RyanS2

Greetings Owl:

As stated, I wrote a piece dedicated to your questions.

<a href="http://satan4u.8m.com/philosophy/moralitypt3.html" target="_blank">http://satan4u.8m.com/philosophy/moralitypt3.html</a>

Does that help clarify my thoughts or ideas any better for you?

jpbrooks

Hello again, Ryans2, and thanks for your reply.

My replies are delayed because I (being relatively new to the internet) am devoting a considerable amount of my time online to learning more about this medium of communication.

I spend more time at Setian websites than Satanic ones. So, my view of Satanism is probably biased as a result. But isn't Satanism a "reaction" against the influence of Christianity in the world? And if so, wouldn't it be part of a "more general" view that opposes "belief systems" that predominantly influence "societies"?

Also, isn't the advertising industry, on the whole, oriented toward getting us to desire what the advertisers want us to desire and de-emphasizing our ability to think and make choices "independently" from the influence of others? If so, wouldn't this orientation be opposed to Satanism?

Also, I see that you are involved in martial arts. May I ask which one(s)?
My aspirations in the martial arts have been cut short due to a recent injury. But I was never really that good at it anyway. The instructor in my last self-defense class was an expert in Korean Karate and several other forms of martial arts (I never knew his belt level) who was apparently fascinated with poking people in the eyes and pulling people's ears off.
I can honestly say that throughout my brief "learning experience" in the martial arts, I was either afraid of what my instructors might do to me or what they might be getting me involved with.
Now, I'm interested in martial arts mainly as a form of physical (and mental) exercise.

[ May 26, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]</p>

RyanS2

Hi Jpbrooks:

I can understand the internet dilemma. Sometimes I get too busy doing other things and don't visit this website for weeks. Once you learn how to navigate the internet and differentiate the fakes and frauds from the real websites with knowledge on them, you'd be absolutely amazed at how much information is available online.

Going to Satanism, it would really depend. Debatable is who the first Satanist was. I don't really consider Crowley the first Satanist because of two problems. First that he didn't call himself a Satanist, though he was labeled worse things than that, and because of his central doctrine of the Willed dissolution of the opposites. In a Crowleyian philosophy, we all contact our HGA's, (Holy Guardian Angel), and find our True Will, which makes us into accord with the Universe, (similiar to dharma), and we all become "our own stars", freely independant of each other, yet still part of the same system.

However, Crowley was a cross between a Luciferian and a modern day Satanist. He hints many times that his HGA is really Lucifer, (which would make him a Great Black Brother. If you don't know what a Great Black Brother is, it's someone who hasn't contacted their HGA, but instead, is under the influence of a daemon which is misguiding them to serve its own purpose. In Crowley lingo, the daemons are parts of your mind/ego which are manifesting themselves because you haven't properly exorcised elements within your subconscious.

The person thinks they are doing the right thing, and gains lots of power through this knowledge and Conversation, but ultimately goes into their own destruction. Crowley considered Jesus to be somewhat of a Great Black Brother, and Christianity members of the Great Black Brotherhood.), and not only is Lucifer his HGA, but he laments the loss of Satan as a literary figure, "A devil which had unity would be a God."

Crowley had somewhat of a Milton conception of Satan. You can't use the Satan of the Middle Ages as a literary character. He was supposed to embody the seven deadly sins, but they are all contradictory. If you're slothful, you can't be wrathful as well, wrath implies acting out on anger, and no sloth could be bothered to do such a thing. So, you really have to 'invent a devil' in order to make it anything worth worshipping. That's more or less what Acquino did with the ToS.

Skipping forward, Lavey found Satanism somewhat as a joke. Since Christianity harped on about the evils of Satan, he thought it would be amusing to call himself a Satanist and make a philosophy which was everything the Christian Church would hate. Free-thought, denial of God, encouragement of pursuing sexual desires, etc. According to Acquino himself, when he first joined, Lavey was actually trying to build a real Satanic theology/philosophy system, and he was helping him. However, towards the early to mid 70's, the CoS kept getting put in the spotlight, along with Lavey, and he finally got so infuriated by the tabloids he shut off the organization, and Acquino says that Lavey wouldn't recognize the hard work he and others had put into the new system. So, he split.

Acquino makes the ToS, but he's still got a dilemma on his hands. Satan sucks as a literary character, and he's even worse as a theological character. So, Acquino chooses Set instead to be the figurehead. Set's more mysterious, has a deeper history, and has more traditions. Acquino thus decided he had the perfect Satanic theological character, and that's where the ToS comes into play. Plus Set's one of the older Gods, (possibly one of the oldest Gods), which is important because seemingly, Western society has a fixation that almost always leads to the idea that "older is better".

Concerning Satanism being a reaction per se', it's not necessarily so. However, Satanism advocates openly looking into a religion to see what's wrong with it, so that it has a natural tendency to create friction. Most Satanists, or at least me and the people I have in my org, don't see anything particularly wrong with Christianity. If you cut out certain portions of it, you can, in fact, make a very good religion. The same thing applies to Gnosticism, Yezidi, Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Islam, etc. I actually want to write a book which has a redneck Jesus as the main character, who preaches things from each religion once the garbage is removed and the good stuff stays. I think atheists might get a kick out of it, but I can't say that many religious people will like the idea. You'd be amazed though if you decide to try this experiment how good of a book you can make.

"Also, isn't the advertising industry, on the whole, oriented toward getting us to desire what the advertisers want us to desire and de-emphasizing our ability to think and make choices"

In some senses. What the advertising company does is demographically target an audience for their ideas by selecting spokespeople that will appeal to them. Britney Spears won't sell many CD's to the fifty and over crowd, so conversely, if you use her as an icon, you already know what groups you are targetting. However, even the best advertising policies only reach about 10 to 15 percent of the people they want. Of course, on the flip side, when you're dealing in millions of dollars, 10 to 15 percent is quite an increase. If people are really so stupid as to watch a commercial and believe, without hesitation, what they just heard, I have to say that I am almost inclined to say that they deserve to be taken advantage of. So long as there is free competition where someone can check out other people offering the same product, get magazine for consumer reviews, books on the subject, etc., advertising is of no harm. However, if we were limited in the information we could receive, then I'd say advertising is a much more serious problem.

As for martial arts, I typically stick with grappling styles like Judo, BJJ, and Greco-Roman wrestling. I can fight on my feet, but I typically tend to fight better on the ground. I never get too far along in belt ranks because I like to travel, but I also rarely train in koryu martial arts that take a long time to get promoted in. You can almost never find the exact same school in two different areas, so I'd be a perpetual low-ranked kyu my whole life....

I like martial arts for the sporty aspects of it, keeps my weight down, meet new people, have fun, and compete. The martial arts I listed above don't really have a philosophical side to them like koryu schools do. If I ever think I'm getting it tough, I just think about a friend who trained in Korea with Gen. Choi, (founder of Tae Kwon Do), for 17 years. I just can't compare, "I had a tough day in the gym" stories with him...

owleye

Ryan....

Well, I read your web-page and once again I find it rather unrewarding if it was intended to provide clarity to any moral principles you might have. Both utilitarianism and Kantianism are at least useful in providing me with some basis for judging what ought I to do. Yours, by contrast, is muddled and undoubtedly useless. The purpose of examples is intended to help in determining how a theory being offering would handle other situations. They are supposed to be examples of some general principle capable of helping us out with new situations that arise. However, since I don't really detect a principle at work, the examples become useless for that purpose. As such, in order to determine your political stance on abortion or gun control or your moral stance on deceit or helping others, I have to query you. And I suspect in every instance you will respond with "it depends" as if this qualification is going to make me appreciate it better.

I also believe you have completely misunderstood utilitarianism. Moreover, I'm fairly confident you have no understanding of Kantian moral theory either. Finally, I suspect you don't understand Rawls' theory of justice.

Bottom line is that your problem is not just that your ideas are muddled and confused. You don't even grasp the basic ideas that you are contrasting your view with. More thought and less verbiage would be appreciated.

owleye

Laurentius

AVE

This reminds me so much of these missionaries' arguments: that some specific term you refer to used to mean something else in Hebrew, or in Greek, and so on and so forth...

What if we all used the English terms with their meanings during the Middle Ages?

Or differently put, it does not matter what Satan meant 4000 thousand years ago - it means "the evil by excellence" now.

What?

You're not only distorting the truth through omission (Satan is not just an adversary, but "The profoundly evil adversary of God and humanity, often identified with the leader of the fallen angels; the Devil" or "The grand adversary of man; the Devil, or Prince of darkness; the chief of the fallen angels; the archfiend"), so you're not just distorting the facts but also using false information: Satan did bear the connotation (which in time became the denotation) of evil.

Jehova is famous for his absolute jelousy against anyone that may usurp his rights or power. Any adversary of Jehova is evil, and Satan is the symbol of them all - so, he is the evil.

Thus, Satan-ism can only be Evil-ism.

The name "Satan" does not offend - it just means evil.

Your whole argument does not hold. Words and meanings come from different sources (religion happens a very a fruitful one), and language is assimilated before people even know anything about ideologies.

Etymology is the wrong (i.e. irrelevant) way to judge people's creeds.

The term "Satanism" may only represent a shape, a form, a mold, for you - with no intention, from you, to be filled with evilness. However, a matrix that denotes "evil" will inevitably grow an evil content, whether you face it or not.

AVE

vagrant

The word "satan" does offend me, I personally find it just about as objectionable as "chipmunk".

BUT, I am also aware of the sociological/psychological baggage associated with the word. You do yourself a disservice (*see note below) with its use as it appears, as I stated before, that you use it for childish shock value. If your intent is to mean "adversary", why not call it Adversaryism or Adversarialism which doesn't subject your concepts to any preconceptions to its content.

(I don't want it to be misunderstood that I necessarily agree with his positions, my only issue of concern is with its naming)

RyanS2

Well Owleye, I'm sorry that you feel that way. To each their own, as they say.

"In order to determine your political stance on abortion"

Strictly speaking, it's not a political stance, but I'm pro-abortion. I feel that even a precursory reading of the text made that clear. You seem to be miffed that I don't provide any absolute statements, which is pretty much impossible when you are dealing with something called "relativity". So, the situation plus context plus person involved equals the decision that will be made. If you don't like that, well then, I truly do apologize to you. Here is in condensced form, easy reading format:

Be based upon empathy:

Based upon a system of justice, not just "Might is Right".

Then you should:

Recognize your own morality:
Recognize the Moral Conflict:

Stop here. Depending upon what moral values you have, (as a person, yes you), the moral conflict will be different. As such, I can, in no way, shape, format, or in any way, tell you what to do. My apologies if this is less than fulfilling for your own standards.

Who is affected by this decision and what are their relationships to it?

Weigh the good and bad of the action

Look for similar cases

Discuss the problems with the other relevant parties

Can I live with my choice?

There you go. If you find that less than appealing, again, I do apologize. However Owl, perhaps you are correct, maybe I completely misinterpret Kant and Utilitarianism. Kant is a bit hard to understand, and when I asked you the difference between "collective individuals" and "Society", you have yet to give me any workable definition. You can call me "Stupid, stupid, stupid" all you want, but I don't think that will cause any progression, either for you or me. I'm just as much here to learn as anybody else, so I'd appreciate not engaging in pointless pontification and condemnation.

On that note, you seem to feel I am strongly misrepresenting something, so: What books, videos, audio tapes, websites, specific lectures, etc., do you think totally embody the concept, utilization, aspects, and other things which utilitarianism, as you think it best defined, is?

"The name "Satan" does not offend"

It must, at least in some way, shape, or form, or you wouldn't have thought it a relevant point to bring up.

"it just means evil."

So, I can go through the Bible and start marking "Evil" in it when Satan's name pops up, and linguistically speaking, that is a proper translation?

"language is assimilated before people even know anything about ideologies."

Reminds me a bit of the word "witch-craft" and "Wicca". Not so long ago, about five years, a Senator went publically on television and accused Wiccans of eating babies. If you want to discuss what your ideas or perceptions on words are, that's fine. How relevant that is to the people actually involved in it is another matter, anymore than I think the definition of praying will be shifted to "talking to one's hands."

"Etymology is the wrong (i.e. irrelevant) way to judge people's creeds."

Oh, well, I'm sorry then. Your ideas/perceptions then are the relevant stick for judgement then? You are external/exterior to anything related to it, how much of an opinion do you really think you can form? Certainly, you can't claim, "I speak from experience..."

"However, a matrix that denotes "evil" will inevitably grow an evil content, whether you face it or not."

The same way that atheism was supposed to lead to the moral decay of the fabric of our society? If etymology is thrown out, then the only thing I am left to formulate ideas on are what people external to the ideas/organizations, etc. believe. Which just strikes me as being a bit silly, you wouldn't dream of accepting a conservative Christian's idea of atheism, (and they still compose a good 80% of the population), and I assure you that Emma Goldman's idea stated on the first page of this website would not be what they would say.

Why then, could it even be feasible to let someone else define someone else's ideas? The debate on the name issue seems a little bit outside of what this particular forum is about, so I won't comment any further on that issue.

Laurentius

AVE


Well, despite Shakespeare, the name is the point this time, I think ("my thoughts appreciated"...).

Won't comment? That's okay. I'm used to having the last word.

Not offend - disturb.
Not because of the term necessarily - because of the inadvertence. You can't claim to be some knight of a moral revolution on Satan's back.


That has already been done:

Satan = the Devil, Lucifer, Ahriman, Belial; Samael, Zamiel, Beelzebub, the Prince of the Devils; the tempter; the evil one, the evil spirit; the Adversary; the archenemy; the author of evil, the wicked one, the old Serpent; the Prince of darkness, the Prince of this world, the Prince of the power of the air; the foul fiend, the arch fiend; the devil incarnate; the common enemy, the angel of the bottomless pit; Abaddon, Apollyon.

Well, what is your argument that people's creeds should be judged according to the etymology of the terms they use, which (a)may have nothing to do with today's meanings and (b) may very likely be unknown to these people?


AVE

RyanS2

(Sigh). Laurentius, you claimed that Satan speaks of a word which is formed "before time began", or something to that effect. Correct? So, by strict etymological definition, this WOULD be the first idea formed, from whence words came, correct? Yes or no will suffice. If you say "no", does this mean that words and ideas are not unchanging, that they do change and thus this idea of formulating before time/space gave them their meaning they were still in existence? Just curious on that one.

Nor do most people have the same perception of Satan, Hinduists, Yezidi, Jews, etc., do not share the perception, so again, you cannot claim some kind of universal omniscience with your answer. (Also, do a quick math check, Christians do not compose the majority of the World's population). That would be the fallacy of Biased Sample.

So, what is your answer based upon? Popular appeal to a Western audience? Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy argument, in case you didn't know that. Now, you can cite etymological fallacy as one as well, but you made the appeal to time, not me, so whatever is the etymologically correct one is the most time fulfilling one as well. Your next appeal is to heroes (?), or more specifically, "You can't claim to be some knight of a moral revolution on Satan's back."

I don't think I've ever claimed to be some kind of a knight, but I'm curious what heroes of other religions do you particularly aspire to be? St. John, St. Bacchus the Martyr, Buddha? Also, Satan has been used as a literary hero, Charles Baudelaire, James Branch Cabell, and quite a few others have used Satan as a hero. This happened long before you and I were walking and talking as well.

Again though, this has nothing to do with philosophy, at all, anymore than asking is rationalism actually rational?

Now, back onto philosophy, Owl, I went and checked through some definitions of utilitarianism, just to make ultra-sure that I wasn't completely stupid, as you suggest. (Or actually, flat-out accuse.) So, let's see what I got. Everyone loves to quote webter's dictionary, so let's see what we get from there:

"a doctrine that the useful is the good and that the determining consideration of right conduct should be the usefulness of its consequences; specifically : a theory that the aim of action should be the largest possible balance of pleasure over pain or the greatest happiness of the greatest number"

Yep, that's exactly what I said it was. But heck, that's a stupid dictionary. Dictionaries aren't written by experts in each subject, so maybe Webster and I are both wrong. So, I went to here:

<a href="http://www.utilitarian.org/criticisms.html" target="_blank">http://www.utilitarian.org/criticisms.html</a>

Let me quote it:

"(Utilitarianism) is only concerned with the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people - unfortunately this mistake has even been made by some who call themselves utilitarians. From the very first formulation by Bentham, to the more recent modifications by Singer, the principle of Utility has concerned itself with all happiness, no matter the identity of the being in which it is felt. The interests of non-human animals must be counted equally with those of humans; and if we are ever visited by UFOs, we must consider the alien's interests too."

The author of a website called "http://www.utilitarian.org" agrees with my definition with it! Finally, I checked the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and here's what they said:

"Utilitarian moral theories evaluate the moral worth of action on the basis of happiness that is produced by an action. Whatever produces the most happiness in the most people is the moral course of action. Kant has an insightful objection to moral evaluations of this sort."

Now, you seem to invoke the mytotatic reflex when you read, so let me point something else out. I asked you if you considered the definition Rawls gave for utilitarianism accurate, I didn't make a single statement about whether or not Rawls had anything to do with utilitarianism, you seem to have confused that issue. Also, you say I don't understand Kant, since you won't take any book references I give you as having any validity, I went to the IEP again and this is what they said of Kant's view:

"On Kant's view, the sole feature that gives an action moral worth is not the outcome that is achieved by the action, but the motive that is behind the action."

Which is the same thing I have stated. Bertrand Russell, in "Wisdom of the West", p. 243, makes this critique of Kant:

"If what counts is the frame of mind or intention, then you can cheerfully fall into a thorough messs, provided only you feel it is your duty. The miserable consequences that your action might call forth are of no account whatever. Well might Socrates warn the protagonist of such an ethic that ignorance was the overriding sin."

Which is a critique more extreme of Kant than I ever set forth. So, I am left wandering about something. Am I, Bertrand Russell, Dr. Matt McCormick, (IEP article on Kant), Dr. James Fieser, and Dr. Bradley Dowden all wrong? Since you have (yet) to list one reference to back up your rather harsh and uncritical comments, I am wondering if it is I that isn't grasping the material.

jpbrooks

Sorry about missing your reply, RyanS2. I normally spend time reading through the threads in this forum on the weekends, but for the past month my time online has been cut short considerably, and as a result of having to be selective about which threads to check, I miss some. In any case, here are my belated responses.


The volume of information is incredible! In most instances, I seek scholarly sources for information on a subject first in order to establish a "foundation" from which to evaluate information from other sources.

But the problem that I have been running into lately is that while the web makes it quite easy, in most cases, to find information on subjects that are "old", popular, and have been discussed ad nauseam, it makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to find information on very new or obscure subjects.

I haven't done a lot of research on Crowley yet, but you're probably right about him not being the first Satanist. But (and this probably goes to the heart of the issue) I'm still not certain why a Satanist would be inconsistent in adopting a Crowleyan perspective on "theology". More specifically, must all Satanists uniformly reject the doctrine of the "willed dissolution of opposites"?

Yes, Lavey's earlier books seemed to be more about rituals and liturgy than his later ones. But aren't his later writings still consistent with Satanic principles even though they have little to do with the development of a Satanic theology/philosophy?

True, but Set also predates Christianity, which helps a religion based on Set to undercut the criticism that it has been influenced by Christianity.

I'm more interested in learning to critically inquire into Christianity (and other religions and philosophies) from various world-view perspectives. So, I would be interested, for example, in what kinds of questions a "redneck" Jesus would ask about "mainstream" Christianity and its adherents.

One of my self-defense instructors told my class that a powerful wrestler, who is an expert in grappling techniques like Judo, can always beat anyone skilled in "boxing" styles/techniques, especially once he or she gets his or her hands on the "boxer".

I'm curious about how Krav Maga compares in competition with the Eastern forms of martial arts. Perhaps there have been competitions pitting experts in these forms with one another, but I have never seen one.

I'll be back later.

[ June 08, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]</p>