, and often very strong, impact on the so called real world. If a person has faith in what he or she does, for whatever reason, their actions are often much more powerful. The basis of this is of course often a metaphysical or idealistic conviction.


At the same time, especially when it comes to online discussion about a very specific topic, I find that most discussion often can be reduced to how people interpret words. It is not the essence that is important but how a word is supposed to be defined. Satanism is perhaps one of the areas where this is most apparent. I am thinking of all the words (and associated concepts) like ”nature”, ”animal nature”, ”freedom”, ”will”, ”god/s” etc. In the end I have come to realize that a particular discussion is but worthless because what is discussed is really linguistics while the actuall essence isnt touched upon at all. We need to define words and concepts and a discussion about these things are not bad at all. I am however more aware nowadays about situations where the actual meaning is reduced to nothing and people only bitch about the words being used (I know I fall into the trap at times as well though).

I have for several years now stopped labeling myself. I always come to the conclusion that I feel trapped if I do, even if the label really gives me all the freedom I need. At the same time I often have the feeling that I want to label myself something. The conclusion is always that I cant however and I think this is directly related to my inner nature as that of a thinker. I think of concepts and I study them and in a way I am a perfectionist in that I cant really accept a label that is just general. It has to really fit perfectly and of course none ever does.


So in the end, how do we know if the philosophizing we do are actually worthless or if it in reality can bring about a paradigm shift, in the individual or in the collective, that may have a huge impact on future events? This cant be generally answered of course but sometimes the idea is more powerful than we give it credit for being even before we have seen its results.

Top
#56171 - 06/22/11 07:10 PM Re: The LHP and Philosophical Minimalism [Re: MindFux]
paolo sette Offline
member


Registered: 12/12/08
Posts: 263
Loc: IL, USA
 Originally Posted By: MindFux
It's actually fitting that you posted because you're an example of the 'problem' (or vagrancy) I was referring to in my original post.


After this post, I'm through with you. I wish you bad luck in what-ever you do, where-ever you may go.

I know that there are people in this forum following me, and I'm not at a loss with losing your attention.

Nobody can tell us why the world was created. Any answer given is full of difficulties. One might further ask: was this an unmotivated or motivated act of creation? This dichotomous question centers on a theistic answer which is brought about by Western suppositions.

Acintyah khalu ye bhavah
Na tan tarkeshu yojayer
Acintya-racana-rupam
Manasa api jagar khalu


You must not attempt a merely logical explanation of ideas and problems that baffle the understanding. Who can explain the mysterious growth of the tree from the seed? Even the fact of birth and Death of humankind cannot be explained adequately. It is a great enigma. A mere reference to a number of empirical or secondary Laws of Nature is no explanation.

Ahani ahani bhutani
Gacchanti yama-mandiram
Sashah sthiratvam ichhanti
Kim ascaryam atah param


You observe that every day human beings Die, yet those who are still alive forget this very fact and behave as if you wish to live in this world forever. It is in the sense of mystery that the charm of philosophy lies herein. The progress in philosophical thinking is nothing more than the statement of the problem in a clearer way. For instance, by no means could you ever pretend to solve the riddle of Existence. Einstein had to take great pains to prove scientifically that the straight line was an impossibility. It was proved long before Einstein or any inductive method by the direct and Intuitive perception. Your Intellect runs a zig-zag course while Intuition is the shortest cut to the Truth. Although science might take you a long way towards your goal, it will never be able to take you to the destination you aim at. It will only deepen your sense of mystery at a stage when you would expect a definite answer from it, and leave you gaping in calf-like wonder.

Katanya from 1992 C.E.--I am alive, and here.
_________________________
tathagata-svapratyatma-aryajnana-adhigama
666
[nig]-ge-na-da a-ba in-da-di nam-ti i-u-tu

Top
#56173 - 06/22/11 07:21 PM Re: The LHP and Philosophical Minimalism [Re: paolo sette]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3705
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
If anyone is following you, oh prince of platitudes, it is surely a team of interpreters highly trained in translating pretentious gibberish into english.

This is indeed the exact sort of thing I was talking about when I wrote my essay on this subject, as per ADM. If you can't write something in common english, the chances are there is no understanding to be had. I honestly can not recall even a single instance where your laboured thesaurus rape sessions have done so much as spark a single brain cell. This is why you are the prince ;\)

*feel free to put me on your back burner. It seems to be where all the interesting sorts are*
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#56175 - 06/22/11 08:51 PM Re: The LHP and Philosophical Minimalism [Re: Dan_Dread]
Zophos Offline
member


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

 Quote:
Ahh the prince of platitudes is again rising the ire of the natives. He is a strange bird isn't he?

I wouldn't sully a descriptor as favorable in my lexicon as "strange" by applying it to him.

A list of all 600 Club members known to me who want him gone would encompass virtually every frequent poster here, both white and blue. (Even those excluded are only so because I don't know their opinions with certainty.) It would be one thing if this disdain were merely due to philosophical differences or clashes of personality, in which case banning him would obviously constitute a display of ochlocracy—but it isn't. As I said earlier, not everyone banned on this forum is sent to the Hall of Shame for threatening or trying to convert members. Intelligence matters here, and inane babbling has been cause enough for banishment on more than a few occasions. That paolo has been allowed to post with impunity despite contributing nothing but pseudo-Vedantic diabolism and meaningless word salad is aggravating, ignored though he is by almost everyone. Seen logically and in the light of this forum's own standards, I remain convinced that there is absolutely no reason to continue harboring him, and every reason to expunge him.

Rant over. If anyone can provide a sound counterargument to what I've said above, I will happily admit as much, but I'm not holding my breath. (That said, the challenge may lie simply in finding someone who wouldn't rather see paolo's waste production extinguished.)


 Quote:
*feel free to put me on your back burner. It seems to be where all the interesting sorts are*

We'll have an extra stein of beer waiting for you when Swami Avidyananda dismisses you explicitly. (When you're stopped by the bouncer, just give him the password: "Paolo sent me.")



MindFux:

I hate to say I told you so, but you're wasting your time. Paolo is a bottomless pit.

"Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped." —Elbert Hubbard

(For the record, I do intend to weigh in with my own thoughts on your excellent topic, but I'm currently working my way through a backlog of paperwork and private messages. Keep the fires stoked!)


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

Top
#56177 - 06/22/11 09:41 PM Re: The LHP and Philosophical Minimalism [Re: Zophos]
MindFux Offline
member


Registered: 12/27/10
Posts: 172
To be honest Zophos, Paulo illustrates a point so I'm glad he dropped into this thread and I'm also glad of his reaction. He's the very definition of the problem. Somewhere deep inside he actually believes he's making profound points rather than poetically phrased platitudes. He's a caricature of a problem that exists in subtler and more eloquent forms all over discussions around the LHP.

 Quote:

In essence, it is - once again, to me - a little like the Taoist quest toward inner peace, only with the purpose of fulfilling one's Will rather than a spiritual circling of the drain.


Nemesis, I couldn't have put this better myself with only one caveat. Personally I dislike using the word 'Will' purely because of the social discourse, abstractions etc that comes along with it but I'm getting the impression we share a similar understanding of the concept.

 Quote:
I am very much rooted in the process of thinking. That is definately in my nature and the big questions have always been a part of me and I have dedicated alot of time thinking about them. I was never one who would just do something. I always analyze it and think about it from many different angels. This comes as no effort for me and it has both good and bad results. With that being said I am not passive either but my basic nature is definately one of an ideologue rather than an activist if I can draw a parallel with the political meanings of the words.


I too enjoy contemplating the 'big questions' but as a mental exercise and normally while high (but I digress). There's absolutely nothing wrong with it, but they call it 'pondering the imponderable' for a reason.

These intractable problems are tremendously interesting to think about, but how many times I've run down a path of thought and come to some startling conclusion only to realize it hasn't altered my life or actions one iota. Moreover, as anything other than an interesting point of discussion it is useless precisely because it transcends any meaningful validation. (You'll never know if you're right, or wrong, or more importantly if it even matters!)

That's not to say that it wasn't time well spent, merely that it's not relevant to what I perceive to be the LHP or Left Handed Attainment.

As I said, I've had experiences that have altered me far more than any thoughts that I've had run through my head - and so I try and spend more time doing than thinking about doing, and save my thought for retrospective analysis of actions rather than ex ante contemplation of things that transcend a human answer.

Or as Nemesis put it:
 Quote:

the cerebral part of it, it represents - to me - the contemplative level of the quest for self-improvement. You consider the results of the approach you took and the resulting outcome of your actions. Upon considering this, you gain a degree of insight into yourself and where you're going.


MindFux



Edited by MindFux (06/22/11 09:42 PM)
Edit Reason: Clarity and spelling.

Top
#56182 - 06/22/11 10:36 PM Re: The LHP and Philosophical Minimalism [Re: MindFux]
Zophos Offline
member


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

 Quote:
To be honest Zophos, Paulo illustrates a point so I'm glad he dropped into this thread and I'm also glad of his reaction. He's the very definition of the problem. Somewhere deep inside he actually believes he's making profound points rather than poetically phrased platitudes. He's a caricature of a problem that exists in subtler and more eloquent forms all over discussions around the LHP.

This would be all well and good but for the fact that he has been posting this tripe for almost three years. I think everyone has gotten the point by now, and for anyone willing to read his logged posts, paolo has singlehandedly made the need for further confirmation obsolete.


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

Top
#56183 - 06/22/11 11:02 PM Re: The LHP and Philosophical Minimalism [Re: Zophos]
Hegesias Offline
active member


Registered: 02/16/11
Posts: 725
Bare in mind I'm not disagreeing with anyone's personal and academically sound truths but affirming the positive that counterweights the negative in my personal view.

I will now attempt to slowly and carefully dig my own bottomless pit and in no way try to share Paolo Sette's.

People assume they can easily contemplate the expressions of others; art, literature, etc. it is only when attempting to express themselves (which is a very hard thing to do) that they realise they're so unaccustomed to thinking deeply about anything at all, revealing their abysmal powers of self expression and lack of imagination. Subsequently they will attempt to bring down that which they fail to comfortably comprehend or convince themselves that they can do better if only they really put their mind to it.

I admit that I don't assume to comprehend all that others write on here, I also do not feel it is necessary to portray a complex mind at work, it is almost impossible for me to summarise absolute conclusions. I usually get a dissonant musical natured thought process from Paolo Sette's posts and clearly consise affirmations from posters like Diavolo and Skaff. I can't affirm anything negative from somebody expressing themselves.

By the nature of humans predisposed with a short attention span "dead words" can often catch their attention for a solitary moments contemplation. Long enough to gain a general understanding.

I'd say Paolo Sette can often vector a how to think rather than a what to think; the inspiration being unable to be fully expressed through the limited media of words on a forum and that he is here to get a feel for his writing to go towards a revaluation before putting the realisations to book. I see his writings as vectoring undertones of a greater propensity and potentiality which is not a bad thing in my book so to speak. It's because I see a realisation being asserted consistently.

In the absence of a self, there are no preferences, predictable characteristics. It is not possible to know the desolate one as there is no one there, hence all I say is arbitrary as I am based on stimulation and impulse, and as consequence, a myriad of unpredictable stratagems, mechanisms of the disguised forms of the will to power. Paolo Sette's quite the interesting rhetorician in my book and I often feel what's behind his contributions is a mind apart, not aiming for the promising plentitude of credibility, not trying to convey anything but to express what is true to him, which is a very hard thing to do, especially among what might be seen as intellectual heavyweights.

In no way am I disputing that Paolo's expressions are difficult and withdrawn to his way of thinking and most certainly useless to many Satanist on here, but I can't say anything negative about his expressions because I'll always look to what is positive.

I think Diavolo summed it up best when he said "you're just some guy who comes in and says something random and walks off again", I saw that as a positive affirmation that he is not talking to anyone, he is only speaking. If he appears even somewhat generic to more book learned people, I don't think this is down to him copying anyone but that's just my opinion.

Instead of constructive criticism all I can see is pulling down. Nobody is perfect. I'm not saying this out of modesty, but through actually thinking about it.

Some of my posts, while not related to, were partly inspired by Paolo Sette's ability to create atmosphere due to his projected intuition; certainly not spoon feeding dead words and plain text towards unnecessary complexity. Nonsense to some it seems— quickening dark mental activity in others.
_________________________


Top
#56278 - 06/27/11 12:52 PM Re: The LHP and Philosophical Minimalism [Re: Diavolo]
Hegesias Offline
active member


Registered: 02/16/11
Posts: 725
I'd just like to vector something in a simple way that others may stumble across and therefore be devastated enough to think for themselves and therefore create new value where there was none before or to simply conclude their irreversible decay.

Nihilism can be one of the most difficult terms to define in philosophy and is often shrugged off as something completely unrelated not only because of Nazarene academia portrayal but to sooth cognitive dissonance that comes of nihilisms looming uncertainty, a myriad of unpredictable mechanisms of the cloaked forms of the will to power for starters.

We deface the Judeo-Christian morality that Mundane society uses to keep themselves from becoming completely neurotic from their fear of socio-anarchy. That is still very much much around yet they prefer soothing wishful thinking and subjugation of the weakest kind of themselves.

The attempts at morally blackmailing those of perfectly natural human functioning are often without distinctions as to whether the one they attempt to pull down is of a nobler or despicable kind. A means by which the meek Mundanes use to control and subjugate one another, infect one another with pity etc.

They who are mundane, will cry “all people are equal!” or "you can't do that!", these are nay-saying subjugations, pre-emptive attacks in the form of disguised will to power, characteristic of a meek reaction to uncertainty, looming anarchy. Dependent on minutiae pertaining to control and addiction to contentment, the mundanes have enslaved themselves.

In the presence of socio-anarchy we are the wolves and likely to act pre-emptively and rationally, stimulated by our nature to dominate. But fear is felt differently by Mundanes and causes Mundanes to act neurotically.

Mundanes express quite compromised will to power i.e moral blackmailing and solemn, genuine kindness, which is nothing more than a manipulation regime cloaked in denial and hubris ego gratification. They derive solace in this oblivious manipulation that often works two ways between two parties fearing one another. Quite different to respect derived from a nobler display of power between two wolves. Outward causal forms are paper cut-outs, scattered blocks of disorder that can be mechanised to express the will to power, and assert new order.

I conjecture that Mundanes can never have true comrades because there has been no test of a comrades validity that would be of a nobler kind, sinister or otherwise.

Wishful thinking manipulations of each other. Wishful thinking pretends that humans are altruistic and avoids death affirmation, socio-anarchy, inequality and eventually the cold hard reality of cause and effect itself.

The society of the Mundanes would have you believe that your impulses toward "all" things "transgressive", whether noble or despicable, are lumped into a moral cesspit called “evil” and that being "nice" to "all" people is the promising plentitude of the only "good" in this world— these are hateful manipulations, disguised "passive aggressive" forms of the will to power as expressed by the those in self deceit or otherwise consciously without ethos.

The Mundanes society and their jobs (for which they are hubris about being a victim and having monumental responsibility) cater to the lowest common denominator, and so lapse into a utilitarian "making the best of a bad situation" that produces dross architecture and philistine art, or what passes for arts.

Mundanes have a neurotic, corrupted value and purpose, expressed to convince others and themselves that they are an altruistic "good people", a subjectively created reality that steadily drifts toward passive aggressive, disguised forms of the will to power, and whether they are oblivious to it or not, they are always repressed in the expression of the will to power. Why? Because evil is unacceptable, or at best, something for the Mundane dabbler to glance at in a peasantry fashion.

The Mundane immoralist has an innate awareness about manipulating morality to express disguised forms of the will to power, the only differentiation being the higher factor of denial of the will to power by moralists, and of their addiction to self appeasement that comes of a belief that morality bestows them status of "good person".

The moralist is hubris about his invincible ignorance that amounts only to an abysmal expression of the will to power. He is comfortable pushing his luck within the comfort zone, he is bound and he assumes others are too, or at least tries to impose such by morally acceptable blackmail. Even peasantry criminals will revert to the slave morality when caught out, expressing feelings of moral resentment, but expressed as blame.

Good and evil does not exist but as anything but to be used against the Mundanes. By the oblivious way they play their own game, who is to say we have to remain oblivious to what's really going on? Subtle and direct powerplay and nothing more.

There is only the will to power and if Mundanes wish to denude themselves of it's relevance and harbour illusions about moral absolutes. Morality is their prison that they may very well be forever institutionalised and happily so, expressing the will to power in a compromised (good) or peasantry (despicable) way.

With this revaluation underway.

I conjecture that the idealised maxim of evilness is ever elusive, and it is this affirmation of a lacking that causes those who would "go under" to perpetually emerge as Overman; always becoming stronger, more evil, and more profound; throwing off the negatively equivocal Judeo-Christian morality and to confer honour, regardless of race, creed, by deeds and nothing more.

Instead of the ideas about reality imposed by the Judeo-Christian liberal equality pathos, there shall be no ambiguous nay-saying about what is good and what is bad, for "good" shall equate to nobility, those exemplary of perfectly natural human functioning, and "bad" shall be indicative of despicableness, ineptness (peasantry evil).

Inexplicably felt as a lacking which causes the nihilist to always become more extreme, always towards the ever elusive maxim of his nature to be so. With this, the nihilist rejects what society wants to believe, and instead focuses on what it is logical to deduct from the world with an epistemic distrust of the openly visible, related to but not limited to, misanthropy.

Active nihilism is a rejection of narcissism and solipsism. Extreme scepticism of societally imposed "ideas about reality" all around being spoon fed as "actual reality". An epistemic inquisition seeking to burn to the ground, a Judeo-Christian morality cloaked in white lab coats.
_________________________


Top
#71583 - 10/06/12 10:01 AM Re: The LHP and Philosophical Minimalism [Re: assault_ninja]
Le Deluge Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/05/12
Posts: 1790
I think this is a sound observation. "In the real" I operate only at the level of abstraction necessary to apply my craft. LHP praxis involves a series of experiences, challenges, intuition, ritual etc, to foster self-growth.

My time on this site has kind of validated the abstraction theory mentioned. I can "go maximalist". It hasn't been terribly long since the pedagogical courses (as I defined my own education in academia) in rhetoric, philosophy, etc. It has helped me kind of "peg down terms" I hadn't given much thought to in years. At the end of the day, the practice remains the same. I have found myself picking up the odd tome since using the internet more for source material. It certainly doesn't hurt me, but I would say I am more of a minimalist in practice. I love learning. I will continue pedagogical study as the need arises. As mentioned gnosis >>>> episteme.
_________________________
Apres Moi ... Le Deluge

Top
#84008 - 01/16/14 04:05 PM Re: The LHP and Philosophical Minimalism [Re: Diavolo]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6364
Loc: Virginia
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
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.

D.


I can relate to this point of view. Social Trending is fickle, flighty and can change at the drop of a hat.

At one time, 'thinking' (in the maximalist sense) was glorified as something to aspire towards, where philosophical minimalism was downtrodden as 'low-brow'.

This thread appears to be a few years old but I think the topic is still very much a focus.

Perhaps it just boils down to personal preference. One can kick ideas around in platforms like these which gives the appearance of Maximalist tendencies but it's actually Minimalist in practice.

Words vs. Deeds.

I think, (just an observance really), that some people do not prefer to put their thinking out there.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#84017 - 01/16/14 08:01 PM Re: The LHP and Philosophical Minimalism [Re: SIN3]
Le Deluge Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/05/12
Posts: 1790
The supposition some folks make about these forums amazes me. As a general rule, they have fuck all to do with our lives as a whole. Sure, the exchanges are entertaining. One can offer life stories as anecdotes. I would make no assumptions beyond that. Conflating rhetoric is just a form of chat when push comes to shove. I don't downplay the value of debate, but one has to make an honest assessment of what it is and is not.
_________________________
Apres Moi ... Le Deluge

Top
Page all of 3 123>


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

Generated in 0.056 seconds of which 0.003 seconds were spent on 50 queries. Zlib compression disabled.