Thelema and "S...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Thelema and "Satanism"

Page 2 / 3

 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

To see this, let us put one of the quotations in full context. The quotation begins this way: “at the bottom of all these noble races the beast of prey, the splendid blond beast, prowling about avidly in search of spoil and victory; this hidden core needs to erupt from time to time, the animal has to get out again and go back to the wilderness …”

Now let us complete the sentence as Nietzsche wrote it: “the Roman, Arabian, Germanic, Japanese nobility, the Homeric heroes, the Scandinavian Vikings—they all shared this need.”[89]

Unlike Shreck I don't think Nietzsche meant actually going amok killing people, on the contrary it's how to express these needs, these "immortal" ids in humanity in a transmuted way, in culture. To revel in them. The sky is the limit, so way be content with less? Aiming higher and higher - aiming for superman and his ideal society.


ReplyQuote
Falcon
(@falcon)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 361
 
"david" wrote:
"Michael Staley" wrote:
So do you count yourself a Satanist, david?

Good question.  The Temple of Set is too metaphysical for me.  Too newagey.  The original Satanism I agree with their materialistic (carnal) objective scepticism and dismantling of judeao-christianity (and Abrahamic cults)  as does Thelema I feel.  As Los said the name, "Satanist" is  silly and I'd say it's obviously employed for silly entertainment shock value even though the Satan myth was traditionally the individual who dared to question God etc etc.

Let's deconstruct the COS.  What would it be without the name?  An objectivist, antichristian/anti Abrahamic cult or club who have ceremonial get- togethers some of which have Nordic pagan overtones.  It's not  a racist club though.    I agree with their view of man as animal as did Nietzsche as did the idiotic (pagan) Nazis ("blonde beast" etc).     

By the way I found a good article on how the Nazis got this Nietzschean concept wrong.

http://www.stephenhicks.org/2010/01/24/on-the-blond-beast-and-racism/ 

Here's  a great excerpt.

But for those who have read the original Nietzsche, that interpretation clearly takes Nietzsche’s words out of context. In context, the “blond beast” that Nietzsche refers to is the lion, the great feline predator with the shaggy blond mane and the terrific roar. Nietzsche does believe that the Germans once, a long time ago, manifested the spirit of the lion—but they were not unique in that regard. The spirit and power of the lion have been manifested by peoples of many races.

To see this, let us put one of the quotations in full context. The quotation begins this way: “at the bottom of all these noble races the beast of prey, the splendid blond beast, prowling about avidly in search of spoil and victory; this hidden core needs to erupt from time to time, the animal has to get out again and go back to the wilderness …”

Now let us complete the sentence as Nietzsche wrote it: “the Roman, Arabian, Germanic, Japanese nobility, the Homeric heroes, the Scandinavian Vikings—they all shared this need.”[89]

So Nietzsche clearly is using the lion analogically and comparing its predatory power to the predatory power that humans of many different racial types have manifested. Nietzsche here lists six different racial and ethnic groups, and the Germans are not special in that list. So while Nietzsche does endorse a strongly biological basis for cultures, he does not endorse racism of the sort that says any one race is biologically necessarily superior to any other.

I'm curious as to how, in some cases Laveyan Satansim seems to have bred or attracted racist fascism notably that Shreck guy who was partnered to LaVey's very own daughter.  Interesting how a household (LaVey's) supposedly free of Judeao-Christian "poison" can foster fascist thought which , as Wilhelm Reich adequately demonstrated is the consequence of the very same poison.  Something doesn't add up there.  I checked out Schreck's former gothy band (LaVey's daughter was a backing singer) and some of his TV youtube interviews and they're utterly pseudo-intellectual, fascist and white supremacist.  They even did a creepy haunting song called, "Barbarossa" about the holy righteous Satanic knights of Germany or some such nonsense.  However creative and "spiritual people" can be racist if you consider the work of Wagner.

Although races have their differences ultimately, "every man and woman is a star (regardless of skin colour or background)" wouldn't you say?    Racism per se is fake will and nothing to do with True Will i.e. I feel it is the result of inclinations being twisted on an unconscious  level.  Schreck and Boyd Rice are clearly the twisted results of middle class repressive family upbringings no matter how articulate they are.  Nazism was after all driven by the middle classes (but obviously all classes can get sucked up by fascism). 

Wilhelm Reich analysed the ridiculous origins of Nazi blood- mysticism and how it stems from engrained repressions.  If I'm not mistaken Crowley said something similar about racism and repression when he talked about KKK lynchings in the Confessions.

The carnality of Satanic thought, as it were probably meets Reich's championing of Rousseau's, "noble savage".  I doubt that such a noble savage would be racist.  There's an interview where Schreck rambles about, "the werewolf myth as the beast in man unleashed" and how Hitler's state  did a good job of that.  It's laughable isn't it?  He states that the, "Satanic Master Race" (Caucasian that is) has always been around and they've been feared by the masses  and this is represented in the European vampire and werewolf myths.  However as I said none of this was official COS philosophy.    This notion that civilization and proper culture (and I guesse Thelema ) is solely white-European is dangerous.  Dangerously idiotic that is.    The same can be said of any racial group.       

In terms of COS ritual what about LRBP, GRP, Middle Pillar, Cabalistic ceremony, True Will, jugorum, chakras, LVX, meditation/yoga, Resh, Star Ruby, Path skrying, Samekh, Goetia, Angelic contact and divination?  Does the COS take such things and render them unnecessary?  Do they have adequate grounds for doing so? Who are you going to roll with?  A prolific academic Cambridge graduate or a lion tamer?

Anyway I have not sent off my $200 to the COS headquarters no.  If I ever did it would be with the sole intent of aiming to expand my social circle.

...but err, HAIL SATAN"!!

Baphomet...........  scary huh??

On occasion, Crowley expressed 'pro-fascist', 'anti-fascist', 'racist' and 'anti-racist' positions:

http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1

http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/international/xi/11/humanity-first.html


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"Falcon" wrote:
On occasion, Crowley expressed 'pro-fascist' [...] 'racist' [...] positions

Yeah, he could be pretty dumb on occasion.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"Falcon" wrote:
On occasion, Crowley expressed 'pro-fascist', 'anti-fascist', 'racist' and 'anti-racist' positions:

http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1

http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/international/xi/11/humanity-first.html

He did yes I know.  Not really a display of elemental balance eh?  Gotta have that elemental balance to be  a magickian eh?  He also said that his higher-self used to be a god that was worshipped in ancient Sumeria, lol.  His system though is divorced from his subjective delusions and from the negative conditioning of his twisted little personality,"the imp Crowley."


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"Kharlatan" wrote:

Unlike Shreck I don't think Nietzsche meant actually going amok killing people, on the contrary it's how to express these needs, these "immortal" ids in humanity in a transmuted way, in culture. To revel in them. The sky is the limit, so way be content with less? Aiming higher and higher - aiming for superman and his ideal society.

Schreck was not  a rigorous thinker.  He fallaciously cherry picks like any academic white supremacist.  I mean think about it, would you lend that guy an ear?


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4119
 
"david" wrote:
"Falcon" wrote:
On occasion, Crowley expressed 'pro-fascist', 'anti-fascist', 'racist' and 'anti-racist' positions:

http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1

http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/international/xi/11/humanity-first.html

He did yes I know.  Not really a display of elemental balance eh?  Gotta have that elemental balance to be  a magickian eh?  He also said that his higher-self used to be a god that was worshipped in ancient Sumeria, lol.  His system though is divorced from his subjective delusions and from the negative conditioning of his twisted little personality,"the imp Crowley."

Where does Crowley refer to Aiwass as his "higher self"?


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"Michael Staley" wrote:
Where does Crowley refer to Aiwass as his "higher self"?

You're trying to be sarcastic?  If so,lol first go look up a definition of the word, "pedantic."


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 

If you are genuinely seeking a source then how about from the Equinox of the Gods: "I now incline to believe that Aiwass is not only the God once held holy in Sumer, and mine own Guardian Angel, but also a man as I am, insofar as He uses a human body to make His magical link with Mankind, whom He loves, and that He is thus an Ipsissimus, the Head of the A∴A∴"

Now if you want to overanalyse whether HGA is not strictly, "the higher self" well, you will not be involving me in that debate.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4119
 

So in other words, david, as I suspected, you cannot come up with a quote where Crowley refers to Aiwass as his "higher self", though you quite confidently asserted beforehand that he did. Whether or not you choose to identify "Holy Guardian Angel" with "higher self" is neither here nor there; the point is that Crowley never described Aiwass in the terms that you asserted he did. Your sloppiness with language is chronic. A recent example is where you asked whether Satanism might be considered a subset of Thelema, when a moment's reflection on the meaning of the term "subset" would have made clear the absurdity of the proposition.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 

ouch , ouch , ouch and ugh!

This boy is truly beyond good and evil, lol.  Bear in mind seeing as I didn't know much about Satanism I was asking for people's opinions not shoving my views down their throats.

"Michael Staley" wrote:
So in other words, david, as I suspected,

waiting in the wings with dagger in hand eh?  Lol.

"Michael Staley" wrote:
you cannot come up with a quote where Crowley refers to Aiwass as his "higher self", though you quite confidently asserted beforehand that he did.

Eh?  I am happy that that quote satisfies your query because HGA and higher self, Real I,  Augoeides etc etc are interchangeable terms.  Now onto your other assertion concerning the definition of the word,"subset" which simply put is another term for something being inclusive of a greater thing ;

noun: subset;

a part of a larger group of related things.

Mathematics

a set of which all the elements are contained in another set.

Yes, "a part of a larger group of related things" e.g. chemistry, physics and geology are subsets of science and they all have the same aim, to satisfy curiosities about the functioning of the natural world

In effect I asked is it possible that LaVeyan Satanism is part of a larger group of related thing(s) namely, "Thelema?" 
I thought this question had a lot of scope for discussion as I believe LaVey was standing on Crowley's shoulders so in effect was he a sort of , "minion" of Crowley if you like?  Did he think he found a more efficient way to attain what Crowley attained or not? 

Being that we hold that the new aeon commenced in 1904 and Satanism took off as a public organization in the 60s then hey, that sounds like a subset to me.  However are they at odds with each other and so subset is not  a fitting term?  Well, that's why I asked so your view that subset is somehow inherently, "sloppy language" is therefore wrong isn't it as the subset question (or definition) was supposed to unfold as the thread progressed wasn't  it?  Therefore strictly speaking, your objection to the term subset in this instance is one of your opinion to the subject matter at hand NOT  at all anything to do with , "sloppy language" or bad grammar on my behalf.       

Satanism like Thelema (imo) is objective,sceptical and therefore materialistic/atheist.  Am I asking if Thelema encompasses Satanism?  Yes.  Does it?  Lavey would disagree as he got a bit big for his boots and apparently even dismissed Crowley as an , "effeminate poseur."  LaVeyan Satanism aims for all of the noble qualities portrayed in Liber Al doesn't it?  Does it?  It uses spells and pagan group ritual but is it lacking in elemental balancing work and discipline per se?  Perhaps this is why it attracts white supremacists (i.e. the unbalanced) whereas Thelema would , imo, soon weed them out?. 

OTOH (pun intended) is there a case for claiming that Satanism, although  akin to Thelema it, "cuts through" unnecessary outmoded aspects of Thelema and is a more efficient means to the same end that they both share?  Again, maybe they do not share the same end.  Tell me how and why if you will.    I didn't have an answer when I did the OP which is why I started a discussion. 

Where are Satanists in terms of initiation?  Are they merely faffing about at, "a Yesodic level" as it were?  Are they hopelessly retarding their maturation with their lifelong surly, teenage hexing path of arrested development?  Could they therefore shed their flawed little path, embrace the practices of Thelema  and rise into , "the light" of their HGA and expand out of the subset into the greater set as it were?  I'm asking not telling.  If the answer is yes then you would agree that Satanism is indeed a subset of Thelema but until you state your case then you are merely trying to insult me for some reason and are in effect stupidly throwing a spanner in the works of this discussion.   


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5703
 

Say, I've seen this (argumentative) movie before. Some folks think the "higher self" is above the abyss and the HGA is the guide who leads them there (to the abyss - then he throws them in - in an attempt to reach that "higher self.")

It's one of those terminology things that can keep this thread alive 'til the next aeon (as it has in the past).


ReplyQuote
k4n3
 k4n3
(@k4n3)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 27
 
"Los" wrote:
"Falcon" wrote:
On occasion, Crowley expressed 'pro-fascist' [...] 'racist' [...] positions

Yeah, he could be pretty dumb on occasion.

I rather tend to think that majority of Crowley's critics are pretty dumb on occasion, since they cannot fathom the multidimensional personality of the Beast who expressed during his whole life many different, often opposing points of view, because he was capable of viewing the world through other points of view than his own.

"david" wrote:
"Falcon" wrote:
On occasion, Crowley expressed 'pro-fascist', 'anti-fascist', 'racist' and 'anti-racist' positions:

http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1

http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/international/xi/11/humanity-first.html

He did yes I know.  Not really a display of elemental balance eh?  Gotta have that elemental balance to be  a magickian eh?  He also said that his higher-self used to be a god that was worshipped in ancient Sumeria, lol.  His system though is divorced from his subjective delusions and from the negative conditioning of his twisted little personality,"the imp Crowley."

i'd love to see most humankind to be as balanced as Crowley was. that would perhaps help solve many problems the world goes through now.

as for being a balanced magician, let me quote from an excellent review of John Symmond's "The Great Beast" by G.M.Kelly:
"The magician, on the other hand, may seem to be rather "schizophrenic" to the careless observer, but in fact he is not dividing himself when recognizing the legitimate rights of opposing points of view, he is not being divided by a dualistic, fractured ego, but rather he is going beyond the limitations of ego and thus enabled to see and experience the various viewpoints because of a unification, an integration of self which brings about the realization of the True Self, a oneness, as it were, with That which one truly is and which the persona is only a convenient and temporary mask for, a means of Self-expression."


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5703
 
"k4n3" wrote:
i'd love to see most humankind to be as balanced as Crowley was.

He was "consistent" in his promotion of Thelema, in his pursuit of sexual activity, and in his addiction to assorted drugs. But in his personal life, as expressed in his personal letters and (sometimes) in his published works, "balanced" is hardly an appropriate term ::)


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"k4n3" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
"Falcon" wrote:
On occasion, Crowley expressed 'pro-fascist' [...] 'racist' [...] positions

Yeah, he could be pretty dumb on occasion.

I rather tend to think that majority of Crowley's critics are pretty dumb on occasion

Most people are pretty dumb on occasion. Crowley was no different there.

they cannot fathom the multidimensional personality of the Beast who expressed during his whole life many different, often opposing points of view, because he was capable of viewing the world through other points of view than his own.

Ah, this sounds like bullshit to me. Crowley indeed contradicted himself on some points throughout his life, and he said all sorts of dumb things, along with some very wise things. Like a lot of people.

I'm fine with pointing out that some of his ideas were really stupid. Like his casual racism and most of his political ideas. If you want to defend those ideas, I'd sure be interested in hearing it.

i'd love to see most humankind to be as balanced as Crowley was. that would perhaps help solve many problems the world goes through now.

Seems rather doubtful.

as for being a balanced magician, let me quote from an excellent review of John Symmond's "The Great Beast" by G.M.Kelly:
"The magician, on the other hand, may seem to be rather "schizophrenic" to the careless observer, but in fact he is not dividing himself when recognizing the legitimate rights of opposing points of view

Ugh, I'm tired of people misusing the term "balanced" like this. It's not "balanced" to say that all "opposing points of view" are legitimate. For example, it's not "balanced" to say that evolution and creationism are equally true. They're not. It's also not "balanced" to say that the theory of sexual reproduction is equally true as the theory that storks bring babies. It's not.

It's not "balanced" to hold an equal number of sensible beliefs and stupid beliefs.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
 
"david" wrote:
The original Satanism I agree with their materialistic (carnal) objective scepticism and dismantling of judeao-christianity (and Abrahamic cults)  as does Thelema I feel.  As Los said the name, "Satanist" is  silly and I'd say it's obviously employed for silly entertainment shock value even though the Satan myth was traditionally the individual who dared to question God etc etc.

I think in your keenness to give credit to your new geroo figure you have made what you call it “False Attribution”.  The Losmeister has only graced us on 4 previous occasions in this thread and in none of them (unless I missed it) did he say it was 'silly' – on the other hand, I did (sort of) point out about the name that

Satanism would catch on a lot more if it dumped the first ‘A’ and instead became known as “Stanism”.  Doesn’t that name immediately come across as being a lot more user-fiendly, huggy-feely and approachable?  (not that they want to be at all huggy-feely of course; that must be sheer anathema to them.)  Why, you feel you could almost become mates with him, with a name like that!

Not that I would rush to point it out and make a fuss myself, but credit where it’s due and all that and facts are facts (as I’m sure you would both agree) etc., etc.  And in the holy name of science – let’s be accurate, eh?
See also further my comments on Baphomet 3 sections infra.  And as newneuburgOuch2 correctly stated

Reply #45 oby newneuburgOuch2 on: September 18, 2014, 01:39:55 pm »
Lets finish with Crowley from MiTaP chp5:
" 'The exalted “Devil” (also the other secret Eye) by the formula of the Initiation of Horus elsewhere described in detail. This “Devil” is called Satan or Shaitan [or var., Set-An, ShTan or Stan - j.b.], and regarded with horror by people who are ignorant of his formula, and, imagining themselves to be evil, accuse Nature herself of their own phantasmal crime. Satan is Saturn, Set, Abrasax, Adad, Adonis, Attis, Adam, Adonai, etc. The most serious charge against him is that he is the Sun in the South. [...]"

"david" wrote:
Schreck and Boyd Rice are clearly the twisted results of middle class repressive family upbringings no matter how articulate they are.

What evidence do you have that Shreck and Boyd Rice are “clearly” of middle class repressive family upbringings?  (but then again, pace Philip Larkin, who isn’t!?) 
Do you happen to be privy to their family circle/ circumstances?  “Unn-urr!” *Tilt* Citation of source, if you would please, david.

"david" wrote:
Wilhelm Reich analysed the ridiculous origins of Nazi blood- mysticism and how it stems from engrained repressions.  If I'm not mistaken Crowley said something similar about racism and repression when he talked about KKK lynchings in the Confessions.

Yes, you write some sense here, david.  (I feel I should point out something constructive as you seem to have formed the idea that I’m trying to ‘get’ at you?  In fact, the whole of that particular post [Reply #49] was one of your best.)

"david" wrote:
Baphomet...........  scary huh??

Partly the point, perhaps.  But then the image is a bit of a bogeyman cartoon.  A bit like The Room Of Nightmares, with the same end in mind:

The purpose of these [images] is to enable people, by contemplation, to purify their minds…

Despite the natural repugnance which the fear of Reality has created in the average mind, fascination of these cartoons is irresistible.

The Purpose […] is to pass students of the Sacred Wisdom through the ordeal of contemplating every possible phantom which can assail the soul…

Those who have come successfully through the trials say thaty they have become immunized from all possible infection by the ideas of evil which interfere between the Soul and its divine Self.  Having been forced to fathom the Abysses of Horror, to confront the most ghastly possibilities of Hell, they have attained permanent mastery of their minds.

The process is similar to that of Psycho-analysis; it releases the subject from the fear of Reality and the phantoms and neuroses thereby caused, bgy externalizing and thus disarming the spectres that lie in ambush for the Soul of Man.

(A.C.  on La Chambre des Cauchemars, ‘Cefalu’, September 1921.  My emphasis [j.b.])[/align:33xj0gt0]

I personally think a good new cartoon image for Stan (the new [age] Satan) would be less of a spectral phantom but something more in the line of J.R. “Bob” Dobbs (sorry I don’t know enough tech to upload an image; if you don’t know it’s of that “middle class” middle aged Joe Schmo with a sort of inane cheery grin and a pipe dead centre that follows you about the room - like Lord Kitchener’s eyes on those “England Expects…” WWI call-up posters (- n.b., I made that last bit up)

"david" wrote:
Yes, "a part of a larger group of related things" e.g. chemistry, physics and geology are subsets of science and they all have the same aim, to satisfy curiosities about the functioning of the natural world

And does the “natural” include everything?  I.e., does science have this cat-like aim to satisfy curiosity with respect to everything, even parts of it which are presently unknown to its research?  Without any exception to its sceptical probing and method of enquiry?

"david" wrote:
OTOH (pun intended) is there a case for claiming that Satanism, although  akin to Thelema it,

Please explain the pun – I may be a bit thick here, but I don’t get it & I’m sure I can’t be the only one – honestly, I’m not being disingenuous!  Can it be a (very weak) pun to do with the OTO?

"david" wrote:
"cuts through" unnecessary outmoded aspects of Thelema and is a more efficient means to the same end that they both share?

What, pray, are “unnecessary outmoded aspects of Thelema” in your opinion?  Please supply as much relevant detail as possible so that your claim can be properly assessed.

"david" wrote:
Where are Satanists in terms of initiation?  Are they merely faffing about at, "a Yesodic level" as it were?

What do you mean by this remark?  As it were or not

"david" wrote:
I'm asking not telling.

This makes a nice change and an improvement on the converse “I’m not asking but telling” used previously, which can sometimes strike a rather hectoring note (unless that could have ben intentional?)

"david" wrote:
until you state your case then you are merely trying to insult me for some reason and are in effect stupidly throwing a spanner in the works of this discussion.

But why do you think anyone want to go to the trouble of insulting you though, david?  (An honest query).

"Shiva" wrote:
"k4n3" wrote:
i'd love to see most humankind to be as balanced as Crowley was.

He was "consistent" in his promotion of Thelema, in his pursuit of sexual activity, and in his addiction to assorted drugs. But in his personal life, as expressed in his personal letters and (sometimes) in his published works, "balanced" is hardly an appropriate term ::)

But we would be making what wouldn’t be an informed judgement, on only part evidence “as expressed”.  We can only have an incomplete picture – therefore by its very nature only ever unbalanced – and should all bear this in mind when casting about for a stone to chuck!

Yours conciliatorily,
N Joy


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1026
 

For what it's worth, Anton LaVey's The Satanic Bible was the beginning of my liberation. For this 13 year old on September 14, 1979, it was like someone turned the light on. Actually, more like an explosion.

I immediately declared myself a Satanist, openly at school. (Calgary, Alberta, Canada, Parkdale Junior High School). Naturally the rumours started, that I had "sacrificed a cat", haunted graveyards, had something to do with the cattle mutilations that were in the news at the time. Teachers, then the Principal, interrogated me. But man, was it liberating!

Naturally, at this age things change quickly. I was not old enough to get LaVey's cynicism, so I went right on into the Occult, Astrology and Tarot, other religions, and finally found Crowley a few months later, in the completely incomprehensible Book of the Law. Then, since I was into Tarot, the slightly more comprehensible Book of Thoth (no cards as yet in early 1980). I was hooked.

LaVey, through the Bible and The Satanic Rituals influenced me somewhat until late '82, which is the last time I find "Hail Satan" written in my diary. It was still then a cry of liberation, from my second bout with "Born-Again" Christism.

It was a solitary pursuit, although I did use some of the rituals, made the Goat of Mendes pentagram, found (very difficult back then!) some black candles, and managed to cobble together a few ritual implements. No friends joined me in these per se, but the books (bound together with black duct tape) circulated widely. I lost two sets of them that way.

I think LaVey's "self-realization" may be a good opener to Thelema for some people, or kinds of people, as it was for me. But Ego pride alone couldn't satisfy me, I had to go deeper. 


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1091
 

thanks belmurru, i can empathize. i can still picture my mother's grimace when she realized i had taken "The Satanic Bible" with me for my week at Boy Scout camp. We also used it for oaths taken at the kangaroo courts we staged for the hazing of new scouts. Ah, how simple life can be as an adolescent antinomian…


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1026
 
"WilliamThirteen" wrote:
thanks belmurru, i can empathize. i can still picture my mother's grimace when she realized i had taken "The Satanic Bible" with me for my week at Boy Scout camp. We also used it for oaths taken at the kangaroo courts we staged for the hazing of new scouts. Ah, how simple life can be as an adolescent antinomian…

Sounds like a great hazing. I wonder what they use nowadays.

I lived with my grandparents at the time (along with a household of 4, sometimes 5 other older "children" (all 20-somethings or older adolescents)), and my grandmother fretted. My ritual stuff mysteriously disappeared. One day she said to my grandfather when I was within earshot -

"I'm worried about Ross. He believes in devils!"

Granddad -

"He should - bankers!"


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1091
 

on contradiction

He said people who were right a lot of the time were people who often changed their minds. He doesn’t think consistency of thought is a particularly positive trait. It’s perfectly healthy — encouraged, even — to have an idea tomorrow that contradicted your idea today.
He’s observed that the smartest people are constantly revising their understanding, reconsidering a problem they thought they’d already solved. They’re open to new points of view, new information, new ideas, contradictions, and challenges to their own way of thinking.

https://signalvnoise.com/posts/3289-some-advice-from-jeff-bezos


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"belmurru" wrote:
). Naturally the rumours started, that I had "sacrificed a cat",

yeah moral nihilism and atheism freaks out homo normalis

"belmurru" wrote:
LaVey, through the Bible and The Satanic Rituals influenced me somewhat until late '82, which is the last time I find "Hail Satan" written in my diary. It was still then a cry of liberation, from my second bout with "Born-Again" Christism.

It was a solitary pursuit, although I did use some of the rituals, made the Goat of Mendes pentagram, found (very difficult back then!) some black candles, and managed to cobble together a few ritual implements. No friends joined me in these per se, but the books (bound together with black duct tape) circulated widely. I lost two sets of them that way.

I think LaVey's "self-realization" may be a good opener to Thelema for some people, or kinds of people, as it was for me. But Ego pride alone couldn't satisfy me, I had to go deeper. 

so this is a good example of someone shedding Satanism for Thelema.  Satanism claims to be sceptical and atheistic which it is until they start talking about total belief in spellcasting.  How's that for muddled thinking?  The more I explore it the more it just looks like any other typical silly little cult to me.    Check this out from 3m02s in which some modern Satanist "expert on the occult" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmFCLZbdvAk  explains modern Satanism and cites Manson as a great example of someone completely liberated and doing his Will.  It's looking like these Satanists hold Manson in high regard.  Oh and apparently Manson's ATWA started the modern ecology movement.

Jesus.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"jamie barter" wrote:
Not that I would rush to point it out and make a fuss myself, but credit where it’s due and all that and facts are facts (as I’m sure you would both agree) etc., etc.  And in the holy name of science – let’s be accurate, eh?

"david" wrote:
Schreck and Boyd Rice are clearly the twisted results of middle class repressive family upbringings no matter how articulate they are.

What evidence do you have that Shreck and Boyd Rice are “clearly” of middle class repressive family upbringings?  (but then again, pace Philip Larkin, who isn’t!?) 
Do you happen to be privy to their family circle/ circumstances?  “Unn-urr!” *Tilt* Citation of source, if you would please, david.

And does the “natural” include everything?  I.e., does science have this cat-like aim to satisfy curiosity with respect to everything, even parts of it which are presently unknown to its research?  Without any exception to its sceptical probing and method of enquiry?

"david" wrote:
OTOH (pun intended) is there a case for claiming that Satanism, although  akin to Thelema it,

Please explain the pun – I may be a bit thick here, but I don’t get it & I’m sure I can’t be the only one – honestly, I’m not being disingenuous!  Can it be a (very weak) pun to do with the OTO?

"david" wrote:
"cuts through" unnecessary outmoded aspects of Thelema and is a more efficient means to the same end that they both share?

What, pray, are “unnecessary outmoded aspects of Thelema” in your opinion?  Please supply as much relevant detail as possible so that your claim can be properly assessed.
[).

Yours conciliatorily,
N Joy

Yes Jamie thanks for pointing that out to me Los did not say that Satanism is a silly name.  I apologise to Los and all. 

Rice and Shreck middle class backgrounds?  It's an assumption of mine.

OTOH pun (the other hand i.e. left hand)

Are you back on the "sceptical of scepticism" black hole?  Let's not go there.

Outmoded aspects of Thelema?  There's quite a few imo including saucer of water on head and other things.  I wasn't dictating it's my opinion. 


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"belmurru" wrote:
For what it's worth, Anton LaVey's The Satanic Bible was the beginning of my liberation. For this 13 year old on September 14, 1979, it was like someone turned the light on. Actually, more like an explosion.

I immediately declared myself a Satanist, openly at school. (Calgary, Alberta, Canada, Parkdale Junior High School). Naturally the rumours started, that I had "sacrificed a cat", haunted graveyards, had something to do with the cattle mutilations that were in the news at the time. Teachers, then the Principal, interrogated me. But man, was it liberating!

Naturally, at this age things change quickly. I was not old enough to get LaVey's cynicism, so I went right on into the Occult, Astrology and Tarot, other religions, and finally found Crowley a few months later, in the completely incomprehensible Book of the Law. Then, since I was into Tarot, the slightly more comprehensible Book of Thoth (no cards as yet in early 1980). I was hooked.

LaVey, through the Bible and The Satanic Rituals influenced me somewhat until late '82, which is the last time I find "Hail Satan" written in my diary. It was still then a cry of liberation, from my second bout with "Born-Again" Christism.

It was a solitary pursuit, although I did use some of the rituals, made the Goat of Mendes pentagram, found (very difficult back then!) some black candles, and managed to cobble together a few ritual implements. No friends joined me in these per se, but the books (bound together with black duct tape) circulated widely. I lost two sets of them that way.

I think LaVey's "self-realization" may be a good opener to Thelema for some people, or kinds of people, as it was for me. But Ego pride alone couldn't satisfy me, I had to go deeper. 

I enjoyed reading this. Thanks.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 

Jamie you wrote,"And does the “natural” include everything?  I.e., does science have this cat-like aim to satisfy curiosity with respect to everything, even parts of it which are presently unknown to its research?  Without any exception to its sceptical probing and method of enquiry?"

Jamie are you saying that you are sceptical of scepticism?  I think it was you who had said this before.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
 

I’ll give you that you are concise & tight in Reply #70 here david, so kudos for that.  But do you answer all of the points?  Let’s see!…

"david" wrote:
Yes Jamie thanks for pointing that out to me Los did not say that Satanism is a silly name.  I apologise to Los and all.

Say no more about it! 

"david" wrote:
"david" wrote:
Schreck and Boyd Rice are clearly the twisted results of middle class repressive family upbringings no matter how articulate they are.

What evidence do you have that Shreck and Boyd Rice are “clearly” of middle class repressive family upbringings?  (but then again, pace Philip Larkin, who isn’t!?) 
Do you happen to be privy to their family circle/ circumstances?  “Unn-urr!” *Tilt* Citation of source, if you would please, david.

Rice and Shreck middle class backgrounds?  It's an assumption of mine.

An assumption, Ok, fair enough, I thought it probably was.

"david" wrote:
"david" wrote:
OTOH (pun intended) is there a case for claiming that Satanism, although  akin to Thelema it,

Please explain the pun – I may be a bit thick here, but I don’t get it & I’m sure I can’t be the only one – honestly, I’m not being disingenuous!  Can it be a (very weak) pun to do with the OTO?

OTOH pun (the other hand i.e. left hand)

Again, your pun was as I suspected – unfortunately not very well worth pursuing!  Ahem, sorry about that!

"david" wrote:
Q: And does the “natural” include everything?  I.e., does science have this cat-like aim to satisfy curiosity with respect to everything, even parts of it which are presently unknown to its research?  Without any exception to its sceptical probing and method of enquiry?

Are you back on the "sceptical of scepticism" black hole?  Let's not go there.

Please clarify. 

"david" wrote:
"david" wrote:
"cuts through" unnecessary outmoded aspects of Thelema and is a more efficient means to the same end that they both share?

What, pray, are “unnecessary outmoded aspects of Thelema” in your opinion?  Please supply as much relevant detail as possible so that your claim can be properly assessed.

Outmoded aspects of Thelema?  There's quite a few imo including saucer of water on head and other things.  I wasn't dictating it's my opinion.

Interesting you should give the example of a saucer of water on the head, as it’s not a facet I would have thought particularly vulnerable to dating.  And if as I take it you are referring to the zelator practice of remaining motionless for a period of an hour so that not a drop is spilt, it is not itself without merit: again, one has to be careful not to take the practice to extremes, but it can be a good way to start basic control.

Heavens to betsy, you seem to have missed some out!  Often, the ones you don't answer can be as revealing as the ones you do!  Maybe you missed them by accident though, as they all come at the end and perhaps you just got tired of responding? – it happens!  There’s two remaining as far as I can see – and here they are again, with an update:

"jamie barter" wrote:
"david" wrote:
Where are Satanists in terms of initiation?  Are they merely faffing about at, "a Yesodic level" as it were?

What do you mean by this remark?  As it were or not

What I was getting at there was enquiring if you were perhaps intimating that the CoS only carry out initiations in the “astral” as it were?  Which I am sure is not the case.

"jamie barter" wrote:
"david" wrote:
until you state your case then you are merely trying to insult me for some reason and are in effect stupidly throwing a spanner in the works of this discussion.

But why do you think anyone want to go to the trouble of insulting you though, david?  (An honest query).

OK, let’s read your silence as not finding anything further to disagree with.

Re your last one:

"david" wrote:
Jamie you wrote,"And does the “natural” include everything?  I.e., does science have this cat-like aim to satisfy curiosity with respect to everything, even parts of it which are presently unknown to its research?  Without any exception to its sceptical probing and method of enquiry?"

Jamie are you saying that you are sceptical of scepticism?  I think it was you who had said this before.

Yes!  I think I did, or something very much like it – like one shouldn’t be afraid to take a sceptical approach to scepticism itself, and so on, a bit like the process of doubting doubt (which I think is somewhere in The Book Of Lies but don’t have a copy to hand to quote exactly at the moment)

The point I was making though was trying to establish how far the scientific method should go; the ‘natural’ world was mentioned, so I was enquiring about the frontiers of that and how much you believe it is inclusive.

Any chance of you also answering the query re the “greater and the lesser” magick from earlier? (see tail end of Reply #36)?  I’m sure that you could go into a little bit more relevant detail there, if you so wished…

N÷Joy


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 

@ Jamie

1)You asked, "What, pray, are “unnecessary outmoded aspects of Thelema” in your opinion?  Please supply as much relevant detail as possible so that your claim can be properly assessed?"

razor slashing forearm, excruciating asanas, hour long nostril-squeezing pranayama highs,  evocation, gematria .... anything...  the point is do we do things for the sake of blindly groping around for "magickal experiences" as some vague undefined way of finding our True Will?. 

2)The higher/lower magic is explained on the COS webpage.  I don't fully understand what your query is.

3)You said,"one shouldn’t be afraid to take a sceptical approach to scepticism itself, and so on, a bit like the process of doubting doubt (which I think is somewhere in The Book Of Lies but don’t have a copy to hand to quote exactly at the moment)

We can't be sceptical of scepticism per se.  It's analogous to saying we can smell the sense of smell or taste the sense of taste when we can't.  They just are.  Sense-organs are designed to register sensory input and likewise scepticism is designed to only accept propositions that are deemed to be true in terms of the evidence available.  A person's reasoning can be flawed sure but the sceptical approach in and of itself isn't tainted.  You're playing with words and missing the definition and meaning of what scepticism is.    It's fallacious and to be specific it's a circular argument e.g. God exists.  How do you know?  The bible says so.  Why do you believe that?  God wrote it.  Back to the beginning of the argument ad infinitum.    It sounds like you're trying to sneak ,"divine intuition" through the back door.


ReplyQuote
Tao
 Tao
(@tao)
Member
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 316
 
"david" wrote:
You're playing with words and missing the definition and meaning of what scepticism is.    It's fallacious and to be specific it's a circular argument...    It sounds like you're trying to sneak ,"divine intuition" through the back door.

Actually, no, it isn't necessarily circular. It does, though, face the problem of infinite regress but, as any logician will readily admit, this is inescapable unless one pre-supposes a first cause. To ignore it and claim that logic (and by extension scepticism) is above or somehow untainted by it is to ignore reality and misunderstand the fundamentals of logic.

You seem to be going off the rails a bit due to a false analogy. Our senses are data collectors. Logic (scepticism) is an analytical tool. Just as we can use a lens to analyse the curve of another lens, we can use logic (scepticism) to analyse logic. And just as we would need an infinite regress of lenses to assure ourselves that they were all analysing the data accurately, we need an infinite regress of logic to do the same. For all practical purposes, though, we take a certain amount of uncertainty as read (call it taint if you must) and get on with our lives.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 

That's a great point Tao thanks.  Aren't you, by bringing in the infinite regression factor, moving into philosophy (namely transcendentalism) and away from practical every day evidence based enquiry which is what we generally mean by scepticism in terms of real world functioning?  I was talking to Jamie, I think a fortnight or so ago about how infinite regression is a human construct ie it's not,"out there" as such.  What do you make of that?

By the way any kind of analogy used when applied to scepticism is going to appear to be false as we cannot think outside the confines of what we actually think.  I shouldve pointed that out.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 

Just as we can use a lens to analyse the curve of another lens, we can use logic (scepticism) to analyse logic?

That sounds like a false analogy Tao.  Material lenses and mental activity can they really be compared? 


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
 
"david" wrote:
1) You asked, "What, pray, are “unnecessary outmoded aspects of Thelema” in your opinion?  Please supply as much relevant detail as possible so that your claim can be properly assessed?"

razor slashing forearm, excruciating asanas, hour long nostril-squeezing pranayama highs,  evocation, gematria .... anything...  the point is do we do things for the sake of blindly groping around for "magickal experiences" as some vague undefined way of finding our True Will?

The object is not to “blindly grope around” anything, Shirley – that would be unproductive in the extreme wouldn’t it?

The practices you list are all means to an end.  It is up to the individual to decide how valuable these are in their own circumstances.  If they are valuable to the individual, ergo by very definition they cannot be outmoded.

“Anything” – sounds to me you are still pining for the instantaneous KA-POW of your zazen satori experience?  Or could your moment of enlightenment be ongoing?  (In which case, I would suggest that you might apply the sword of scepticism you otherwise enthuse about!?)

"david" wrote:
2)The higher/lower magic is explained on the COS webpage.  I don't fully understand what your query is.

Rather than go through CoS propaganda which anybody can regurgitate, I was hoping you would give an answer in your own words as to what you understood by the phrases.  Since you were trying to make comparisons between Stan and Thelma – I mean, Satanism and Thelema – or at least probing as to how much the former may be a subset of the latter – for my part I cannot see what a greater magic could consist of which would ignore what is understood under the blanket term of “The Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel”. This was what Germer and Crowley understood by the term ‘higher magick’ – in fact to A.C. “all else” would be ‘sorcery’ i.e., black, as he put it, let alone the lower magic.  The argument might then open up as to whether he might have then considered Satanism, or at least the sort of Satanism peddled by the CoS, to be black magic through and through (the lesser and the greater.)

"david" wrote:
3)You said,"one shouldn’t be afraid to take a sceptical approach to scepticism itself, and so on, a bit like the process of doubting doubt (which I think is somewhere in The Book Of Lies but don’t have a copy to hand to quote exactly at the moment)

We can't be sceptical of scepticism per se.  It's analogous to saying we can smell the sense of smell or taste the sense of taste when we can't.  They just are.  Sense-organs are designed to register sensory input and likewise scepticism is designed to only accept propositions that are deemed to be true in terms of the evidence available.  A person's reasoning can be flawed sure but the sceptical approach in and of itself isn't tainted.  You're playing with words and missing the definition and meaning of what scepticism is.    It's fallacious and to be specific it's a circular argument e.g. God exists.  How do you know?  The bible says so.  Why do you believe that?  God wrote it.  Back to the beginning of the argument ad infinitum.    It sounds like you're trying to sneak ,"divine intuition" through the back door.

"Tao" wrote:
"david" wrote:
You're playing with words and missing the definition and meaning of what scepticism is.    It's fallacious and to be specific it's a circular argument...    It sounds like you're trying to sneak ,"divine intuition" through the back door.

Actually, no, it isn't necessarily circular. It does, though, face the problem of infinite regress but, as any logician will readily admit, this is inescapable unless one pre-supposes a first cause. To ignore it and claim that logic (and by extension scepticism) is above or somehow untainted by it is to ignore reality and misunderstand the fundamentals of logic.

You seem to be going off the rails a bit due to a false analogy. Our senses are data collectors. Logic (scepticism) is an analytical tool. Just as we can use a lens to analyse the curve of another lens, we can use logic (scepticism) to analyse logic. And just as we would need an infinite regress of lenses to assure ourselves that they were all analysing the data accurately, we need an infinite regress of logic to do the same. For all practical purposes, though, we take a certain amount of uncertainty as read (call it taint if you must) and get on with our lives.

I “absolutely” agree with your answer there, Tao.  I had mentioned “infinite regress” to david before in the course of a previous discussion, but mere mention of the word “infinite” seems to not go down very well with him “for some reason” & he does not wish to discuss it, surmising (quite correctly, “in fact”!) that I might sneakily try to worm “divine intuition” or (worse?!) “supernaturalism” in through the back door, as it were.  Except it wasn’t really sneakily, as I have been quite upfront about it from the beginning.  That doesn’t invalidate the discussion in itself - as much as blank silence does, of course. 

"david" wrote:
[...] I was talking to Jamie, I think a fortnight or so ago about how infinite regression is a human construct ie it's not,"out there" as such.  What do you make of that?

I wonder if in the end david will respond to Tao's argument on this one more productively than he did with mine, though I thought at least we had already agreed that "every thing" was ultimately a human construct, either by labelling or perception...

ÑJoy


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"Tao" wrote:
Our senses are data collectors. Logic (scepticism) is an analytical tool. Just as we can use a lens to analyse the curve of another lens, we can use logic (scepticism) to analyse logic.

But what exactly do you mean by this?

First of all, logic and skepticism aren't identical. Logic is the process by which one produces valid conclusions from premises. Skepticism is a mode of thought whereby an individual does not accept claims without sufficient evidence.

Can you give a concrete example of what it would mean to use logic to "analyze logic" or to use skepticism to be "skeptical of skepticism"? For example, a concrete example of using logic would be applying logic to the premises "Dogs have four legs" and "Rex is a dog" to generate the conclusions "Rex has four legs."

What's a concrete example of analyzing logic with logic? Without knowing what you're talking about, it's impossible for me to say whether I agree with you or not.


ReplyQuote
arthuremerson
(@arthuremerson)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 157
 

Los,

Your definition of logic as 'the process by which one produces valid conclusions from premises' is misleading at best; at worst it is disingenuous. Logic is not merely the production of validity or cogency, but also the evaluation of argumentative structure- the fallacies of Informal Logic, for instance, that David is so fond of incorrectly identifying are productions of logical methods for the evaluation of argumentative structures in everyday writing or speech. They are tools, in other words, for quickly identifying mistakes in reasoning. Logic is a variegated discipline, of course, and has a number expressions in various domains. However, your definition finds no place in the history of logic. As for skepticism, it has itself been run through the logical mill; see, for instance, skepticism's escape from the Pyrrhonian abyss.

Regards,
ae


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"arthuremerson" wrote:
Your definition of logic as 'the process by which one produces valid conclusions from premises' is misleading at best; at worst it is disingenuous. Logic is not merely the production of validity or cogency, but also the evaluation of argumentative structure

Well, I would consider "evaluating argumentative structure" to be an evaluation of how well conclusions are produced from premises.

When we identify an argument as, for example, an "argument from ignorance," what we're saying is that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. That is to say, the conclusion has not been validly drawn from the premises. There is an error in validity because the original argument is not properly employing logic.

However, your definition finds no place in the history of logic.

My purpose wasn't to give a historicized survey of how the term "logic" has been used. If you look at the context, you'll see that I was responding to Tao's apparent equation of "logic" and "skepticism." I was providing quick, off-the-cuff definitions of those terms to demonstrate that they refer to different things.

As for skepticism, it has itself been run through the logical mill

There are indeed a lot of definitions of skepticism, ranging from abstruse "philosophical skepticisms" that I find to be really silly to practical applications of skepticism (closer to the definition I gave) that I find to be invaluable. Again, I was providing a quick definition to illustrate how the two terms -- logic and skepticism -- are not identical.

Was there a broader point you were trying to make, Arthur? Or did you just intend to quibble with my definitions?


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"arthuremerson" wrote:
Los,

Your definition of logic as 'the process by which one produces valid conclusions from premises' is misleading at best; at worst it is disingenuous.

See syllogism.

"arthuremerson" wrote:
Logic is not merely the production of validity or cogency, but also the evaluation of argumentative structure- the fallacies of Informal Logic,

...........which also involves premises and conclusions if you analyse them in that particular format!  In fact the wiki definition of informal reasoning involves, "specific types of dialogue (that) can be analyzed and questioned to reveal premises, conclusions, and fallacies.

 

"arthuremerson" wrote:
Informal Logic, for instance, that David is so fond of incorrectly identifying are productions of logical methods for the evaluation of argumentative structures in everyday writing or speech. They are tools, in other words, for quickly identifying mistakes in reasoning.

and they can be deconstructed into syllogisms!!  That's the advanced use of syllogistic study to root out the forms and the terms etc in the grammar used in particular written passages so no I'd say Los didn't stray with his definition.  I think you may have though by not seeing the wood for the trees. 

Furthermore 

"arthuremerson" wrote:
Informal Logic, for instance, that David is so fond of incorrectly identifying

he says without citation.  Are you making a sweeping statement perhaps?  However yes I slipped up a few weeks ago with the ad hominem misuse but this infinite regress/circular reasoning issue is still up for debate.  Most of my informal reasoning of late has been sound.  If you'd like to prove me wrong then go ahead.


ReplyQuote
Tao
 Tao
(@tao)
Member
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 316
 
"Los" wrote:
First of all, logic and skepticism aren't identical. Logic is the process by which one produces valid conclusions from premises. Skepticism is a mode of thought whereby an individual does not accept claims without sufficient evidence.

No, they are not identical. One, however, is used as the primary tool of the other. My main point here was to demonstrate that david's attempt to analogize sense organs to scepticism was flawed. If one is going to attempt to be "sceptical of scepticism", as he was exploring, one is going to use the analytical tool of logic to do so.

As for your definition of scepticism, it seems to serve you well in defending your own little castle. It is not, however, one that is widely used by the community at large. But, as you note later on in the thread, there are indeed a lot of definitions of scepticism. Just because you find some of them to be "silly" does not magically invalidate them.


ReplyQuote
Tao
 Tao
(@tao)
Member
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 316
 
"david" wrote:
That's a great point Tao thanks.  Aren't you, by bringing in the infinite regression factor, moving into philosophy (namely transcendentalism) and away from practical every day evidence based enquiry which is what we generally mean by scepticism in terms of real world functioning?

Is that what we generally mean by scepticism? I guess I didn't get the memo. I was under the impression that scepticism was a questioning attitude towards anything, whether practical, evidence-based, and "real world", or impractical, hypothetical, and philosophic. And, no, I wouldn't say my philosophising is specifically transcendental in the slightest. Infinite regress is a fundamental problem of formal logic. If you are going to trace a cause/effect chain through logical analysis, you are ultimately going to hit a first cause or you are going to have to accept infinite regress.

I was talking to Jamie, I think a fortnight or so ago about how infinite regression is a human construct ie it's not,"out there" as such.  What do you make of that?

Follow a cause/effect chain as far as your mind is able. Come back to me with the results.

By the way any kind of analogy used when applied to scepticism is going to appear to be false as we cannot think outside the confines of what we actually think.  I shouldve pointed that out.

This particular assertion is logically flawed. I'll leave it to you to analyse why.

"david" wrote:
Just as we can use a lens to analyse the curve of another lens, we can use logic (scepticism) to analyse logic?

That sounds like a false analogy Tao.  Material lenses and mental activity can they really be compared? 

It was you who asserted the axiom on which this was based: "A person's reasoning can be flawed sure but the sceptical approach in and of itself isn't tainted." I'm comparing the tool of a magnifying lens (which will bend light, no matter the visual acuity of the eye looking through it) and the tool of sceptical logic (which can verify the validity--though not the truth--of a statement, no matter the ability of the mind doing the work).


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"Tao" wrote:
My main point here was to demonstrate that david's attempt to analogize sense organs to scepticism was flawed.

Well, I'm not convinced that *your* analogy with "lenses" is without its flaws. That's why I was asking you to explain what you were talking about. What does it mean, specifically, to "analyze logic with logic" or to be "skeptical of skepticism"?

Give me a specific example of what you were talking about.

I'll be honest. I have a strong suspicion that what you mean by those words is so vague as to be meaningless. However, it's possible that you actually *do* mean something by those words, something I might even agree with. Hence, my question.


ReplyQuote
Tao
 Tao
(@tao)
Member
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 316
 
"Los" wrote:
Give me a specific example of what you were talking about.

We have wandered far from the path of Satan 93, and I don't wish to muddy the demonic waters further with my off-topic input, but, as a final post on the matter, I would refer one to the metalogical analyses in mathematical model theory or the entire branch of semiotics.

If you'd like to discuss further, I'd be happy to on a thread devoted to the subject... though I can't really foresee that as being on topic to good ol' AC.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"Tao" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
Give me a specific example of what you were talking about.

I don't wish to muddy the demonic waters further with my off-topic input

As you wish.

I would refer one to the metalogical analyses in mathematical model theory or the entire branch of semiotics.

Thanks, that went some way toward answering my question of what in the world you were talking about. I'm not totally sure how "infinite regress" relates to this or how your analogy of lenses being used to analyze lenses ad infinitum relates, and I would ask you more questions if you were going to continue discussing the matter.

I likewise don't think an entire other thread would be worth it.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
 
"Tao" wrote:
"david" wrote:
That's a great point Tao thanks.  Aren't you, by bringing in the infinite regression factor, moving into philosophy (namely transcendentalism) and away from practical every day evidence based enquiry which is what we generally mean by scepticism in terms of real world functioning?

Is that what we generally mean by scepticism? I guess I didn't get the memo. I was under the impression that scepticism was a questioning attitude towards anything, whether practical, evidence-based, and "real world", or impractical, hypothetical, and philosophic. And, no, I wouldn't say my philosophising is specifically transcendental in the slightest. Infinite regress is a fundamental problem of formal logic. If you are going to trace a cause/effect chain through logical analysis, you are ultimately going to hit a first cause or you are going to have to accept infinite regress.

Yes, thank you Tao for also putting in a nutshell what I have been attempting to get across (at greater length!) in previous posts relating to the matter… Now let’s see what, if anything productive, comes back again…

"Los" wrote:
Was there a broader point you were trying to make, Arthur? Or did you just intend to quibble with my definitions?

Touchy! (– as in, sounds like the yowling raw nerves would make on being touched if it could be detected)

"david" wrote:
[...] However yes I slipped up a few weeks ago with the ad hominem misuse but this infinite regress/circular reasoning issue is still up for debate. [...]

But not by me.  “Certainly not!”

"david" wrote:
[...] I think you may have though by not seeing the wood for the trees.

Trees, caves - now where’d I put my ordnance survey?! (map)
A small forest is also known as a wood.  Can david be a lumberjack or a tree surgeon?!

"Tao" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
Give me a specific example of what you were talking about.

We have wandered far from the path of Satan 93, and I don't wish to muddy the demonic waters further with my off-topic input, but, as a final post on the matter, I would refer one to the metalogical analyses in mathematical model theory or the entire branch of semiotics.
If you'd like to discuss further, I'd be happy to on a thread devoted to the subject... though I can't really foresee that as being on topic to good ol' AC.

"Los" wrote:
I likewise don't think an entire other thread would be worth it.

Not stating I do or I don’t think that as well, but I’ve seen a lot worse examples of breaches of off-topic etiquette on the lash. 
Would anyone have any strenuous objections to this slight – er, detour, carrying on?  We might even arrive back where we started again!  May they write up now or forever more (or until a little bit later at least) hold their peace!...

Consulting the A to Z,*
N Joy

(* For the benefit of overseas friends not in the know, the name of a well-known London street atlas)


ReplyQuote
arthuremerson
(@arthuremerson)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 157
 

Los,

You'll have to forgive the tone of my message: in haste I seem to have adopted a rather stronger one than I had intended and would have adopted otherwise. It was not my intention to merely quibble about definitions, of course. I only intended to show that treating skepticism with skepticism is rather a trivial thing to do. I see, however, that you have applied the definition of scientific skepticism to the whole of skepticism, which is generally taken to be treating things with doubt. In the interest of more fluid discourse, can I suggest that you apply a qualifier to your use of the term skepticism? It does, after all, go by the name of scientific skepticism elsewhere. This would work to eliminate any confusion as to your meaning of the term- even having defined it. It would also allow us to use the term in it's most basic sense without engendering confusion.

Regards,
ae


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"arthuremerson" wrote:
Los,

Your definition of logic as 'the process by which one produces valid conclusions from premises' is misleading at best; at worst it is disingenuous. Logic is not merely the production of validity or cogency, but also the evaluation of argumentative structure- the fallacies of Informal Logic, for instance are productions of logical methods for the evaluation of argumentative structures in everyday writing or speech. They are tools, in other words, for quickly identifying mistakes in reasoning. Logic is a variegated discipline, of course, and has a number expressions in various domains. However, your definition finds no place in the history of logic. As for skepticism, it has itself been run through the logical mill; see, for instance, skepticism's escape from the Pyrrhonian abyss.

Regards,
ae

Just to clarify why you are wrong here and the possible complications that can arise if we consider that informal logic employs formal logic and importantly, scepticism.  The fallacies that informal logic deals with are based upon faulty premises and faulty middle terms so of course the conclusions and overall reasoning is flawed therein.  How do we know?  We know via scepticism as it is evidence based enquiries that reveal those premises and terms to be faulty.  Logic per se does NOT reveal those flaws. 

You could take any fallacy and prove this. Let's take an example of a fallacy, namely cum hoc ergo propter hoc ("with this, therefore because of this.")  A teenage warlock named Dick says magic spells can work because he often spellcasts for things and he then gets them.  What formal logic is he employing? 

All spells work all of the time (if you do it right)
I once did a spell for a car and then subsequently my parents bought me one (and I've had other spells work)
Therefore some of my spells have worked and will work all of the time 

If he is pushed by a sceptic to explain if his parents were probably planning on buying him a car regardless of his spell he can't be certain therefore he can't be sure that spells do actually work.  He takes coincidences (without question) as proof that he has Harry Potter- like powers. 

Let's take the fallacy of equivocation ("to call by the same name.")  Mike, a self proclaimed expert astral projector says he can travel to the Fifth Bardo.  I say there's no evidence that it exists and it's just his imagination and he asks me if I ever went to Chicago.  I tell him no and he says,"Well you (an inexperienced astral traveller) can't tell me that the Fifth Bardo probably doesn't exist as you accept that Chicago (a place you have never been to) probably exists".  What's his formal logical train of thought?

If we will to travel anywhere physically or astrally we can get there (if we do it right) and prove it exists
I (an in the know astral projector) regularly will to go to the Fifth Bardo
Therefore the Fifth Bardo exists

The fallacious reasoning (Chicago and Fifth Bardo equivocated) is exposed by our scepticism towards the wacky premise and middle term.  It is NOT exposed by the syllogistic machinations of logic. 


ReplyQuote
arthuremerson
(@arthuremerson)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 157
 

As for you, David, you are hardly in any position to be employing the caustic attitude you take toward others in these forums. For all of your apparent specialization in the rigors of informal logic, you seem to have missed the most crucial methodological principal for reasoned and respectful discourse: the principle of charity. The principle whereby we treat others' arguments with the dignity they deserve by ascribing to them the strongest possible interpretation that we can, prior to evaluation. This is preferable to denigrating others and contributes to fair and reasoned discourse.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"arthuremerson" wrote:
As for you, David, you are hardly in any position to be employing the caustic attitude you take toward others in these forums. For all of your apparent specialization in the rigors of informal logic, you seem to have missed the most crucial methodological principal for reasoned and respectful discourse: the principle of charity. The principle whereby we treat others' arguments with the dignity they deserve by ascribing to them the strongest possible interpretation that we can, prior to evaluation. This is preferable to denigrating others and contributes to fair and reasoned discourse.

Please read my post #90 (above) as I posted it before reading this post of yours.  Thankyou. 


ReplyQuote
arthuremerson
(@arthuremerson)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 157
 
"david" wrote:
Just to clarify why you are wrong here and the possible complications that can arise if we consider that informal logic employs formal logic and importantly, scepticism.  The fallacies that informal logic deals with are based upon faulty premises and faulty middle terms so of course the conclusions and overall reasoning is flawed therein.  How do we know?  We know via scepticism as it is evidence based enquiries that reveal those premises and terms to be faulty.  Logic per se does NOT reveal those flaws. 

David,

If I'm to take you correctly, you've demonstrated with logical fallacies that logic is not used to evaluate informal arguments. This in an effort to prove that (scientific) skepticism is really what's at work when we evaluate informal arguments. That's an absurd line of argument. The evidence based skepticism that you are talking about is known as scientific skepticism and the evidence in question in empirical evidence, not the nebulous evidence you try to supply here. It is absolutely unnecessary to employ scientific skepticism to informal logical analysis. To be skeptical in the general sense of the term seems rather obviously a prerequisite to any analysis, however. Did you notice that you employed the term skepticism in two different manners?

Regards,
ae


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"arthuremerson" wrote:

David,

If I'm to take you correctly, you've demonstrated with logical fallacies that logic is not used to evaluate informal arguments. This in an effort to prove that (scientific) skepticism is really what's at work when we evaluate informal arguments. That's an absurd line of argument. The evidence based skepticism that you are talking about is known as scientific skepticism and the evidence in question in empirical evidence, not the nebulous evidence you try to supply here. It is absolutely unnecessary to employ scientific skepticism to informal logical analysis.,

Is it Arthur?  Any faulty premises have to be called out in order to win an argument.  As far as I understand it, from my research, if we are talking about the same thing , informal logic involves Argumentation Theory which not only relies upon attacking faulty reasoning but also relies on establishing, "burden of proof" — determining who made the initial claim and demanding that they provide evidence why their position should be accepted.  I'd say that this applies general scepticism yes. 

For example check this excerpt from Argumentation Theory: A Very Short Introduction by Douglas Walton

Since the time of the ancient Greek philosophers and rhetoricians, argumentation theorists have searched for the requirements  that make an argument correct, by some appropriate standard of proof, by examining the errors of reasoning we make when we  try to use arguments. These errors have long been called fallacies, and the logic textbooks have for over 2000 years tried to help students to identify these fallacies, and to deal with them when they are encountered. The problem was that deductive logic did not seem to be much use for this purpose, and there seemed to be no other obvious formal structure that could usefully be applied to them.

I'd say that that echoes my demonstrations about the need for the use of scepticism in exposing fallacies. 

Regards,
D


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"arthuremerson" wrote:
You'll have to forgive the tone of my message

I did not perceive any problems in the tone of your last message. At any rate, the way a person writes his posts is entirely his business. The way a reader feels about those posts is entirely the reader's business. There is no need to ever apologize for your tone, at least not to me.

It was not my intention to merely quibble about definitions, of course. I only intended to show that treating skepticism with skepticism is rather a trivial thing to do.

I seem to have missed where you demonstrated that.

To be clear, in this subthread, I was objecting to the notion that is sometimes bandied about -- and that seems to have appeared in one of Tao's posts -- that skeptics ought to be "skeptical of skepticism" too. I encounter this with some regularity. I'll point out that I'm a skeptic, which means that I don't accept claims unless there is sufficient evidence for them. And then someone -- often someone who thinks he's much cleverer than he is -- will say something like, "Ohhhhhhh, skeptic....but how skeptical are you really? Are you skeptical of skepticism??? See what I did there?!"

I still don't know what such a person might mean by "skeptical of skepticism," and I'd be glad to have someone explain it.

I see, however, that you have applied the definition of scientific skepticism to the whole of skepticism, which is generally taken to be treating things with doubt. In the interest of more fluid discourse, can I suggest that you apply a qualifier to your use of the term skepticism?

You can suggest it, but I don't think I will take up your suggestion because I've been very clear about how I'm using the word skepticism: to refer to a mode of thought whereby someone does not accept claims until there is sufficient evidence for them.

I'm finding a lot of the arguments about definitions on this thread to be not terribly productive.


ReplyQuote
arthuremerson
(@arthuremerson)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 157
 

David,

The principles of informal logic have largely been in place since the 1970s. Those principles do in now way partake of the type of skepticism you are suggesting they do here. The burden of proof lies on you to prove or determine that they should.

Your so-called studies have not taken you nearly far enough. The fallacies are an educational tool taught to young students in academics environments to empower them to analyze argumentation in everyday speech and writing. Fallacies are not without their problems, either. Fallacious reasoning doesn't necessarily entail an invalid conclusion. Neither can arguments that partake of traditional fallacious structures always reasonably be rejected as fallacious. This has led some to suggest that the fallacies are not the best way to introduce logic. That you seem to think myself and others on this forum are not familiar with the principles of informal logic is preposterous, particularly as you are constantly demonstrating your own immature understanding of logic and its principles.

Regards,
ae


ReplyQuote
arthuremerson
(@arthuremerson)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 157
 

Los,

You have been quite clear in your use of the term skepticism, yes. But to undermine the traditional dictionary meaning of the term with your own definition strikes me as muddying the discursive waters- something you have been very good at not doing around these parts, I might add. Skepticism, as you know, is quite simply to treat something with doubt. That your brand of skepticism, borrowed as it is from Sagan, Randi, or whomever, has a designation of its own, scientific skepticism, suggests that term should be adhered to for the sake of discourse. It is, after all, trivial for me to say that I am skeptical of scientific skepticism. Of course this sounds absurd if I say I am skeptical of skepticism, but your terminology demands this kind of statement.

Regards,
ae


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"arthuremerson" wrote:
Fallacious reasoning doesn't necessarily entail an invalid conclusion.

Out of curiosity, can you provide a specific example of fallacious reasoning that does not yield an invalid conclusion?

Neither can arguments that partake of traditional fallacious structures always reasonably be rejected as fallacious.

Depends on exactly what you mean. Example?


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"arthuremerson" wrote:
It is, after all, trivial for me to say that I am skeptical of scientific skepticism. Of course this sounds absurd if I say I am skeptical of skepticism, but your terminology demands this kind of statement.

So what you're saying is that the phrase "skeptical of skepticism" might mean something like, "I question the value of employing [scientific] skepticism"?

If that's what you're saying, then that would indeed make the phrase "skeptical of skepticism" comprehensible (though I think questioning the value of employing [scientific] skepticism is incredibly stupid, in light of the evidence).


ReplyQuote
Page 2 / 3
Share: