stewart edwards
01-05-2009, 08:02 AM
Can I ask you to bear with me for a moment for I need your help.
First let me say that I am not trying to do the moderators job, this is purely from an esoteric angle, to highlight and illustrate how what many posters here are doing is advancing the cause of darkness in society. I have been in this place myself a decade plus ago, so this is not some hollier than holy rant but observations based on my own personal experience of finding myself lost in the depth of darkness and walking out of it all the way to the light.
Just open your heart, take a deep breath, and listen to me for a moment, with full concentration, please.
I am not going to name names for you know who you are, and there are a lot of you. I myself would have been included a decade ago, hopefully nowadays it is a rare occurance for me.
Darkness has many methods at its disposal to fracture and destable individuals and through them society. Some of these are very clearly at work on this forum, which if you think about it, is to be expected, for darkness will do its level best to slowly and silently corrupt. In a way it is a sort of compliment that darkness sees this forum as a worthy target. But you need to rise above it.
Esoteric lessons in how darkness is succeeding here:-
1. As I have said before, when someone writes something and you feel the instinctive need to post a rude or spiteful comment back, that is darkness controlling you. Focus on the response mechanism and on how you felt when you posted instinctively and later when you had time to reflect. You need to master yourself here, or darkness will take further hold. A good place to start is the old childrens guidance of "counting to ten".
2. Not being open to other people viewpoints. Again this is darkness controlling you. The light does not fear criticism and in fact positively encourages critical analysis of itself. If you read without critical thought much of the beauty of life will evade you and you will be blind. If you think that you know it all and have all of the answers I can only recommend that you think about Shreks onion. If you want to be ready to pass the veils and see more in life you have to be willing to do some hard graft on yourslef, for it is the only way. If you think that you dont need to because you already know it all/know that others are misled or wrong, then consider that it could actually be that you have further to travel not them. Again a good test is whether or not this concept sits easy with you, if it gets your goat then that is a sign of you being in darkness.
Darkness is a powerful force that will do its level best to fracture and destroy. Dont let it destroy this forum, and dont let it infect.
Being open to possibilities, new ideas, different perspectives, being able to question yourself and your beliefs are all good signs that you are on the path of light. The light does not live in fear. It inspires. Its helps, its a shoulder, a gateway.
So can we please stop the petty bickering that comes and goes with regularity and actually work towards the light and not darkness?
So shall I just shut up?
luciferhorus
03-05-2009, 06:09 PM
On the Dialectic (Gr. Argument)
http://wwhwww.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/socrates2.jpg
Lucifer
I'd Like to make a general response to this which I hope will improve the 'form' of debating.
I have a prewritten essay on this which I often post into Internet forums where I am debating.
I think that we have to imagine ourselves as philosophers debating at the 'Oxford debating society;' we have to imagine Socrates and his pupils; we have to imagine Jesus debating with his enemies and Bhuddah with his critics; none of these souls spoke to an exclusively passive audience who simply agreed with everything they said, and were entirely unafraid to adress their critics and would challenge the established beliefs and ideas of Archons of their age.
http://i414.photobucket.com/albums/pp230/uncknowledge/tributepainting.jpg
It is important not to suspend criticism of anyone, for this is not how the free thinker thinks, but it is also important to concede our own positions when shown to be errant.
If a Nazi states 99 truths which we agree with and one flasehood which we do not agree with; the advanced soul should concede the 99 points and only take up the point of disagreement.
We often learn as much from listening to and debating with our ideological enemies as we do with our allies.
How to test one's belief system.
Lucifer
The 1000 Year Revolution of Light.
I also have a metaphysical belief system which makes the most sense of reality to me; it cannot be proven empirically however, this being a statement of the obvious, since there will never be empirical (objective, scientific) proof for the non empirical (metaphsycial, subjective, non-scientific), just as we cannot empirically prove the existence of love or beauty, yet they form part of our reality just as our ideas and beliefs do.
Witgenstein's Tree does not explain 'all of philosophy (the study of knowledge);' it is merely all of empistemology (which asks the question, 'how do we know what we know?' and 'what is objective knowledge?). If I say 'I know objectively' that the universe has a Creator and that she is a black, militant, Communist, Jewish, lesbian' then the term 'know objectively' is an 'epistemic fallacy,' but it does not make the latter half of the statement false; in metaphysics we speak of what we cannot and do not know by the evidence of the 5 senses, but rather of our interpretations of reality and beliefs, which we can then test out in the arena of debate.
There are numerous Greek words for knowledge and 'epistem' is only one of them.
When we speak of grand metaphysical systems, we are speaking of subjective understandings of the universe. My own understanding is a modern 'syncretism (a mixture)' based upon understandings and inner experiences gleaned from the Kabbalah, necromancy, ritual magick, Neo-Paganism, shamanism, Crowleyanity, psychoactive usage, the study of all religions and shamanism in general etc., however unfortunately there is no scientific method of proving this or any other system.
So what are we left with? Since a scientific system of proving what is not scientific is not possible, we can only refer to the Socratic dialectic (see essay below); this is much better system of continuous non-scientific 'testing' than merely one person designing a ‘new’ Grand Metaphysical System and imposing that on every one else for the rest of history; or just sticking with the worn out systems; the dross of history.
Unfortunately the Socratic dialectic method requires a very open mind (a rarity among adults) and the willingness to test one's ideas, witness them being torn apart and to concede points in debate when shown to be errant.
However.. this method separates the intellectual and religious fascists (the Sophists) from the truly great souls of human history.
In the absence of a scientific method, there is simply no other way which does not lead to the abyss of dogmatism and religious extremism.
Narrow is the path...
Bear in mind of course that Socrates was sentenced to death for challenging and attacking the beliefs of the Archons (authorities) of his age. Using this system will not make you popular; for example any Christian priest who uses this simple method on his Bishops and their hierarchy is almost guaranteed excommunication. Try this in a Muslim country or as a CIA employee and await the lynch mob or the assassin.
The ‘only’ method for testing political and metaphysical ideas which in anyway parallels the continuous testing and experimentation methods of scientists is the Socratic method; this would be the only acceptable Anarchist model for considering non-scientific ‘truths’ in a future world.
The ’Cogers’
For some years when I lived in London I would attend the ’Coger’s Society’ which meets several times a month in a pub in different parts of London. All persons have 5 minutes to speak /debate on any subject they wish; mostly politics and religion.
There is always a moderator, however. Two of my Anarchist comrades were presidents (moderators) of the Cogers for a while, and no matter how extreme the views presented by Christians, Far-rightists, Muslims, Capitalists, whatever, no interruption or heckling was tolerated. A person could brutally atttack another speaker only during their ’5 minutes,’ or if the speaker took responses and questions from the floor.
That is why if you want to have an intelligent discussion with Christians, Nazis, Communists whatever, you need to either have a moderated discussion, or the debaters need to follw certain ground-rules, since there are always those who confuse an argument between philosophers with an argument between drunks in a pub.
As with the 'Cogers' the ideal 'moderator' does not impose 'any' form of censorship of ideas, but rather is there only to keep the 'rabble' at bay, to alow freedom of speech, to encourage debate and to cry 'order' if intelligent debate is confused with the hurling of ad hominems (lit 'against the man' as opposed to against the person's political and religious 'ideas' and 'beliefs;' i.e., personal abuse)'
I have been on the Internet almost since its beginnings; we know that it is a fact that there exists among us an army of professional spammers, bloggers and debaters, employed by the state terrorists, yet you will never find anyone who will admit to that; in addition we have to deal with children and others, lacking in education and whose intelligence is undeveloped, and who just like to make a lot of noise. Frankly most Americans are barely literate anyway and can just about read a cornflakes packet.
"The Society of Cogers is a free speech society, established in 1755 in the City of London. It is the oldest debating society in the world and oldest speaking gathering of any kind after the United Kingdom Parliament.
The name "Cogers" comes from Descartes' famous assertion, Cogito ergo sum. As a "Society of Thinkers", the Cogers is dedicated to the philosophy of letting everyone express their thoughts. The aims of the Cogers were the promotion of the liberty of the subject and the freedom of the Press..
Previous members and visitors to the society include founding member John Wilkes, Charles Dickens, William Gladstone, Benjamin Disraeli, and many others throughout its 250 year history.
City of London Cogers, Old Bank of England, Fleet Street, 7pm, 2nd Monday each month. Between the Royal Courts of Justice and Chancery Lane.
Cogers@LondonUni, The Plough, Museum Street, 7pm, 3rd Wednesday each month. Opposite the British Museum's main entrance.
Westminster Cogers, The Plumbers Arms, Lower Belgrave Street, 7pm, 4th Wednesday each month. Just near Victoria Station.
Ware Society of Cogers, The Drill Hall, Amwell End, Ware, 3rd Tuesday each month
"
Cogers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
City Of London Cogers
The Old Bank Of England
194 Fleet Street
The meeting runs from approx 6:45pm-9:00pm
Next meeting: Monday, 11th May 2009
Over the years the society has provided a platform for the views of Whigs, Tories, Jacobites, Chartists, Liberals, Conservatives, Socialists, Monarchists, Republicans and Democrats as well as those owing no allegiance to any political party or political movement.
More on:
http://www.cogers.org
All welcome; irrespective of your views, unfortunately I am temporarily in Somerset and no longer attend. At the end of the meeting, allies and opponents are generally encouraged to continue the debates civilly over numerous glasses of ale. Since there is no 'discussion topic;' subjects such as those raised by David Icke, Alex Jones, the 911 truth movement, etc., or indeed anything may be raised.
Anarchism.
Since Anarchism, unlike Marxism is a purely political solution, there is no rigid metaphysics; all beliefs may be considered as long as all forms of organised religion and the professional priesthood (authorites on ‘God’) are eradicated; the debates may thus continue until the end of the universe and the death of the soul, if such as thing be possible.
http://www.ricksiegel.com/images/hitler_cardinal4.jpg
If the day comes when a new ‘Great Leader’ convinces half the world that his form of political and religious truth is infallible, the revolution shall have to be begun all over again and rivers of blood shall flow. Few things are more offensive to the proponets of the Socratic method that a politician or religionist making a speech to an uncritical audience of psychopahants clapping incessantly at every sentence or crying out 'Amen;' for such is the sign of the psychophant, the gullible, the sheep, the lemming, the hypnotised and the soul who has suspended all criticism.
War
The point where all debates cease is the beginning of war and in the age we live in we can expect war like no other in human history, and this shall be the consequence of the few masters who refuse to listen to the will of the masses and who care not for their concerns or criticisms.
Love and Light.
Lux
http://www.luciferia.tv/animation/A.gif
______________________________________
The Socratic Dialectic (Gr. Argument) 101
or:
‘Abuse, sophisty and contradiction (ASC) : the last cries of the desparate.’
What is ‘argument?
By Lucifer
For Anarchist Communism.
______________________________________
There are numerous groups on the Internet where debate is confused with 'exchanges' of abuse.
I was did not always think as I do, and in the future I expect my positions to modify as a consequence of study, debate, life experience etc.
Debate and discussion is always a good thing.
Our political and metaphysical beliefs must go through a dialectical testing process.
When tested, if they fail or are destroyed by superior arguments; the person who is intellectually honest should concede and modify his position.
That is how adults 'develop' intellectually, morally (the discernment of good and evil), spiritually, whatever.
Children just slag each other off.
______________
http://sorinplaton.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/skinheads.jpg
Thesis (idea), anti-thesis (opposing idea) and synthesis (a combination of two ideas).
An argument in the English language can mean a fight between two football hooligans but this has nothing to do with the Greek meaning of ‘dialectic, ’ with regards to the teaching and debating method Socrates. In Internet debates over the years I have often made many ‘arguments’ against the ‘ideas’ of other people who misunderstand the meaning of the term ‘dialectic, ’ and to simplify I have written the following explanation which I often post in response to my essays.
_____________________________________________
Abuse and contradiction are common and can be had from imbecile, football hooligan or a drunk at a bus stop and do not constitute argument.
Responses should follow certain standards or I will probably ignore you.
_________________________________
Argument (Gr. dialectic) according to Socrates, Hegel and John Cleese.
3 universally accepted ground rules of debating
1: Abuse.
Abuse does not constitute an argument.
2: Contradiction.
Contradiction is not an argument. ’I don’t agree with you’ is not an
argument. An Argument would state ‘why’ you disagree.
3: Sophistry (sophist: ’sophisticated / educated).
A Sophist generally avoids the question and rambles on about something else, often avoiding the argument made by the opponent and often utilising straw man arguments (attacking arguments and positions which the opponent does not hold) and creates confusion with language.
The use of the combination of 1, 2 and 3 is generally defined as ’arrogance’ and ‘avoidance of debate, ’ and by default ‘conceding the point to the opponent’
For those who do not understand the meaning of the term ‘argument, ’ for further information watch the 3 min video on the ground rules of debate on:
http://www.scottberkun.com/wp-content/themes/scottberkun/images/40-1.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/v/kQFKtI6gn9Y&hl=en&fs=1
(Monty Python Argument Sketch)
Note that this only covers abuse and contradiction.
If you cannot understand this, I suggest the removal of your brain.
See
http://www.physd.amu.edu.pl/~magik/pics/gumby1.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIlKiRPSNGA
(Monty Python: ’My Brian Hurts)
’An argument is not contradiction (or abuse); it is a series of connected statements which establish a proposition; a debate is a dialectical intellectual process’
__________
The Socratic and Sophist method of education
Socrates: intellectual and spiritual development through a dialectical process.
Socrates would encourage his students to ‘argue’ with him, but to restate, since the term ‘argue’ has a number of meanings in the English, we are speaking of a Socratic ‘dialectical’ process, not a punch up, nor the showering of abuse; we are speaking of challenging an idea (thesis) with another idea (anti-thesis) and in this way the ideas and debating skills of both parties evolve and develop.
This process is intended to produce an intellectually evolved and intellectually honest person who can admit points to the opponent when the opponent’s position seems to be better and who can also stand up for their own ideas when challenged by an authority whom they disagree with. This is how we evolve intellectually and spiritually; whereas an ‘arrogant; person engages in an argument (debate) in the same way that a boxer fights (to win). The purpose of dialectical argument is not to win even if one is shown to be errant, but to test and evolve (develop) ones’ ideas. This sometimes can involve using the ‘Devil’s advocate’ form of argument where one attacks the arguments of those one essentially agrees with in order to test them.
The Sophists: Intellectual fascism (Gr. Sophist: a sophisticated, educated, arrogant pseudo-intellectual).
The Sophist method of educating students, which has been taken up by the Catholic Church throughout it’s history, was to lecture them for hours, and if challenged by a student, the student might be told that they are arrogant, told off or burned at the state, tortured by the Inquisition’ or simply ‘murdered ’ and branded a heretic who dared to challenge authority. The Sophist method defines the term ‘arrogance. An arrogant person thinks that they are always correct, and even when shown to be incorrect, they will still hold fast to their position, since their purpose is to ‘win’ an argument by all means necessary. The Sophists of course despised Socrates as much as he despised them (he considered them to be educated fools) and like so many others who challenge existing authority, Socrates was martyred.
Lucifer
http://www.luciferia.tv/animation/A.gif
Light of the World.
Aeon of Lucifer 2008
___________________________
http://www.wgvu.org/wgvunews/images/2775_040609.jpg
Christopher Hitchens on 'debate' and freedom of expression, in defence of holocaust denialist David Irving.
Hitchens is referring to ’debate and discussion’ as an intellectual / philosopher.
The example he gives of his defence of the historian David Irving regards defending another intellectual’s right to make a dissenting argument.
What is occurring on many Interent forums however, is not a group of philosopher’s debating; on the contrary, there is an attempt to stop that and to interfere with this process.
I’m sure that while Hitchen would welcome debate with a person who denies the Holocaust (as he states in the video below), I am also sure that he would attempt to silence those who would attempt to silence the Holocaust denier and to drown him out with the noise of the rabble; that is not a debate.
http://www.youtube.com/v/X3Hg-Y7MugU&hl=en&fs=1
"My predecessors have invariably said, 'My belief is right and yours is wrong; my customs are worthy, yours are ignoble; my dress is decent, yours is not; think as I think, talk as I talk, do as I do, or you will be wretched, poor, sick, disgraced and dammed; besides which, I shall cut your head off, burn you alive, starve you, imprison you, ostracize you and otherwise make you sorry you did not agree to be a good boy.' The essence of every missionary message has been to assimilate the taught to the teacher; and it has always been accompanied by bribes and threats. My message is exactly opposed to any of this. I say to each man and woman, 'You are unique and sovereign, the centre of an universe........... My mission is, in short, to bring everyone to the realization and enjoyment of his own kingship.
Aleister Crowley.' Confessions.'
__________________
Arguement sketch
Monty Python
Man: Good morning, I'd like to have an argument, please.
Receptionist: Certainly, sir. Have you been here before?
Man: No, this is my first time.
Receptionist: I see, well we'll see who's free at the moment.
Mr. Bakely's free, but he's a little bit concilliatory. No. Try Mr. Barnhart, room 12.
Man: Thank you.
He enters room 12.
Angry man: WHADDAYOU WANT?
Man: Well, Well, I was told outside that...
Angry man: DON'T GIVE ME THAT, YOU SNOTTY-FACED HEAP OF PARROT DROPPINGS!
Man: What?
A: SHUT YOUR FESTERING GOB, YOU TIT! YOUR TYPE MAKES ME PUKE!
YOU VACUOUS STUFFY-NOSED MALODOROUS PERVERT!!!
M: Yes, but I came here for an argument!!
A: OH! Oh! I'm sorry! This is abuse!
M: Oh! Oh I see!
A: Aha! No, you want room 12A, next door.
M: Oh...Sorry...
A: Not at all!
A: (under his breath) stupid git.
The man goes into room 12A. Another man is sitting behind a desk.
Man: Is this the right room for an argument?
Other Man:(pause) I've told you once.
Man: No you haven't!
Other Man: Yes I have.
M: When?
O: Just now.
M: No you didn't!
O: Yes I did!
M: You didn't!
O: I did!
M: You didn't!
O: I'm telling you, I did!
M: You didn't!
O: (breaking into the developing argument) Oh I'm sorry, is this a five minute argument, or the full half hour?
M: Ah! (taking out his wallet and paying) Just the five minutes.
O: Just the five minutes. Thank you.
Anyway, I did.
M: You most certainly did not!
O: Now let's get one thing perfectly clear: I most definitely told you!
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did! (very fast)
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: No you DIDN'T!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: No you DIDN'T!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: No you DIDN'T!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh look, this isn't an argument!
(pause)
O: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
(pause)
M: It's just contradiction!
O: No it isn't!
M: It IS!
O: It is NOT!
M: You just contradicted me!
O: No I didn't!
M: You DID!
O: No no no!
M: You did just then!
O: Nonsense!
M: (exasperated) Oh, this is futile!!
(pause)
O: No it isn't!
M: Yes it is!
(pause)
I came here for a good argument!
O: AH, no you didn't, you came here for an *argument*!
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
O: Well! it CAN be!
M: No it can't!
An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
O: No it isn't!
M: Yes it is! 'it isn't just contradiction.
O: Look, if I *argue* with you, I must take up a contrary position!
M: Yes but it isn't just saying "no it isn't".
O: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
O: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
O: Yes it is!
M: No it ISN'T! Argument is an intellectual process.
Contradiction is just the automatic naysaying of anything the other person says.
O: It is NOT!
M: It is!
O: Not at all!
M: It is!
>DING!< The Arguer hits a bell on his desk and stops.
O: Thank you, that's it.
M: (stunned) What?
O: That's it. Good morning.
M: But I was just getting interested!
O: I'm sorry, the five minutes is up.
M: That was never five minutes!!
O: I'm afraid it was.
M: (leading on) No it wasn't.....
(pause)
O: (dirty look) I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to argue any more.
M: WHAT??
O: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.
M: But that was never five minutes just now!
(pause... the Other Man raises his eyebrows)
Oh Come on!
Oh this is...
This is ridiculous!
O: I told you...
I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you PAY!
M: Oh all right. (takes out his wallet and pays again.)
There you are.
O: Thank you.
M: (clears throat) Well...
O: Well WHAT?
M: That was never five minutes just now.
O: I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!
M: Well I just paid!
O: No you didn't!
M: I DID!!!
O: YOU didn't!
M: I DID!!!
O: YOU didn't!
M: I DID!!!
O: YOU didn't!
M: I DID!!!
O: YOU didn't!
M: (unable to talk straight he's so mad) I don't want to argue about it!
O: Well I'm very sorry but you didn't pay!
M: Ah HAH!! Well if I didn't pay, why are you arguing???
Ah HAAAAAAHHH! Gotcha!
O: (pause) No you haven't!
M: Yes I have!
If you're arguing, I must have paid.
O: Not necessarily.
I *could* be arguing in my spare time.
__________
Etc., etc.... anyone debating on Internet Discussion groups is inevitably going to be confronted by individuals of the ilk of those in the 'Abuse' and 'Contradiction' room who are simply here to waste their own time and that of others.
ASC is the often last cry of the desparate.