Lifestyle

TOPICS:

9/16/06

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

105 | 106 | 107

 ... 886

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next

NC_guy

NC_guy

Raleigh, NC
January 2006

AUG 09, 2006 07:33 PM

Opinions are welcomed here.

trocc

trocc

Chicago, IL
March 2003

AUG 09, 2006 07:34 PM

he sure had style.

jtemperance

jtemperance

Chicago, IL
January 2004

AUG 09, 2006 07:37 PM

He was a stupid, bald ass mother fucker who needed bullshit to get some. What a dick.

seanvegas

seanvegas

Lincoln, NE
December 2004

AUG 09, 2006 07:40 PM

He dissected the workings of human society, organized them into a belief system, and called it "Satanism!"

NC_guy

NC_guy

Raleigh, NC
January 2006

AUG 09, 2006 07:45 PM

He was onto something.

trocc

trocc

Chicago, IL
March 2003

AUG 09, 2006 07:50 PM

he was a carny once

I

I

San Bruno, CA
March 2003

AUG 09, 2006 08:05 PM

I'll take Crowley instead.

Emperor_Norton

Emperor_Norton

Phoenix, AZ
February 2006

AUG 09, 2006 08:07 PM

I said:
I'll take Crowley instead.



Give that man a cigar! You are correct, sir!*


*Hell, I'll take Austin Osman Spare over LaVey any day of the week.

Emperor_Norton

Emperor_Norton

Phoenix, AZ
February 2006

AUG 09, 2006 08:07 PM

jtemperance

jtemperance

Chicago, IL
January 2004

AUG 09, 2006 08:10 PM

NC_guy said:
He was onto something.



OK, you're obviously playing this thread. What was he onto? Be specific, and articulate what you think he has to offer.

jtemperance

jtemperance

Chicago, IL
January 2004

AUG 09, 2006 08:10 PM

I said:
I'll take Crowley instead.



Ditto. Crowley is also a fool.

I

I

San Bruno, CA
March 2003

AUG 09, 2006 08:32 PM

jtemperance said:

I said:
I'll take Crowley instead.



Ditto. Crowley is also a fool.



Yeah, but a much more entertaining fool.

jtemperance

jtemperance

Chicago, IL
January 2004

AUG 09, 2006 08:44 PM

Well, if that's what yr after, sure. It's the idea that either of them have anything to say that is ridiculous.

Flux

Flux

SUICIDEGIRL

North Carolina, USA

AUG 09, 2006 09:07 PM

jtemperance said:
Well, if that's what yr after, sure. It's the idea that either of them have anything to say that is ridiculous.



I agree that LaVey is pretty schlocky, but Crowley wrote some really interesting stuff. I'm more of a Spare fan myself (hat tip to the Emperor up there), but, what Crowley have you read that makes you feel like you can make that assertion?

jtemperance

jtemperance

Chicago, IL
January 2004

AUG 09, 2006 09:09 PM

I'm going to confess; my knowledge is primarily secondhand. There is, after all, only so much time to read. But I've never heard a single convincing argument for their worth. However, I'm listening. What do you think Crowley has to say?
Edit: or any satanists? I've never heard of Spare.

Flux

Flux

SUICIDEGIRL

North Carolina, USA

AUG 09, 2006 09:27 PM

jtemperance said:
I'm going to confess; my knowledge is primarily secondhand. There is, after all, only so much time to read. But I've never heard a single convincing argument for their worth. However, I'm listening. What do you think Crowley has to say?
Edit: or any satanists? I've never heard of Spare.



The only reason why I blast Ayn Rand as thoroughly as I do is because I have suffered through all of her "novels" and a great deal of her treatises on "philosophy."

LaVey is just a big joke; he was a dear friend of my boss and so I get stories about how sweet and, honestly, kind of doofy he was; I don't think he ever intended for people to take him seriously. He was a carny who liked to play people, except that, unlike folks like Hubbard, he wasn't a manipulative evil asshole. I treat the Church of Satan texts as sort of hilarious rants by adorable misanthropes. They're fun, but not substantial.

Crowley was also a showman, but more substantial. You have to be willing to accept a strange universe, of course, to get anything from his writings, and I suppose an unabashed materialist could get away with saying that Crowley was nothing more than an intelligent bullshit artist. I could rattle off aspects of Crowley's mysticism that I find compelling, such as enlightment through the union of opposites (sex magick), his Qabalistic explorations of the Tarot, his union of western ritual esoteric tradition with eastern mystic practices (esp. yoga), or just the simple beauty of the Liber Al Vel Legis. I'm no Thelemite, but I recognize that modern western esotericism was built sturdily upon the back of Crowley (read, for example, Magick in Theory and Practice).

I mean, if you think that esotericism is bullshit, that's your prerogative, but if you are willing to chance the belief in weirdness, Crowley's near the best of them. If you're interested in learning more, there are folks in the City of Willows (myself included) who would love to explain occult sympathies.

I just don't think it's fair to call bullshit on something secondhand.

ThisIsWhoWeAre

ThisIsWhoWeAre

Oakland, CA
July 2004

AUG 09, 2006 09:30 PM

Would have made a great Ming the Merciless.

Flux

Flux

SUICIDEGIRL

North Carolina, USA

AUG 09, 2006 09:35 PM

My favorite LaVey story, bar none, comes from Peggy Nadramia's intro to The Satanic Witch (the only LaVey book I ever really loved):

"A few years ago, I sent Dr. LaVey a copy of a large-size lingerie catalog; he called to say that in his usual pile of mail from those who assumed he'd be interested in more esoteric, occult pursuits, he finally got what he wanted: pictures of chubby chicks in their underwear."

That's just precious.

jtemperance

jtemperance

Chicago, IL
January 2004

AUG 09, 2006 09:39 PM

Flux said:

jtemperance said:
I'm going to confess; my knowledge is primarily secondhand. There is, after all, only so much time to read. But I've never heard a single convincing argument for their worth. However, I'm listening. What do you think Crowley has to say?
Edit: or any satanists? I've never heard of Spare.



The only reason why I blast Ayn Rand as thoroughly as I do is because I have suffered through all of her "novels" and a great deal of her treatises on "philosophy."

LaVey is just a big joke; he was a dear friend of my boss and so I get stories about how sweet and, honestly, kind of doofy he was; I don't think he ever intended for people to take him seriously. He was a carny who liked to play people, except that, unlike folks like Hubbard, he wasn't a manipulative evil asshole. I treat the Church of Satan texts as sort of hilarious rants by adorable misanthropes. They're fun, but not substantial.

Crowley was also a showman, but more substantial. You have to be willing to accept a strange universe, of course, to get anything from his writings, and I suppose an unabashed materialist could get away with saying that Crowley was nothing more than an intelligent bullshit artist. I could rattle off aspects of Crowley's mysticism that I find compelling, such as enlightment through the union of opposites (sex magick), his Qabalistic explorations of the Tarot, his union of western ritual esoteric tradition with eastern mystic practices (esp. yoga), or just the simple beauty of the Liber Al Vel Legis. I'm no Thelemite, but I recognize that modern western esotericism was built sturdily upon the back of Crowley (read, for example, Magick in Theory and Practice).

I mean, if you think that esotericism is bullshit, that's your prerogative, but if you are willing to chance the belief in weirdness, Crowley's near the best of them. If you're interested in learning more, there are folks in the City of Willows (myself included) who would love to explain occult sympathies.

I just don't think it's fair to call bullshit on something secondhand.



I respect what you say, and respect your willingness to defend it at such length even more. Yes, I have never found any of the writers identified with "esotericism" as having anything meaningful to say, be it in their notions of spirituality, of sex, or of the transcendent (and this I'll trace back to the 11th century, if not before). Personally, I find religious writers far more substantive, even when I do not personally agree with them. Wierdness is fine as an aesthetic, which is how I've lived it (via Lovecraft, the Butthole Surfers, et al), but I find it significantly lacking when I attempt to answer moral or religious (read: ultimate) questions. I find them thin, overpriviledged, and insubstantial. I have yet to find a convincing argument that it isn't the product of an overfed, often drugged, elite.

I take your criticism about secondhand criticism to heart, and I accept w/o reservation the slap in the face. Yet I've still heard nothing to convince me that my limited energy for seeking meaning isn't best spent elsewhere.

My ears are still open; pray know I respect you. I'd appreciate the conversation continuing.

llouys

llouys

Brazil
August 2003

AUG 10, 2006 12:47 PM

Emperor_Norton

Emperor_Norton

Phoenix, AZ
February 2006

AUG 10, 2006 05:00 PM

Emperor_Norton

Emperor_Norton

Phoenix, AZ
February 2006

AUG 10, 2006 05:00 PM

jason

jason

USA
August 2002

AUG 10, 2006 05:19 PM

i saw him strolling around in santa cruz once when i was a teenager and didnt really have a full understanding of what he was all about. therefore i was totally fucking blown away. it was daytime and everything.

Emperor_Norton

Emperor_Norton

Phoenix, AZ
February 2006

AUG 10, 2006 05:23 PM

QUOTE]jtemperance said:

Flux said:

jtemperance said:
I'm going to confess; my knowledge is primarily secondhand. There is, after all, only so much time to read. But I've never heard a single convincing argument for their worth. However, I'm listening. What do you think Crowley has to say?
Edit: or any satanists? I've never heard of Spare.



The only reason why I blast Ayn Rand as thoroughly as I do is because I have suffered through all of her "novels" and a great deal of her treatises on "philosophy."

LaVey is just a big joke; he was a dear friend of my boss and so I get stories about how sweet and, honestly, kind of doofy he was; I don't think he ever intended for people to take him seriously. He was a carny who liked to play people, except that, unlike folks like Hubbard, he wasn't a manipulative evil asshole. I treat the Church of Satan texts as sort of hilarious rants by adorable misanthropes. They're fun, but not substantial.

Crowley was also a showman, but more substantial. You have to be willing to accept a strange universe, of course, to get anything from his writings, and I suppose an unabashed materialist could get away with saying that Crowley was nothing more than an intelligent bullshit artist. I could rattle off aspects of Crowley's mysticism that I find compelling, such as enlightment through the union of opposites (sex magick), his Qabalistic explorations of the Tarot, his union of western ritual esoteric tradition with eastern mystic practices (esp. yoga), or just the simple beauty of the Liber Al Vel Legis. I'm no Thelemite, but I recognize that modern western esotericism was built sturdily upon the back of Crowley (read, for example, Magick in Theory and Practice).

I mean, if you think that esotericism is bullshit, that's your prerogative, but if you are willing to chance the belief in weirdness, Crowley's near the best of them. If you're interested in learning more, there are folks in the City of Willows (myself included) who would love to explain occult sympathies.

I just don't think it's fair to call bullshit on something secondhand.



I respect what you say, and respect your willingness to defend it at such length even more. Yes, I have never found any of the writers identified with "esotericism" as having anything meaningful to say, be it in their notions of spirituality, of sex, or of the transcendent (and this I'll trace back to the 11th century, if not before). Personally, I find religious writers far more substantive, even when I do not personally agree with them. Wierdness is fine as an aesthetic, which is how I've lived it (via Lovecraft, the Butthole Surfers, et al), but I find it significantly lacking when I attempt to answer moral or religious (read: ultimate) questions. I find them thin, overpriviledged, and insubstantial. I have yet to find a convincing argument that it isn't the product of an overfed, often drugged, elite.

I take your criticism about secondhand criticism to heart, and I accept w/o reservation the slap in the face. Yet I've still heard nothing to convince me that my limited energy for seeking meaning isn't best spent elsewhere.

My ears are still open; pray know I respect you. I'd appreciate the conversation continuing.

I'd like to throw my two cents in, if you don't mind. I think the hurdle most people can't leap in regards to esoteric writers is something you remarked on, the "weirdness" aesthetic. The vast majority of all the occult writings one could stumble on are loaded with all sorts of mystical claptrap, but the important thing to keep in mind is that most of it is purely metaphorical. After all, the word "occult" means hidden, and many metaphysical writers enjoy throwing out all that weirdness as a smokescreen for their ideas, something to scare away the "normals" and dilettantes. Compare it to the ultra-verbose and dense jargon most philosophers adopt; most people with no philosophical schooling would be up Confounded Creek without a paddle once they stumble on phrases like post-Hegelian. In a sense, occultists like Crowley have a lot in common with ivory tower standards like Derrida: they they have some valid ideas, but they hide it underneath layer upon overlaying layer of bullshit on purpose. In Crowley's defense, he is a hell of a lot more accessible than someone like Derrida.

When you get past the jargon, most Western esotericism at its heart is a combination of old shamanistic practices and studious scholarship. I used to be in your shoes, as I thought metaphysics in general was just complete and utter bullshit. Its comparable to why I used to refuse smoke pot: I didn't want to end up like all the jerkoff loser stoners at my schools, and I erroneously made the assumption that drug use automatically facilitates that transformation (much as how many are turned off by the occult due to all the crazy/goofy douchebags that flock to it). What made me come around was my involvement in Religious Studies courses while I was attending ASU. In particular, studying scholars like Mircea Eliade, I started seeing many parallels between the activities and desires of old shamanic cultures and the occult. Sex magick, speaking in tongues, possession trances,similiar attitudes towards the existence of spirits, viewing activities like ecstatic dancing and drug use as a means of attaining temporary transcendence... all of these are facets shared between shamanism and the occult. I can hear where you're coming from in regards to the idea that most arguments in favor of the occult come from the "overfed" and the "drugged", but I'd like to ask that you consider the fact that many of these practices originated within tribal cultures across every habitated continent. Many of the ideas and practices of occult writers are very, very old ideas, and the fact that these ideas and practices still endure to this day strikes me as enough of a reason to give them some attention (whereas other once-popular ideas like the Earth being flat/hollow and eugenics have been consigned to the dustbins of history). Something in the occult seems to resonant with a more primitive aspect of the human psyche, and all those practices lost in the West with the advent of monotheism and an increasingly homogenous world culture reappear in the form of the occult (and some of those practices also surface in various monotheistic sects; just look at the speaking-in-tongues occurences in tent revivals, the Kabbalists in Judaism, the mysticism of the Sufis, or the peculiar zeal of the snake handler groups).

Finally, in regards to your point about metaphysics being ineffective at addressing "the ultimate questions", this is more or less due to the fact that such questions don't factor into most occult writers thinking. The occult is more of a hands-on approach to dealing with reality. Philosophy deals with morals and man's ability to relate to the universe, but rarely deals with the concept of man being able to alter/affect the world around them. That's where the occult comes in. Occult practices are proactive in their philosophy; one does not simply contemplate the nature of the universe, one seeks (quixiotically, one might say) to CHANGE the nature of the universe (or at least one's immediate surroundings). This is partly why drugs and decadence play such a heavy role in the occult, because the occult is all about altering own's perceptions of reality, and there are few more direct routes of perception-altering than a visit to the good ol'palace of excess. Concepts like karma and the existence of higher beings is addressed in a lot of occult philosophies, but the key ideological point most occultists meet on is the idea that one is always master of their own destiny (the existence of God being only of real importance if said God plans on putting the kibosh on your endeavors). Think of the occult as a kind of bizarre self-help/impowerment workshop; intellectually, the occult has more connections and similiarities with psychology (behavioral science, Pavlov's dog, placebos, etc) than religion. That's part of the reason why if one goes to a New Age bookstore, most of the books you'll find are thinly veiled self help texts, doled up with some pentagrams and witchy sland (because the aims of the occult and the self-help world are fundamentally the same: the betterment of the self).

Let me end this post with a quote from one of my favorite writers/inner-space-cosmonauts Grant Morrison. He wrote this about what he believes magic and the occult represents in an introduction to a book I pimped in a previous thread (Disinfo's Book Of Lies). He states his case far more eloquently and concisely than I could ever state my own:

"What I do know for sure, based on the evidence of my senses and on many years of skeptical enquiry, is that magic allows us to take control of our own development as human beings. Magic allows us to see the world entire in a fresh and endlessly significant light and demands of us a vital and dynamic collaboration with our environment. Magic brings coherence and structure to psychological "breakdowns", psychedelic experiences or transpersonal encounters. Magic allows us to personify our fears and failures as demons and outlines time-honored methods of bargaining with these feelings or banishing them. Magic is the sane response to a world filled with corporate ghost-gods, roaming, mindless laws and peering surveillance lenses. Above all, magic is about achieving results".

NC_guy

NC_guy

Raleigh, NC
January 2006

AUG 10, 2006 08:44 PM

Emperor_Norton, I thoroughly enjoyed reading your comment above. You bring up SO many good points, and I now have many to things to think about.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next