punta

Fascinating.

Just skimmed so nothing to really contribute offhand. You've put a lot of work into it and it's a lot to absorb.

Would you mind if i posted a link to your site from a predominantly Christian board to see their reactions (flame or flee)?

ps. You might want to check the spelling on the Satanism versus Humanism header.

owleye

"I took that definition from Rawls, "A Theory of Justice", p. 407-16. It's called the "counting principle", which is to say that we should seek to meet a maximum number of good acts for society as a whole by a system of accountability."

I'm not familiar with this "counting principle" but my impression was that Rawls' theory of justice has Kantian roots, and is rather an argument against utilitarianism. But, as I am not well versed in Rawls, let me merely pass over this.


"If you disagree with that, you are disagreeing more with Rawls concept of utilitarianism more than me, but I begin to sense thta you are not a strict utilitarian, and believe that the right of an individual takes precedence over the right of a state."

I don't believe I have given any indication of what my ethical theory is. I'd thought it was your theory that was under discussion.

"Using the "counting principle", I'd say that if the choice was between fifty points for society, or fifty points for yourself and family, (and neither adding to society nor detracting from family by choosing one or the other), the family and yourself is more important."

This is obscure, but I hope it is clarified by your response to the example I came up with.

"I don't think it's possible for a mother to "send" her son to war. Whoever is going to war is making their own choice, (self plus family are the most important),"

Good point about who's choice it is, but this doesn't quite remove the problem for the mother. A youngster (and many adults for that matter) can readily be swayed by the propoganda machine that is in full force by those who are moving us to war. Who is in the best position to determine whether such a war is a just war? It could be argued that the parents have an obligation to protect their children and would thereby have an interest in determining whether the war is just and to make a case to their son in accordance with this.

"I would strongly disagree with the concept of anyone being able to send other people to war, which is why I am against drafting, which I'll briefly mention in a minute."

Ok. But does this imply that your theory does not recognize the legitimacy of the establishment by government of a military? Or does it mean merely that it must be based solely on volunteers.

"In a strict utilitarian society where society itself is always more important, than it should be of no choice to the person if they want to go to war or not, provided it benefits the population as a whole."

Again, I'm not sure that this is what a utilitarian society is all about, but with respect to it, I take it your theory argues against this position.

"I believe that if a society protects an individuals' autonomy and rights, then an individual of their own free will shall sign up to go to war to protect that right, and not just that right for themselves, but for the rights of that mother who may not want her son to go to war."

What does the 'shall' mean in "shall sign up?" Can I replace this by 'should'? What would your position be on war propaganda, with respect to the issue of deciding on the basis of our "own free will"?

"If the people of a society are not willing to fight for their freedoms, I almost have to wonder if that civilization is even worth preserving."

Though you have not stated your main ethical principle with any clarity, I wonder how this sentiment fits with it. Do you have any example "civilizations" that were unwilling to "fight for their freedoms?"

owleye

RyanS2

Greetings Owl:

Unfortunately, I don't have the time just this minute to get back to you in full, so accept my apologies until I have time to fully address your questions. My argument is for rational egoism, (sorry if this was unclear to you, my fault), that is to say that if we are rational about what we owe loyalty to, and utilize it to the best of our advantage, we will come into a natural interplay where we seek to help society.

As an example of a place where the citizens were unable to fight, even with arguably one of the greatest propaganda machines ever, consider the case of the Macedonian conquest of Athenian civilization. The Athenians had Demosthenes, one of the greatest orators and propaganda machines ever. However, the people were involved in petty squabbles and unconcerned about their welfare, and wouldn't unite. Demosthenes went to Byzantium and Perinthus to get them to the Athenian side, so we must say he did more than his fair share. The failure was the result of a civilization unwilling to repel the advancing armies, who wouldn't form a union of Greek city-states strong enough to repel Philip.

It wasn't because the Greeks were unable to do such a thing, after all, they had done this before in uniting against Persia.

Punta, you could if you really wanted, I don't own rights to who wants to link to my site, but I was coming here to see where my ideas needed greater clarification. For instance, if Owl, who's pretty intelligent, can't understand my central point, then it must be taken that there are many others who wouldn't be able to grasp my central point. So, I'd rather not have the article linked until I have done a better job at clarifying my position. However, thanks for the spelling suggestion, get right on it.

Owl, when I get the time, I'll be sure and address the rest of your concerns.

jpbrooks

Hello, RyanS2.

Sorry for digressing here, but most Satanists that I have talked to don't have much to say about Setianism. That reluctance may have something to do with the way Setianism originated, (viz., as a result of dissention from Lavey's Church). So, if you are not comfortable discussing Setianism, it's ok. But, if so, I would like to ask how your branch of Satanism differs from Setianism, and also from the W.W.O.S..

Also, I noticed that you have a lot of ad links on your website (which, BTW, is a very informative one). Are you an affiliate for all of the advertisers that you have posted links to on your site?

I'll be back later.

[ May 21, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]</p>

punta

...I'd rather not have the article linked until I have done a better job at clarifying my position...

Gotcha.

owleye

Ryan..

I appreciate the clarification that your position can be described as rational egoism. In the absense of more specifics, I suspect it is not unlike what many have thought as acting on the basis of "enlightened self-interest." I do have a question or two with respect to your position statement, however.

"if we are rational about what we owe loyalty to, and utilize it to the best of our advantage, we will come into a natural interplay where we seek to help society."

Do you mean by 'loyalty', a kind of fidelity that keeps promises made or otherwise fulfills obligations incurred? If so, in what way does rationality enter into this? How is "best of our advantage" determined? Can this be a cost-benefit analysis? If so, I suspect you are utilitarian in your thinking, and not egoistic, though it very much depends on the determination of what's best. How am I to determine the weight of obligation to my family against the weight of obligation to my country who is currently at war.

With respect to the example of the fate of the Greeks at the hands of the Macedonians, would it be your conclusion that the Greeks in some sense deserved their fate because they couldn't unite in a defense of their realm? Would this make it right for the Macedonians to put an end to this "civilization?"

owleye

RyanS2

Greetings again Owl. I'll address your questions in a minute, you have some hard-thinking questions, but that's definitely a good thing. From our conversation, I'm making a new webpage that helps to answer your questions in an easier format. Then, if you still have further questions, I can keep trying to answering them as satisfactory as I can.

Hello Brooks. The Temple of Set broke themselves off from the popular Satanic crowd and wanted to stay away from any and all controversy, so everything is kept in-house so to speak. When they first broke off, naturally, every Lavey orientated person, particularly Tani Jantsang, wanted to be sure and trash them as thoroughly as possible. As they stayed out of the controversy, Lavey-orientated groups realized it was a fruitless endeavour to keep it up. Most Satanists really don't know very much about them. I've talked to Acquino a few times, but he's been getting more and more reclusive as time passes on. Being I'm not an actual member of the ToS, I can't answer every question you may have, but I can make a good try too. I suspect though that unless this is orientated towards philosophy, you should probably start a new thread in the Non-Abrahamic religions section of this messageboard so we can both avoid breaking the forum rules.


"I would like to ask how your branch of Satanism differs from Setianism, and also from the W.W.O.S.."

Setianism has a definitive statement on the existence of entities outside of our normal senses, i.e. Gods and Goddesses or beings generally outside of our scope of knowledge. They believe the only way to know "Set" is to contemplate Set and to work with Set, and you'll gain an ontological sense of Set's existence. Our org makes no statements for or against the existence of entities outside of our perception, I disbelieve in them, one of my co-founders believes in them, and one of my priests believes in them. So, as an org, there is no official statement on the existence of any metaphysical being.

The biggest difference is what our agenda is. I have two agenda's. The first is to form a more objective standard as to what exactly a Satanist is. Not only just "what" a Satanist is, but "why" that is. For instance, ask a Satanist what exactly a Satanist is and you'll receive any assorted number of answers, but almost invariably the term "Left-hand path" will come up. Now, if you probe further and ask, "What is the Left-hand path?", almost no one will know, and they'll have no idea where it originated. So, I went and found out what the term means, where it came from, and what it meant. That gives us a good starting point for what a Satanist is, so that people can go "Oh, that's what Satanism is about".

My second thing is that I am forming a mystery school, taken from my and others who work with me's experiences in various such organizations as Blue-lodge Freemasonry, Order of the Golden Dawn, Ordo Templi Orientis, etc. I believe that if someone actually knows something they won't be afraid to put it up for others to see, but a lot of Satanic organizations and mystery schools in general seem to be hiding behind guru claims. "If you join our organization, you'll find out...." Utter nonsense to me. So, right or wrong, we post up all of our information for everyone to see, and doubtless there will be instances where some views will have to be modified, but that wouldn't happen in the first place if things weren't publically available.

The website isn't actually operational yet, the links that are on there are just the typical stuff that they put on there when you sign up for a website and haven't paid for their webspace upgrades and all the other attachments. So, you'll probably encounter a lot of dead links. I posted it up here because I'd rather clarify my views now while it's still not operational than have to deal with bulk requests once it is.

Laurentius

AVE

Here are my thoughts.

Satan is, has been, and will be the symbol of evil. Thus, Satan-ism is just another word for evil-ism.

Many other "-isms" were assimilated to some sort of evil movements, but few really defined themselves as such, and even fewer meant to stay that way.

Satanism seems to me an implicit glorification of the evil, which intends to stay that way.

If one really wants to be original and revolutionary, not just shocking and/or speculative, one should choose another name for one's ideology.

And that's what I think.

AVE

vagrant

I would agree. Using the name "satanism" seems to be (if you will excuse the harshness here) a ploy for childish shock value.

The name carries unnecessary baggage.

RyanS2

Indeed it does, but I use the Hebrew definition for Satan, "Adversary", and in Jewish theology, Satan has no connotation of being evil. Why do I consider myself the adversary? Well, I challenge our ideas about our cultural heritage:

<a href="http://www.satan4u.8m.com/history/slavery.html" target="_blank">http://www.satan4u.8m.com/history/slavery.html</a>

I challenge our ideas about human sacrifice:

<a href="http://www.satan4u.8m.com/history/priests.html" target="_blank">http://www.satan4u.8m.com/history/priests.html</a>

If you're a budding pagan feminist, you won't like what I have to say about Lilith:

<a href="http://www.satan4u.8m.com/history/lilith.html" target="_blank">http://www.satan4u.8m.com/history/lilith.html</a>

and I don't believe that the Aryan Invasion Model of India's past has any real truth in it:

<a href="http://www.satan4u.8m.com/history/indiahistory1.html" target="_blank">http://www.satan4u.8m.com/history/indiahistory1.html</a>

If the name really offends people so much, I can't really say they're atheists so much as Christians who don't believe in God, because that shows there is too much dependance upon Christian archetypes, mythos, and ideas.

{ed:} It reminds me of a meeting at a Gnostic Lodge where we discussed, if in fact, it was possible to be free from religion. There's a school of thought that whatever religion you were raised with, it will always be your religion, and you will forever be either reacting against it or conforming to it, but never truly free from it. I don't think many atheists will like the idea of that, because it means that no one is really free from religion, and thus makes "without theism" a bit of a misnomer. If someone was raised as a Christian, they could only say, "I'm a liberal Christian" or "I'm a reactive Christian", since they are never actually free from it. However, it amuses me that many people hold religious, iconographic, and moral ideas derived directly from Christianity, and Christianity only, yet swear they are not Christians. Some of those topics include same sex marriages, ideas on pornography, ideas on violence in media, etc.

In this case, it's most obvious. Satanism as being an object of evil is entirely derived from Christian concepts, nowhere else. Even religious inquiry into Satanism by sociological groups shows little evidence of Satanism being linked to anything evil: <a href="http://www.satan4u.8m.com/history/demograph.html" target="_blank">http://www.satan4u.8m.com/history/demograph.html</a>

Now, as French pointed out, there are underground groups in Europe, (as far as I'm aware, all of the groups dropped out of the public scene once they started to commit criminal acts), which do practice the idea of becoming what is considered to be the greatest evil of the 21st century, namely, Nazi's. The very word "Nazi" evokes the automatic equation of evil, if the word "nazi" is used in almost any sentence, you can feel that the comparison will hardly be benevolent.

However, it's not unique to Satanism, some neo-Nazi's claim they are Christians, some claim they are pagans, some claim they are Satanists, etc. In fact, I received an e-mail about my article on Dionysus and another article about the origins of 666 and the Book of Revelation by a man claiming he was from Greece. He said that there are occasional spats with public disputes and violence with pagan groups against the overwhelming majority of Christians in Greece. I'm not sure about the veracity of that information, or the circumstances surrounding it, but most minority religions tend to be benign, it'd seem strange to me to view sporadic violence of a minority as a large-scale epitomy of evil.

[ May 24, 2002: Message edited by: RyanS2 ]</p>