Page 2 of 13 <12345>Last »
Topic Options
#62508 - 12/10/11 08:52 PM Re: ADM [Re: Dan_Dread]
Apotheosis Offline
stranger


Registered: 12/05/11
Posts: 30
As I said in another thread, I found my initial reading of ADM most enjoyable. In fact, I thought it drew from the essence of LaVey's work and magnified this essence considerably.

I generated some questions based on my reading of ADM. Anything that you would prefer to answer in PM would be most welcome.

I certainly don't expect you to answer these all immediately. Do what you please. But this seems to be the work of an author who appreciates critical questioning.

1. You say that knowledge not learned through experience is suspect a priori. To what degree is knowledge learned through experience exempt from this sort of suspicion?

Some Christians, other sorts of religious people, and mystics claim to experience the supernatural directly. Prejudices learned through teaching are causing them to experience an illusion. But experience can equally cause us to form prejudices. And if we do not form prejudices, then how is knowledge serving us?

If we were to place too much weight on our own experience, and not enough on lessons learned by trustworthy experts, we might find ourselves believing that the Earth is flat. We experience it as flat. We also understand that there is someone else whose experience is more relevant to the question “what shape is the Earth?”

So, you make it clear that in your view experiential knowledge is more reliable relative to knowledge that is taught. But how reliable is that? Could you go into more detail about knowledge and the relative value of experience and teaching?

2. You describe a process of realization through the refinement or obliteration of abstractions to a base essence or numinous connection to the real world. You say that language has built a barrier between the world and how we apprehend it.

Is ADM the only abstraction that should survive the process? If not, what are some other abstractions worth keeping? Is there ever a point at which the abstractions corresponding to Satanism, the LHP, and ADM should be destroyed?

Are debate, dialectic, and rhetoric impotent to discriminate between helpful abstractions and unhelpful ones? Or do they just not go far enough?

In my experience, I can only symbolically destroy abstractions, through the destruction or inappropriate use of real things that represent them, or I can destroy these real things in imagination. The result of this is that I no longer have the same enthralled reaction to them, but I do not lose the ability to recall them or understand them. Is this a form or part of ADM?

3. Doing forbidden things to destroy/refine abstraction. This sounds to me like doing things that we forbid to ourselves, because they have either been forbidden to us by society, or they have been forbidden by beliefs about our own limitations. Does that mean we should do forbidden things that we have no desire to do? In theory, should every forbidden thing be done if possible? If not, how do we determine which ones we ought to do? Is there a “line” at all?

Top
#62510 - 12/10/11 10:04 PM Re: ADM [Re: Apotheosis]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 4019
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Those are fair questions, and I find criticism to be quite important, whether hostile or genuine. Yours seems like the latter anyway.

1: We can only ever 'know' what we experience, but you are right when you say that we all interpret experience through a subjective lense. All we can know for sure is how these things effect us personally. It's a matter of knowing yourself. Like, reading a few books by bruce lee or youtube videos of fights won't tell you how you would react in a violent situation.

Even so, I think all experience should be put to as much self honest scrutiny as can be mustered, after the fact. In fact, one of the reasons for, or effects of, doing should be to realize that we are not our ideas. Nothing like getting knocked the fuck out to realize you ain't invincible.

That isn't to belittle the value of teaching, but it can only ever be second class knowledge. No book on skydiving will accurately tell you how it feels to jump out of a plane. The problem is that language can only ever offer an intimation of reality.


2: We are stuck with abstractions, but it's a sticky web. It's just a matter of negotiating them with awareness, or at least trying to, and not getting caught up in them. Much of what we believe about ourselves and the world will always be lies, and the 'nomos' will always work to slowly undo any work we do to free ourselves of them. There's just so much input.. ADM is just an abstraction. An abstraction by design, if you will:

"ADM too is an abstraction. A causal form that exists to cannibalize and run rampant upon other causal forms. An abstraction known as an abstraction, a tool known for what it is that it may be sharpened with awareness. A form that to remain vectored as an obsidian blade must shift as I shift, allowing for replacement of abstractions as they fall, as they fail, as the fire burns them away. A defragmentation for the mind, built on a foundation of exeatic experience and neuro-iconoclasm. A foundation of conflict and direct and merciless opposition to all ideas, traditions, and beliefs until only what is true, what is real, remains. A distillation of reality. To breath life into the whitewashed husk that the devil has become, through sinister deeds, through fire."

(And yes I do feel like a bit of a douchebag for quoting myself, before you ask)

And as for the latter part of this second question (or questions lol) only you know what helpful or non helpful abstractions are, and even that is probably gonna be contextual. I don't think the path pushes towards greatness, or even anything most would even desire. Unlike someone else around here that likes to quote himself, I aint selling anything. All this has to offer is a certain sort of view of the world, that largely fosters contempt more than anything :P Still, I have found that some , like myself, are just drawn to it for whatever reason.

As far as abstractions go, as per beliefs or ideas that might filter how you see things or believe or act, destroying them is just destroying their hold on you. The belief that you are Casanova will be dispelled when your dick can't even get hard when it counts, surely. ;\)


3: As far as doing sinister shit goes, it's just a matter of confronting your own limitations. We are all eyeball deep in these, instilled from birth into us by everyone else similarly conditioned. That which is outside of the list of 'approved' action will also generally be outside of your own list of ' approved' actions, by proxy of being plugged into the nomos and running 'magian software' if you will. Thus, what is outside of this are where your limits are. But are they? Do they have to be?

I have found the only way to break this mental apparatus built on a foundation of backwards values is to confront the limits and break them first hand. This isn't to say do shit you aren't supposed to for it's own sake, once you have erased a border there's no need to keep crossing where it used to be, it's just a matter of establishing greater autonomy by not having to worry about that phantom line in the sand that was only ever arbitrary anyway; if that makes any sense to you.
_________________________



Top
#62534 - 12/12/11 03:24 AM Re: ADM [Re: Apotheosis]
Octavian Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/30/11
Posts: 81
Just to clarify: knowledge not learned through experience is suspect a priori?

A priori knowledge is prior to experience and is confirmed by experience.

A priori knowledge is precisely knowledge which is not learnt through experience and is hence the knowledge of choice for the Rationalist tradition, rather than the Empiricist tradition.

To claim that knowledge not learnt through experience is suspect a priori is incorrect and illogical. There must be a priori knowledge without reference to empirical learning in order for this claim to work I would say.

Unless this is all going to be reduced to Kantian idealism.

Top
#62548 - 12/12/11 11:32 AM Re: ADM [Re: Octavian]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Look at it this way. Knowledge about the Self not verified by experience is simply belief.

I can be convinced that when I get mugged, I will do this and that only to find out it might not be true at all. Very often we have these heroic expectations of ourselves which not always prove to be true.

This is why experience matters, it provides you exactly those insights you need to realize what you are. It also shows you what potential you have and which options available.

You can sit in a chair and think all day long but not unless reality kicks in, you will find out how correct all these assumptions were.

Experience is where belief meets the real.

D.

Top
#62551 - 12/12/11 11:46 AM Re: ADM [Re: Octavian]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 4019
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Apriori=before the fact. Before you read a book about seeing an invisible aardvark, it is already known that such knowledge will be suspect absent actual experience of said aardvark. This isn't a difficult concept.

Your logic is fail.
_________________________



Top
#62563 - 12/12/11 04:04 PM Re: ADM [Re: Dan_Dread]
TV is God Moderator Offline
Moderator
member


Registered: 08/11/08
Posts: 273
Loc: The Cornhole
I first had the same thoughts as apotheosis but I've been rolling this around in my head.

Dan is not saying that the knowledge once verified by experience isn't still subject to later scrutiny or reinterpretation. It's true that all 'experienced' knowledge is perceived through interpretation, memory distortion, accuracy of senses, and a logical reasoning that is a priori. But that doesn't mean praxis isn't leaps and bounds more objective than speculation.

Suppose you have to accurately draw a object. You look at a photograph and another drawing of it. Both are only one frame from one side at one time. Which do you use as a reference?

This idea is more useful for what you can learn about yourself than the world around you. The conscious part of you is only the face of your mind and can't see a thing behind itself. An externalized factor is necessary if you want to learn anything about it.

To say it simply- The observation of praxis, even if only experienced through subjective interpretation, is the most objective view of the self's behavior.

Any intelligent mind seeks objective measure of themselves. Not a single person knows themselves as well as they think they do.


Edited by TV is God (12/12/11 04:11 PM)

Top
#62564 - 12/12/11 05:19 PM Re: ADM [Re: Dan_Dread]
Octavian Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/30/11
Posts: 81
Let’s take another look at this one sentence, which is what my post was about:

‘You say that knowledge not learned through experience is suspect a priori.’


The sentence claims that there is knowledge, not learnt through experience.

The only knowledge, not learnt through experience, is a priori knowledge.

A priori knowledge is universal and necessary.

It is then claimed that all knowledge not learnt through experience is suspect a priori.

So all a priori knowledge is suspect, and this claim is made as an a priori knowledge claim.

If all a priori knowledge is suspect then the claim that it is suspect a priori makes no sense.

Either a priori knowledge is not subject to suspicion, or else the claim that, knowledge not learnt through experience, is suspect cannot be made a priori.

Top
#62568 - 12/12/11 06:53 PM Re: ADM [Re: TV is God]
Apotheosis Offline
stranger


Registered: 12/05/11
Posts: 30
 Originally Posted By: TV is God
I first had the same thoughts as apotheosis but I've been rolling this around in my head.

Dan is not saying that the knowledge once verified by experience isn't still subject to later scrutiny or reinterpretation.
That's not really what I meant by asking that question.

Dan pointed out that knowledge learned through any other means than experience is automatically suspect. I didn't understand him to mean that other sorts of knowledge should be completely exempt from suspicion, just that experiential knowledge is LESS suspect than taught knowledge. I wanted him to clarify to what extent he thought this was the case.

Some people take the opposite view, people who consider themselves "skeptics". That was why I asked. Many people think that the experience of a scientist who is specialized in his field is more relevant to questions concerning that specialized field than the experience of a layman with the same phenomenon, even in consideration of what that layman should believe and understand about the phenomenon. Most people identifying as skeptics would probably agree that a child who experiences an optical illusion should listen to the teacher's explanation of it over his or her own experience. Before we heard the explanation of electricity, turning on a light was indistinguishable from magic, but that doesn't mean we should form a prejudice based on our initial experience and reject teachings to the contrary.

I never assumed that Dan would disagree with any of this; I was just asking if he did.

I am a little clearer now about what Dan thinks. It seems to me that he is speaking in general terms, and doesn't pretend to have it down to an exact science. In any case, I will stay tuned to his blog and anticipate more interesting revelations.

Top
#62570 - 12/12/11 07:14 PM Re: ADM [Re: Apotheosis]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 4019
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Apotheosis: You got it pretty much right. ADM is only a package for my personal insight, it will never be exact or exhaustive.

Octavian :
_________________________



Top
#62572 - 12/12/11 07:19 PM Re: ADM [Re: Octavian]
Apotheosis Offline
stranger


Registered: 12/05/11
Posts: 30
 Originally Posted By: Octavian

If all a priori knowledge is suspect then the claim that it is suspect a priori makes no sense.

Dan does not address a priori knowledge. He is distinguishing between experiential and taught knowledge, both of which can be a posteriori. His use of the term a priori is intended to mean, roughly, "automatically" in this context, if I understand him correctly.

I don't think Dan takes issue with the conventional understanding of a priori knowledge. At least, he doesn't specifically address it in his blog.

Top
#62573 - 12/12/11 07:53 PM Re: ADM [Re: Apotheosis]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 4019
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
I tend to use a lot of metaphor and loose language in my blogs to better convey the meat and potatoes of what I am trying to get at. Some just get hung up in form, in semantics, whatever. :P

Guys like Octavian surely aren't my target audience anyway, nothing lost \:\)

_________________________



Top
#62575 - 12/12/11 08:15 PM Re: ADM [Re: Dan_Dread]
Octavian Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/30/11
Posts: 81
Loose language and metaphor! So, it doesn't even matter what you write then as semantics don't count!

Look, if you are trying to exclude belief or faith based claims from being regarded as knowledge, because they are not empirically supported or cannot be known a priori, then stop using this type of language and go through Wittgenstein, Russell and Moore instead.

If you are trying to talk about practice or praxis than avoid words like a priori altogether.

You just look like junkyard "intellectual" without a grasp of the basics of what you are trying to talk about.


Edited by Octavian (12/12/11 08:42 PM)
Edit Reason: Marked

Top
#62579 - 12/12/11 09:03 PM Re: ADM [Re: Octavian]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 4019
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
You are the one getting lost on the basics man, not me. My use of the term conveyed what I meant to say perfectly, and with style I might add.

Your pedantic attempt to derail the conversation because I hurt your precious feelings in another thread isn't making ME look retarded, I assure you ;\)

_________________________



Top
#62933 - 12/25/11 01:01 PM Re: ADM [Re: Dan_Dread]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 4019
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
A newer, cleaner and updated version of THE PDF is now available for those that are interested, as well as some cosmetic changes to the site itself. Check it out if you are so inclined.


_________________________



Top
#62939 - 12/25/11 08:28 PM Re: ADM [Re: Dan_Dread]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1647
Loc: Orlando, FL
Concerning your latest post, I never really understood what "ONA 3.0" really was supposed to mean besides two or three people putting "We are 3.0" banners on their blogs for a couple months.

One could conceivably divide ONA history based on certain events and trends therein, but once you get far enough ahead, the numbering starts to look silly.... and "We are 4.0" doesn't really have a nice ring to it.


Edited by The Zebu (12/25/11 08:29 PM)
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
Page 2 of 13 <12345>Last »


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

Generated in 0.023 seconds of which 0.004 seconds were spent on 29 queries. Zlib compression disabled.