Page 7 of 9 « First<56789>
Topic Options
#67752 - 06/24/12 09:14 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
If you force me to be less diplomatic, your retort was stupid and undeserving of any further time on my part.


C'mon Mike, even while certain arguments have less to do with the initial post, the gentlemen do have a point when it comes your debating skills. Setians might very much have evolved beyond the primitive satanists but during the evolution it seems they have lost their ability to confront criticism and hold their ground.

Each time there is pressure, there seems to be some good reason why that subject has to be avoided and I start to think that's maybe because you, as well as others, know this is an argument you can't win. Maybe that's because it is constructed out of pixie dust. Why else wouldn't there be a good case to be made in favor?

If one repeatedly sees this same pattern unfold, isn't it normal people start to wonder if Velluti wouldn't have made a great Setian?

D.


Top
#67761 - 06/25/12 12:08 AM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Diavolo]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
C'mon Mike, even while certain arguments have less to do with the initial post, the gentlemen do have a point when it comes your debating skills. Setians might very much have evolved beyond the primitive satanists but during the evolution it seems they have lost their ability to confront criticism and hold their ground.

Sorry, Diavolo, but a stupid retort is a stupid retort:

 Originally Posted By: Jason King
I'm sorry but this just strikes me as a square peg of analysis being forcefully hammered into the round hole that is human mythic expression. It's almost like when the bunny-wiccans try to convince us that all evil is a result of male patriarchy. Too much theory based on unwarranted assumptions revolving around a faulty metaphysics.

Mr. King is quite intelligent enough to know and do better than this, as is clearly evident from many of his previous posts. In my initial response I attempted to convey my refusal to respond to such cant without being blunt about it, which simply elicited a sarcastic rejoinder.

 Quote:
Each time there is pressure, there seems to be some good reason why that subject has to be avoided and I start to think that's maybe because you, as well as others, know this is an argument you can't win. Maybe that's because it is constructed out of pixie dust. Why else wouldn't there be a good case to be made in favor?

Ridiculous. My history on 600C makes it abundantly clear that I have had no compunction about responding, at length, to tough questions - even if it's a previous one re-asked, or one which is extensively addressed in various of my downloadable writings.

If you or anyone else wishes to bite on Mr. King's fishhook here, by all means be my guest.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#67763 - 06/25/12 12:55 AM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I'm sorry Mike but you're trying to paint a different picture than reality shows. More often than not, when criticism is to the point and people anxiously await to see what you'll bring to the table, there's always this deus ex machina you invoke that miraculously saves the day. What people see is someone who does not like to enter a debate once it becomes critical to that what he claims. But strangely it doesn't seem to hinder you from constantly criticizing yourself.

First I assumed it must be some strategy and I even might think you're an intellectual guerrilla were it not that using a spray gun filled with water hardly qualifies as such. I'm also not interested in biting any hook because I'm not stepping in because I see you as an opponent, such would after all require someone that is intellectually threatening.

This intrusion of mine is as a moderator and as such I can't but ask why someone that considers himself a Philosopher and quite evolved beyond us, has such a hard time standing his ground while normally, he should be whooping the intellectual ass of all amateurs. It can't be harder than swatting flies.

After all, regardless what opinions or ideas; right is right and wrong is wrong and to come to such conclusions, arguments are used. Those areas beyond one can still agree to disagree.

You just tend to leave a bit before this beyond.

D.

Top
#67764 - 06/25/12 01:09 AM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Diavolo]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
This intrusion of mine is as a moderator.

In that case I respectfully decline to discuss this further with you and will now exit this thread.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#67765 - 06/25/12 01:53 AM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
DreamMystery Offline
member


Registered: 01/01/12
Posts: 167
Loc: Here
I think you make a good case Dr. A, if people took the time to carefully read a chunk of your writings.

Jason King doesn't realize that the fear of the unknown only comes about because there is a "self" which doesn't know something. This is the root of all fears. Not the unknown itself, but that there seems to be something that NEEDS to know what it doesn't already.

This thing is forced to deal with the unknown to survive, and it wonders why? Why must I exist? It seems like an error, unnatural, evil. The forces of nature ask no questions, the ocean waves feel no fear, they only surge on with serene cruelty.

The self must always be in conflict with the world, and the world seems so much more powerful than the self. What is powerful is good. A master morality kind of good. So the self must be less good, to harmonize with the greater power is to become more powerful by identification and efficacy but without the self growing at all.

Then comes the original rebel. He discovers that the self can grow (xeper). He sees the potential of the self to grow enough that the OU can be held at bay without bowing and scraping to it. That the self by growing effective enough may overthrow the other and create his own custom tailored world which he may do with as he likes, free at last from the shackles of the OU.

Not without it's beauty and explanatory power.



But I'm a non-dualist myself, and so here is my refutation.

After the self has broken free and enters his little SU the question is, can there really be eternal happiness here?

Think about it, after 40 quintillion years of creating and destroying and observing your little SU what is there left to do?
What will you do if boredom sets in? With no outside influences things will begin to stagnate at some point.

Like playing a video game on god mode, it will get old. Despite any self-imposed limitations to provide challenge, the whole thing will start to seem forced.

Then one day you will realize that you are really in a kind of hell, and only you can keep yourself there, and only you can get out.

How to get out?

By untangling the strange loop of your illusory "self" and becoming God. The little "you" is not lost, for time has no meaning here, it exists all at once and what was still is.


Don't worry though you have all of eternity to figure it out.

Top
#67766 - 06/25/12 07:40 AM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: DreamMystery]
Jason King Offline
Banned/Martyrdom Denied
active member


Registered: 10/24/10
Posts: 731
Loc: 65?1%833Q!92A24 (It's a code)
 Originally Posted By: DreamMystery
Jason King doesn't realize that the fear of the unknown only comes about because there is a "self" which doesn't know something. This is the root of all fears. Not the unknown itself, but that there seems to be something that NEEDS to know what it doesn't already.


This analysis is neither here nor there to the conversation at hand. I could concede it and neither Dr. Mike's nor my position in exchange would be altered. Consider the root of the present disagreement:

 Originally Posted By: Dr. Mike
Summarily Set is the name by which the Temple of Set apprehends the neter/Form of isolate self-consciousness, of which manifest entities such as you and me are particularizations.

Humans are generally uncomfortable about this, even frightened of it, which explains why they have cartooned it as Devil/devils and so on. All sorts of antics about "Satanism" ripple out from this.


Now, what is being said here? Simply that mythological devils are hypostases of self-consciousness. This is required in the good Dr.'s analysis because it is how he interprets his particular "devil". However, this is just really an untenable position if one understands even the slightest bit of comparative mythology. Or any single mythology.

It is a refusal to understand the myths as they understand themselves, which is tantamount to telling George Lucas that his concept of the Force is really just the Holy Spirit because you are a Christian. It smacks of arrogance unbefitting a man of his education.

There are many reasons for the inclusion of "diabolical" entities/forces in myth cycles, and they tend to vary from culture to culture, cycle to cycle. The least common denominator, as I mentioned before, is an inability to reconcile rational paradigms (typified by pantheonic order) with the bald facticity of death and meaningless suffering.

Now granted, as these are intentionalities, they are of course held by selves. But this is a tautological addition to the issue at hand, essentially adding nothing but smoke and mirrors. In other words, to say that "selves have fear" does not translate into "the self fears the self," or if we are to be a bit more silly with it, "the self fears the fact that there fear in the self". Or hey, we can go even further: "the self fears the fact that there is fear in a self which has fear".

I'm reminded here of the "X is true" infinite mirror of auto-redundancy. Or, in a nutshell, the fact that mental states are necessarily intentional does in no way speak to their self-reference.

However, I must say this: if you are not Aklo redivivus, then you are the best new addition I've seen here in a bit.

JK
_________________________



Top
#67777 - 06/25/12 02:04 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Jason King]
DreamMystery Offline
member


Registered: 01/01/12
Posts: 167
Loc: Here
Good points.

The good Doctor here IS quite arrogant in his analysis, he seems to get this from the functionalist movement begun by Malinowski. The local understanding is not given any importance by this movement.

For example there is a people who have a corn god. This god tells them to bury a fish with every corn planted, because it pleases him. The functionalist says "I don't give a damn why the native THINKS he does it, truth is he is fertilizing this plant."
So religion is interpreted as adaptive behavior, it could be only psychological in its benefit like "confession" for example.

So what I think he is doing here is saying "I don't give a damn what the local people THINK satan is all about, satan is really the fear of the isolate self which causes numerous problems for people without them being aware of it."

This school of anthropology is not in favor these days.


Current anthropology does take the native understanding into account, which I think is great, as long as we don't enter into some kind of hard relativism where female genital mutilation is "just another way of life".

Anyway the point is this:

Dr. A thinks he knows better than the masses the underpinnings and functions of their mythology.

It is a bit hubristic, but who among us isn't?

Satan is taken by you to mean "Adversarial Facticity" is that what the Hebrews and Christians themselves thought?

I admit that I haven't read the full works of Augustine or Aquinas, or Maimonides but I don't think they would agree with you. Maybe I'm wrong.

Certainly the "Masses" wouldn't agree with you. God is obviously the source of "Facticity" and the adversary is either his tool (Judaism) or a delusional rebel who will get his in the end (Christianity).

I think a certain degree of mistrust of the local understanding is good. Especially when we are seeking "Facticity" and not a post-modern "Point of View/Way of Life" that is of equal value to any other "Point of View/Way of Life".

If you reject Solipsism, their must be an "Objective Reality".
Objective reality implies an Absolute. That which does not depend on anything else. Current science accepts multiple Absolutes in the fundamental forces, Matter/Energy, and Space/Time.

It is my opinion that these too will be reduced further and further until the one true Absolute is understood. This may not be in our lifetimes, or even achieved by humans.

"...in a nutshell, the fact that mental states are necessarily intentional does in no way speak to their self-reference."


We all know that there are mental states that we do not consciously intend, such as depression. These states emerge with unconscious intent. The intent of Depression is to take a time out and figure things out, even if this caused in a way which may be counter-productive to the conscious self and overall survivability of the particular individual.

This unconscious emergence of mental states is the will of life itself as a community. Depression doesn't help you but it helps others think their way out of situations, and at worst causes other individuals to defeat you and take your resources for his benefit and thereby the benefit of life itself.


So if you are under the common illusion that there is a self which intends, then all fear is intentional.

How would this intentionality be viewed by the reflecting individual?

As wrong, weak, evil, existential terror. Tracing the root of this as far as you can will lead you to the very idea of "isolate self". The isolate self is feared by the self reflecting individual who looks for the "why" behind evil/fear.

So self-reference is the bedrock upon which stands intentionality.

By Self-reference I mean Self as individual.

If you intend something, there has to be a "You" to intend it.

By intending you are implying that there is a self and that self is in a relationship with an other (object of intention).


What I'm trying to say is this:

Aquino's metaphysics works pretty well if you haven't overcome the illusion of self.

We all start out with this illusion, it's how we're built.

Once you have had the experience of No-Self, it all looks pretty silly.

Top
#67786 - 06/25/12 03:39 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: DreamMystery]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: DreamMystery
We all know that there are mental states that we do not consciously intend, such as depression. These states emerge with unconscious intent. The intent of Depression is to take a time out and figure things out, even if this caused in a way which may be counter-productive to the conscious self and overall survivability of the particular individual.

This unconscious emergence of mental states is the will of life itself as a community. Depression doesn't help you but it helps others think their way out of situations, and at worst causes other individuals to defeat you and take your resources for his benefit and thereby the benefit of life itself.


One could wonder why then within certain family trees there is a clear need to take some time out among all generations. Major and severe depression is in 40/50% (and higher) inherited and considered a genetic predisposition.

D.

Top
#67789 - 06/25/12 04:02 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Diavolo]
DreamMystery Offline
member


Registered: 01/01/12
Posts: 167
Loc: Here
Genes are the vector through which this "will" expresses itself.

Strictly speaking there is nothing willing anything, it's just a manner of speaking (writing whatever).

It's just easier than going through the whole stream of processes and mechanics step by pedantic step.

Life is driven by Will-to-Power. That is quick easy and cogent.

Life is a human construct attempting to describe self-replicating protein clusters. Meh, it's more accurate but somewhat insulting if you know your audience.

A little Reification is like "Chunking" things. I assume you don't need everything unpacked for you.

Top
#67790 - 06/25/12 04:14 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: DreamMystery]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Pixie dust.

You're talking about intention as if there were something calling the shots and deciding it is a good idea to be depressed right now. I doubt that very much which is why I asked what exactly is behind this intention and deciding it's the right time for something?

I could ask the same about schizophrenia; what's the intention there? It's hardly different from severe depression.

D.

Top
#67792 - 06/25/12 04:36 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Diavolo]
DreamMystery Offline
member


Registered: 01/01/12
Posts: 167
Loc: Here
I read an article in Pschology Today or something like that a while back. They tried to make the case that depression had some evolutionary advantage to explain its continued existence. They said that in mild forms it helps the individual to step back from life and rewire behavior patterns. Severe recurrent depression could only be explained through a death wish which frees up resources for others.

This applies to humans in a hunter-gatherer society, but it doesn't work as well in modern society.

I'm not sure I buy it completely but there is food for thought there.

Some diseases like schizophrenia would be hard to explain using the evolutionary model. It seems likely that it is just a failure of biology, it doesn't promote anything really except the death of the individual which would free up resources.

That's only if you buy into group selection.

My fundamental insight is that there is nothing "Willing" anything, anywhere.

There are only teleonomic processes and awareness.

Top
#67796 - 06/25/12 04:58 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: DreamMystery]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I'm not disagreeing mild depression isn't a good indication something is wrong in someone's life and it might be beneficial to discover exactly what and address this. What I disagree with is that depression is somehow intended to produce this change. Depression is a result, not a cause.

In nature there is as little intention as there is purpose. That what we call love, as an example, is a chemical imbalance in the brain which, among other things, affects the prefrontal cortex which in turn affects our thinking which results in impairing our judgment while increasing our risk taking. Popularly called; looking through rose colored glasses.

While this certainly increases reproduction, it's not the intention. In the past, those suffering this disability simply had more offspring than those that didn't and only because of that, it became a dominant trait among humans.

D.

Top
#67806 - 06/25/12 05:59 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Diavolo]
DreamMystery Offline
member


Registered: 01/01/12
Posts: 167
Loc: Here
An interesting question is whether ascribing intention where there is none is a useful strategy or not.

A storm for example can't be predicted or even completely explained even today. Does personification give us foothold into the unknown?

Instead of worrying whether the storm will destroy you, you think of it like a person (god, spirit). People can't be explained or controlled absolutely (yet anyway), yet we feel some sense of control because we think we understand what they want/need.
In reality we don't know anything that is really going on in their head, but the illusion of control in us prevents complete paranoia.

Psychological experiments have been done which show that people who think they are in control, even when they aren't are healthier mentally and physically.

Will-to-Power vs Will-to-Truth who wins?

I've been thinking about this for awhile.

Which is better:

A Sunday Christian that seeks success as part of a Calvinist inspired protestant church. He has affairs, does dirty business deals, beats his kids, but on sunday he goes to church and prays for forgiveness. He feels absolved but continues his lifestyle.
He enjoys the accolades of the community, wealth, and love from his submissive wife and kids. Does he seek the Truth? No he doesn't give it a second thought.

or


A satanist seeking truth and power, questioning even his own convictions to root out self-deception. Every day is a struggle of Self-overcoming, deliberate transgression, constant reminders to himself that their is nothing out there he can trust completely or love unconditionally. He rejects forgiveness, even of himself, after all he is the only god there is, and if he can't be perfect, nothing else has a chance.
He achieves much in his small circle of friends, but is unknown or rejected by society.

I don't know...

Truth vs Power. Can they be reconciled?

Top
#67807 - 06/25/12 06:46 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: DreamMystery]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Being able to discover patterns is what enhanced survival for humans in the past.

Grumpf eats red berries - Grumpf gets sick - Grumpf dies.

This inevitably, after enough deaths, resulted in the tribe realizing there was some causal link between eating those berries and dying.

Storms produce lightning which create forest fires resulting in danger for the tribe.

This understanding also enabled them to link storms to danger with the only difference they were clueless why those storms sometimes appeared and other times not. Gods might very much be a result of trying to find a pattern for these unknowns and as such find a way to either control or predict them. This is where intention comes into play. Even to cavemen it was pretty obvious the red berries had no intention to kill them, unlike the bear, lion or wolf who to them was obviously a free-willed agent. Storms were quite unexplainable but by adding gods, and intention, they could try to please the gods and thus control the storms.

Intention is something we attribute to something external in an attempt to predict its future actions. It certainly has use at that level but it all too easily makes us see these intentions as something real.

I don't see Will to Power as something one can compare against something else because WtP is the drive behind all life and manifest into everything where life manifests itself.

As such, that what you call “will to truth” is driven by WtP.

D.

Top
#67869 - 06/26/12 05:32 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Diavolo]
DreamMystery Offline
member


Registered: 01/01/12
Posts: 167
Loc: Here
Good point. This means that the Will-to-Truth (The seeking of "Facticity") can be counterproductive. Power is Truth applied towards an end. If you can't apply Truth to your benefit, it is without value.

This also means that illusions can be useful. This is how all major religions succeed. They aren't factual, they are powerful.

Top
Page 7 of 9 « First<56789>


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

Generated in 0.029 seconds of which 0 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.