Page 8 of 14 « First<678910>Last »
Topic Options
#60788 - 11/01/11 09:17 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Autodidact Offline
member


Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 428
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino

Well, that gets rather tautological, since you're now insisting that there is no "real you" to perceive anything external to itself; that all of the external patterns are merely mini-mirrored inside your skull. But in that case there would be no "you" to identify the mini-mirrors or compare/relate them to the skull-external patterns.


This doesn't follow at all. The only way to make the above work is to stipulate that you cannot perceive yourself, thus there "must" be two bits, the ba/soul/spirit and the OU-you. That seems to me another unwarranted leap, and it's still orthogonal to claiming one's soul must be outside the OU.

I dunno, maybe I need to go study some of those jibber-jabber philosophy guys ... I always hated Philosophy for this same reason - they always seem to start with way too many premises seemingly picked from the blue.

 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
"Heuristics" is simply a term for previously experienced and accumulated knowledge, again primarily patterns. This in no way gets past the necessity to perceive primal patterns.


That was precisely my point. It's humans doing the perceiving, and denoting the Forms. It seems simpler that the former is the cause and the latter the effect, as it were, rather than vice versa.

 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
As a programmer/engineer you are also presumably aware of the biggest difficulty that humans had interacting with machine-intelligence is that we are primarily/overwhelmingly pattern-thinkers while machines think in algorithms [except in sci-fi movies like 2001]. I'm not a computer expert, but I wouldn't be surprised if today's machines are overcoming/have overcome this problem. The world of the Terminator & Matrix films may be closer than we think ...


WRT interaction, yes, sorta, but not in the way you describe. There is no machine-intelligence, just machines. They're complicated, but they're still just tools. The biggest problem we have in human-machine interaction is that they're programmed by humans who make some decisions or assumption on usage, then translate that into algorithms. Those decisions/assumptions are usually not that well-thought-out or tested, and the machine will only do what it's programmed to do.

Usage aside, they're still tools. Many people use the word "intelligent" in the computer context, but they don't realize that that's not what they want. As with any tool, they want the result of using the tool, and are not that particular about the functioning of the tool itself. In this context, "intelligent" means "it does what I want", rather than "conscious and self-aware".

The Terminator and Matrix make good stories because they anthropomorphize all the "bad" actions in one villain, allowing a sort of catharsis. In the real world, it's far more likely that disasters are the consequences of normal human action ... but that'd be a documentary, and wouldn't gross nearly as much at the box office
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

Top
#60789 - 11/01/11 09:19 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Dan_Dread]
Caladrius Offline
member


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 318
Loc: SoCal
You know, I was talking to my friend Monsieur Apepi Le Pew of the Egyptian Pantheon just the other day. Apep said he felt kinda cheated out by Aquino and Set for steeling his dark light. If Set is Satan ((the Prince of Darkness)) than what does that make Apep?
_________________________
.:.gone fishing.:.

Top
#60790 - 11/01/11 09:23 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Caladrius]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3813
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Our mutual friend Mindfux has already shown, being that he is actually educated in the field, that ol' mikey is pretty creative when it comes to how he interprets Egyptian language and mythology.

Obviously the Egyptians were just doing it wrong.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#60791 - 11/01/11 09:34 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Caladrius]
Oxus Offline
member


Registered: 04/15/10
Posts: 509
I thought Apep was chaos, stasis, and entropy? A Demon that stands in the way of Maat? I believe Set did assume the responsibility of Darkness from Apep/Apophis but I don't think this is the Set Dr. Aquino is speaking of.

I know you're all suppose to be really bad-ass, 666 nastys, but really, all the demeaning behavior towards Dr. Aquino and the philosophy behind the ToS is so juvenile and blindsiding it is never conducive to actual intelligent conversation.

As a person not as vernacularly verbose as some of you here, I still remain puzzled as to what Satanism is all about and why the animosity towards Dr. Aquino?

**Morgan . . . I'm ready for my beating!

Top
#60792 - 11/01/11 09:48 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Oxus]
Caladrius Offline
member


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 318
Loc: SoCal
Oxus, are those blue balls in your avatar? What's a "666 nastys?" Sound like you're tea bagging Aquino right now. That's cool though if you like blue balls and tea bagging delusional men. Some of us like to stay away from such behavior.
_________________________
.:.gone fishing.:.

Top
#60797 - 11/02/11 12:21 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Autodidact]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2521
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Autodidact
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
Well, that gets rather tautological, since you're now insisting that there is no "real you" to perceive anything external to itself; that all of the external patterns are merely mini-mirrored inside your skull. But in that case there would be no "you" to identify the mini-mirrors or compare/relate them to the skull-external patterns.

This doesn't follow at all. The only way to make the above work is to stipulate that you cannot perceive yourself, thus there "must" be two bits, the ba/soul/spirit and the OU-you. That seems to me another unwarranted leap, and it's still orthogonal to claiming one's soul must be outside the OU.

Well, someone/something has to do the perceiving, and to do so it must be able to distinguish itself from the perception. Humans start to define/distinguish themselves in the OU, of course: My big toe occupies this OU space/time, so nothing else material in the OU can [unless you're a participant in the Philadelphia Experiment]. But introspectively you can refine this to your isolate self consciousness, of which your physical body is a vehicle & medium for OU-interaction.

 Quote:
I dunno, maybe I need to go study some of those jibber-jabber philosophy guys ... I always hated Philosophy for this same reason - they always seem to start with way too many premises seemingly picked from the blue.

Here you go ... Take two OU-aspirin first ...

 Quote:
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
"Heuristics" is simply a term for previously experienced and accumulated knowledge, again primarily patterns. This in no way gets past the necessity to perceive primal patterns.

That was precisely my point. It's humans doing the perceiving, and denoting the Forms. It seems simpler that the former is the cause and the latter the effect, as it were, rather than vice versa.

You as a human can perceive an apple and assign it a name & significance, but you did not pre-create the thing & its characteristics.

 Quote:
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
As a programmer/engineer you are also presumably aware of the biggest difficulty that humans had interacting with machine-intelligence is that we are primarily/overwhelmingly pattern-thinkers while machines think in algorithms [except in sci-fi movies like 2001]. I'm not a computer expert, but I wouldn't be surprised if today's machines are overcoming/have overcome this problem. The world of the Terminator & Matrix films may be closer than we think ...

WRT interaction, yes, sorta, but not in the way you describe. There is no machine-intelligence, just machines. They're complicated, but they're still just tools. The biggest problem we have in human-machine interaction is that they're programmed by humans who make some decisions or assumption on usage, then translate that into algorithms. Those decisions/assumptions are usually not that well-thought-out or tested, and the machine will only do what it's programmed to do.

Usage aside, they're still tools. Many people use the word "intelligent" in the computer context, but they don't realize that that's not what they want. As with any tool, they want the result of using the tool, and are not that particular about the functioning of the tool itself. In this context, "intelligent" means "it does what I want", rather than "conscious and self-aware".

Agreed.

 Quote:
The Terminator and Matrix make good stories because they anthropomorphize all the "bad" actions in one villain, allowing a sort of catharsis. In the real world, it's far more likely that disasters are the consequences of normal human action ... but that'd be a documentary, and wouldn't gross nearly as much at the box office

I should have mentioned Demon Seed too, although, particularly since Star Wars, amthropomorphic robots have become the norm.

In 1983 I assembled one of the first Heathkit HERO-1 robots - the consumer-electronic industry's first attempt at an R2D2 clone. The completed robot (whom I named 4E) had a voice, propulsion wheels, a movable/gripping arm, swiveling head, and senses consisting of a motion detector, sound detector, sonar, and light detector. It was fascinating, but I can't tell you how exhaustive it was to program 4E [in hexidecimal!] to do what for you & me would have been the simplest perceptions, analyses, & responses. It was an education not just in machine limitations, but in the speed & complexity of human thought. [I took 4E to my Presidio of SF office, where he greeted visitors and escorted them across the room to my desk. Ladies invariably responded with "Oh, how cute!" The PSF commander, on the other hand: "What the fuck is that?"]
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60800 - 11/02/11 12:50 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 860
Loc: Nashville
Dr. Aquino, on page six of this thread I asked you a couple questions, and you did not answer them. I understand that this thread has taken on a life of its own and that you may have been preoccupied with other posts, so Iíll ask again:

Do you consider members of your organization who do not believe in a literal Set, who think of Set only in symbolic terms, to be authentic Setians? If so, why do you consider Satanists with a similar take on Satan not to be authentic Satanists?

Please answer this time.
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#60803 - 11/02/11 01:18 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: William Wright]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
Unfortunately this doesnt help at all. I also aksed him questions regarding the information I and Jake provided. I did so three times I believe but Mr. Aquino choose to ignore it every time since they both proved his statements wrong. Im guessing he cant answer in a satisfying way but Im sure he'll try to keep doing the same claims over the years to come - even though he was proven to be historically wrong.

Talking to Aquino can sometimes be like clapping with one hand...

Top
#60804 - 11/02/11 02:00 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: TheInsane]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
When the truth doesn't fit, embrace the delusion. The man's invested in his delusions, and can't afford to admit error, so he simply ignores the inconvenient.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#60844 - 11/02/11 11:57 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2521
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: SkaffenAmtiskaw
... Dr. Aquino, while valued for his many and interesting contributions, was also central to the 1975 schism with the CoS/ToS, and as such, is hardly an objective source of information. In fact, to those observant of the "ancien regime", he appears to revise historical events.

Jake's bone of contention here is that Dr. Aquino seems to smear and denounce the original CoS and LaVey in ways that are cheap, made-up and self-aggrandizing on a whole different level. It is unequivocally offensive and dismissive to present matters in such a fashion, so he responds in kind.

Apologies for missing this earlier post.

As I source my comments concerning the original 1966-75 Church of Satan, and to Anton LaVey's personality & expressions therein, to original documents as discussed, reprinted, and footnoted in my The Church of Satan ebook, kindly show me where I have "revised historical events" or otherwise distorted them. Or "smeared and denounced Anton LaVey in ways that are cheap and made up".

A friendly suggestion: Do take the time to actually read COS first.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60845 - 11/02/11 12:00 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Jake999]
MindFux Offline
member


Registered: 12/27/10
Posts: 174
I was perusing this thread and noticed that Aquino had taken me off ignore. I'm somewhat disappointed by this because it means that any residual asshurt he has been carrying in my name has apparently been eroded by my necessary absence.

I was reading through this thread and spotted no fewer than 9 examples of just plain incorrect Egyptology from Aquino based on his own made up mythos. On top of that I noticed posts where the content is just rinse and repeat the 'same old shit' that has been dismantled time and time again.

The reality is this, one can either choose to believe that Aquino is the prophet of an Egyptian deity that remained inactive for 1000s of years and timed his re-emergence into the human sphere of direct awareness to coincide with Aquino's leaving of the CoS in a sea of asshurt and tantramatic fuckwittery, or you can choose to have a shred of rational thought and accept that Aquino groping blindly for a 'Satan' substitute, found a 'God' that was hugely misunderstood during the 70s and used that as said substitute for his own political purposes.

On the Apep point I would have to sadly agree with Oxus (despite his tea baggery) say that he was more a howling mad destructive demon that existed solely to fuck shit up. He's an utterly anti-cosmic force who exists purely to devour everything, in a pretty conflict-less way. He just eats them. That said, to try and link Set with Satan is equally misguided to be honest. The most logical choice would have been Thoth for a myriad of reasons, but at the time due to the incomprehensibly bad scholarship of some 70s era Egyptologists, Set seemed like a better fit for Aquino's bullshit.

Also, if I hear one more time about his super secret psy ops training while in the reserves I'm going to vomit. You were in the reserves Aquino, and ultimately ended up trying to bring a legal case against them because they tried to pin pedophilia on you during the Satanic panic, and largely (seemingly) used that as grounds to dismiss you. Yet you expect us to believe that same organization gave you the keys to their top secret kingdom? That the US Army hands out its top secret sauce to fucking 'Satanist' in that era? In the regulars they call the reserves weekend warriors for a reason Mikey. It's because that's what it is.

Get off your high horse and stop name dropping YOURSELF as the justification of your nonsense. Your knowledge of Egyptology is pathetic as I have proven elsewhere, your 'history' is one of delusion and self aggrandizement and any effort to turn the 'emergence' of Set into anything other than a convenient Satan substitute you used to provide a means of defection from the CoS due to your tantramatic asshurt is simply fallacious.

Basically man, fuck off with your pretentious bullshit.

MF.

Top
#60847 - 11/02/11 12:09 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: William Wright]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2521
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: William Wright
Dr. Aquino, on page six of this thread I asked you a couple questions, and you did not answer them. I understand that this thread has taken on a life of its own and that you may have been preoccupied with other posts, so Iíll ask again:

Do you consider members of your organization who do not believe in a literal Set, who think of Set only in symbolic terms, to be authentic Setians? If so, why do you consider Satanists with a similar take on Satan not to be authentic Satanists?

Please answer this time.

Actually you asked this on page #2 of this thread, whereupon I indeed answered you. As you seem not to pay attention, but just keep asking this same question over and over and over again in various threads, how many times would you like me to repeat the answer?
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60849 - 11/02/11 12:14 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: MindFux]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
You might want to stop knowing what you are talking about, Mindfux, else Mikey will put you back on ignore. I can see that I am on ignore again. I guess Set designating me a higher rank than him in the Temple of BullSet really chapped his hide.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#60850 - 11/02/11 12:41 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Jake999]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2521
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Jake999
When the truth doesn't fit, embrace the delusion. The man's invested in his delusions, and can't afford to admit error, so he simply ignores the inconvenient.

O.K., Jake, you've said [shouted, actually] that Anton didn't consider me a Satanist, and that he didn't believe in Satan. And also that he considered you a Satanist. Let's take these in order:



Explicit enough for you? The "followup to the Diabolicon" is of course the
Ninth Solstice Message (COS Appendix #111), which is about as "literal Satan" as you can get.

Now let's go to your claims concerning yourself. Would you please share with everyone here any mention of you by Anton in any of his writings - books, articles, Cloven Hoof, letters, etc. - in which he discusses, characterizes, recognizes, or in any other way acknowledges you as a Satanist? I'm not talking about just a good buddy or a helper-out around 6114; I'm talking about his evaluation of and respect for you as a committed, dedicated, and competent practicing Satanist. Thanks.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60851 - 11/02/11 12:45 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: TheInsane]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2521
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
I also aksed him questions regarding the information I and Jake provided. I did so three times I believe but Mr. Aquino choose to ignore it every time since they both proved his statements wrong.

Which questions where, please?
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
Page 8 of 14 « First<678910>Last »


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

Generated in 0.029 seconds of which 0.003 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.