ilovefuzz.com

If you're talking about the one about music, I actually had a teacher (he was a really awesome guitar teacher, but I didn't have the money to keep going to him) for a while with an almost opposite approach. If I remember correctly he called it "The glass doors". I wish I could remember exactly how he said it. It went something like, if you go into it without learning the theory first, then it was like pushing against a glass door. It doesn't open, so you push harder and harder, and you spend a lot of time, but eventually you crash through, and now you're at the next level of understanding and ability. Then you have to do it all over again, and again, and again, to advance each time. If you instead take the time to learn first, it's like looking down and noticing the small sign on each door that says "Pull".

He was in the process of writing a book about music when last I talked to him called "Elegant Musicianship for Guitarists". As of 2009, he had rewritten it 27 times Maybe some day he'll actually publish it.

alexa. wrote:Is my logic faulty?
Discuss.

I dont think so.
You can read all about Magick but you really don't know anything about it until you spend some time practicing. I could try to explain what it means to me but that will not help with this discussion.

jfrey wrote:If you're talking about the one about music, I actually had a teacher (he was a really awesome guitar teacher, but I didn't have the money to keep going to him) for a while with an almost opposite approach. If I remember correctly he called it "The glass doors". I wish I could remember exactly how he said it. It went something like, if you go into it without learning the theory first, then it was like pushing against a glass door. It doesn't open, so you push harder and harder, and you spend a lot of time, but eventually you crash through, and now you're at the next level of understanding and ability. Then you have to do it all over again, and again, and again, to advance each time. If you instead take the time to learn first, it's like looking down and noticing the small sign on each door that says "Pull".

although just learning ABOUT playing guitar wont help you still actually have to Play it.

Derelict78 wrote:

jfrey wrote:If you're talking about the one about music, I actually had a teacher (he was a really awesome guitar teacher, but I didn't have the money to keep going to him) for a while with an almost opposite approach. If I remember correctly he called it "The glass doors". I wish I could remember exactly how he said it. It went something like, if you go into it without learning the theory first, then it was like pushing against a glass door. It doesn't open, so you push harder and harder, and you spend a lot of time, but eventually you crash through, and now you're at the next level of understanding and ability. Then you have to do it all over again, and again, and again, to advance each time. If you instead take the time to learn first, it's like looking down and noticing the small sign on each door that says "Pull".

although just learning ABOUT playing guitar wont help you still actually have to Play it.

That's obviously true. His claim though - I didn't study with him long enough to test it myself - was that if you learned the theory first (and thoroughly) it would take only 1 year then in practice to reach the level of pretty much any virtuoso. I don't know how much truth there is to that, however he was insanely good - in ANY and EVERY style you can think of. So maybe he was on to something.

First off, I want to add my to the continued civility of this thread. All too often these topics degrade into virtual chest-beating and such.

To those wondering about the semantics of the use of the word "magic," in the context I put forth:

I kind of went on a "rant" without realizing that I would just add to the confusion here.... I should state that I don't believe in the paranormal or "magic." Neither did LaVey. I should note here that there are groups of people calling themselves "Satanists" who are not associated with the groundwork he laid. Some of them believe Lucifer/Satan to be a real diety, and I think they are as misguided and delusional as the rest of the theists out there. As much as I like LaVey's writings, they are becoming outdated and someone with the brains and the balls needs to revise the philosophy. People like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have kind of filled that role, but not in the same way. LaVey realized that rational arguments hardly ever (if at all...) work against irrational people. You can make your case for evolution against a creationist until you die of exhaustion, but they most likely won't change their opinion. This is what I was saying about the brain making emotional decisions first. When you challenge someone's beliefs, you are challenging their perception of the world and of themselves. The "ego" (for lack of a better word at the moment) will run in circles to protect itself from losing its grip. If someone approached LaVey from a philosophical, intelligent, and level-headed angle, he would give them a well-spoken response, outlining whatever aspects of Satanism desired. If they wanted to grill him, he did this:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8m3hHYtdegw[/youtube]

The thing attracting me to Satanism is the kind of freedom it brings. For someone who truly does not believe in the paranormal, god(s), whatever....it should be no problem to take the devil's name. That's the whole reason LaVey did that, to weed out the people who wanted to ride the fence. Nowadays atheists get bashed about as hard as he used to (I even read somewhere about a study in which they were the "least trusted" people, etc...). He provided a "third alternative." How often do you watch or get involved in a debate between a religious person and an atheist? Watch how polarized they are.

@bigchiefbc, and anyone else who may be interested: The use of ritual and magic in Satanism is entirely unnecessary to be a Satanist. There are a handful of tenets that, if "broken" basically mean you aren't a Satanist, the same way one couldn't really be called a christian if they didn't believe in the teachings of Jesus or what have you. If anyone wants some more interesting, less "occult" sounding writings by him, I can't recommend enough The Devil's Notebook and Satan Speaks. They are collections of "essays" about a wide variety of topics. The Satanic Witch (while also getting outdated in some areas) deals with the social manipulation of men by women, though the principals can be applied for men's use as well.

jfrey wrote:@gunslinger

I don't get the whole magic thing. What you're describing is just being in control of your mind - and not even in what I would consider a mature way (what you described is more like the mental exercises you'd do before you actually gained control of your mind). But that's just psychology and biology. There's nothing mystical, or magical, or extraordinary there.

Edit: He used the word magic as a psychological "booster." What you wrote above is exactly right Though the "mature" part I feel may be open to interpretation.
Basically, because it's "fun." Think about listening to a really immersive band like SunnO))) with your headphones, or even on a good stereo vs seeing them live, with all the robes and smoke and incredibly loud volume.. LaVey (and Crowley's?) use of (ritual) magic is the same kind of thing. Immersion, but to fulfill some kind of psychological purpose. Or just for "fun." I sometimes play my drone music in the dark, sometimes with candles, because of the effects on my perception. No drugs required. I read somewhere an article theorizing how most of what humans do outside of basic survival needs is find things to alter their perception. From music, to film, theatre, video games, spicing your food, dressing up certain ways....etc

If you want it from the man himself, look under "Some Evidence of a New Satanic Age," on the third page. The section I'm referring you to starts with " 'Satanism is a very sound philosophy,' say the emancipated. 'But why call it Satanism? Why not call it something like 'Humanism'. . . .?"
http://www.freewebs.com/specialbooks/Th ... %20Edition).pdf

Lastly, I'm not sure I've heard of Tim Minchin before now, but without his "character," his hair, eyeliner, odd cadence, etc....he wouldn't have nearly the same effect on his audiences. Would Penn and Teller (who are brilliant) have the same allure without Teller's silence and Penn's boisterousness? This is the principal behind LaVey's term "lesser magic." Once again, use of the word "magic," in his context is basically for theatrics, and because it's fun. Also, look at how many people are quick to jump up and have something to say once someone uses that word.

^ Hitchens is one of my heroes. I've read several of his books, and I am also reading books by the other "horsemen" as well as just about everything I have heard any of them recommend.

My personal philosophy is a mix of each of them, as well as Ayn Rand (I'd really would rather not get into an argument about that - or at least if you want to, make a separate thread for the discussion), and a mash of fictional characters that have strongly influenced me.

gunslinger_burrito wrote:Lastly, I'm not sure I've heard of Tim Minchin before now, but without his "character," his hair, eyeliner, odd cadence, etc....he wouldn't have nearly the same effect on his audiences. Would Penn and Teller (who are brilliant) have the same allure without Teller's silence and Penn's boisterousness?

Those are all the things that turn me off about them, lol. I give everyone a chance regardless of the act or how they look, but I find it much easier to take people seriously if they act in a normal serious way, are well groomed, and well dressed. I absolutely hate "shtick".

I'd like to someday read more Rand. I read some of the Fountainhead a while back, but wasn't able to finish it.

This thread has got my mental gears turning somewhat frantically. I just wanted to add that unlike many other religions (and I actually kind of dislike to call Satanism a "religion") Satanism allows its practitioners to basically use whatever works for them, to make the most of their lives. I'm dying to meet some true Satanists who aren't dressed like vampires because they think that that's what you're supposed to do to play the part.

Another note on the basic topic at hand: I love the Tarot and have studied it quite a bit, all from Jodorowsky. He and Philippe Camoin restored on of the oldest (if not THE oldest) decks. Jodorowsky is quick to note in discussions that he doesn't believe in fortune-telling, rather, that the Tarot should be used as a mirror and tool for introspection and alternate perspectives on one's life. Psychology and symbolism.

Edit: @jfrey

It all comes down to opinion. I can take or leave the theatrics, as long as I can tell the person(s) is intelligent. Although the theatrics can be entertaining sometimes. Whatever works for each person as an individual

gunslinger_burrito wrote:I'd like to someday read more Rand. I read some of the Fountainhead a while back, but wasn't able to finish it.

I recommend everyone reads some of her stuff. You may not like everything she says, you may not even like most of what she says, but if you don't take a single positive thing away from it, then I think you went into it ready to disagree before your eyes were ever set to page.

gunslinger_burrito wrote:Another note on the basic topic at hand: I love the Tarot and have studied it quite a bit, all from Jodorowsky. He and Philippe Camoin restored on of the oldest (if not THE oldest) decks. Jodorowsky is quick to note in discussions that he doesn't believe in fortune-telling, rather, that the Tarot should be used as a mirror and tool for introspection and alternate perspectives on one's life. Psychology and symbolism.

I have always loved tarot artwork, if not their purpose. I wish I was still good at drawing. I'd like to do some art like that. Too out of practice, and most of my time has to be devoted to design work. My girlfriend is going to grad school soon, and will be first halving her hours at work, and then leaving her work entirely, so I have to increase my work output a ton.

Not to derail the topic too much....but I actually did like a lot of what she was talking about. I've seen some great interview footage (she was oooold...). I already don't "believe" in morals, right/wrong, etc. That's why my original post had "Cause and effect" in it. Right/good is what you like, wrong/evil is what you dislike. As a whole, society views certain things as "intrinsically" right, wrong, good or evil. But it's only because of "majority rules." I do think there's an inherent sort of bell-curve to the world/universe. It's easiest to use human society as an example. In the middle, the "hump" of the bell, you have the majority of people. Not especially dumb or smart, or lazy or ambitious. On the "slopes" of the bell, however, is where the exceptionally smart or stupid, lazy or hard-working lie. Thus, it seems to me that the things are the way things are because that "hump" of people are the majority of voters and consumers, only really wanting mediocrity. We could have Star Trek society, but it requires too much effort for the average person, or the "average population" to get there.

gunslinger_burrito wrote:Not to derail the topic too much....but I actually did like a lot of what she was talking about. I've seen some great interview footage (she was oooold...). I already don't "believe" in morals, right/wrong, etc. That's why my original post had "Cause and effect" in it. Right/good is what you like, wrong/evil is what you dislike. As a whole, society views certain things as "intrinsically" right, wrong, good or evil. But it's only because of "majority rules." I do think there's an inherent sort of bell-curve to the world/universe. It's easiest to use human society as an example. In the middle, the "hump" of the bell, you have the majority of people. Not especially dumb or smart, or lazy or ambitious. On the "slopes" of the bell, however, is where the exceptionally smart or stupid, lazy or hard-working lie. Thus, it seems to me that the things are the way things are because that "hump" of people are the majority of voters and consumers, only really wanting mediocrity. We could have Star Trek society, but it requires too much effort for the average person, or the "average population" to get there.

You should definitely read Sam Harris' "The Moral Landscape". I'm reading it now, and it is everything that I always thought about right and wrong. I have been having arguments about this for years with people, and had never before encountered another person that agreed with me. It's like reading my own thoughts, except with much better writing and a background in neuroscience and philosophy.

What kills me is the negative reviews of the book. The vast majority of them frequently say things like "Harris never addresses ______________." One wonders if they perhaps read the first chapter of the book, since most of the issues people cite were addressed already in the opening pages of the book - and very clearly.

gunslinger_burrito wrote:I should note here that there are groups of people calling themselves "Satanists" who are not associated with the groundwork he laid. Some of them believe Lucifer/Satan to be a real diety, and I think they are as misguided and delusional as the rest of the theists out there. As much as I like LaVey's writings, they are becoming outdated and someone with the brains and the balls needs to revise the philosophy. People like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have kind of filled that role, but not in the same way.

Check out Michael W. Ford.
I use the "K" first to distinguish between illusion/ tricks and...well Magick
Second, The "K" is added to give the word seven letters. Numerologically, the number 7 is a deeply religious number because it represents the triumph of spirit (the number three, 3) over matter (the number four, 4). 3 + 4 = 7.
I was really into Satanism when I was in high school and for a Few years after. I kept noticing references to an Aleister Crowley (like A LOT of them) so I checked him out. He truly is the founder of modern Magick/Wicca/mysticism/ect. Most of it goes straight back to A.C. You had said earlier that you found his writing to be a little dry but I see a wonderful sense of humor. I think he had the fault of writing over most peoples heads (including mine) so reading anything by him can sometimes be frustrating. I highly recommend Liber ABA (book 4) the first two chapters, 8 lectures on yoga and Magick in theory and practice are in my opinion two of the most important books written on the subject regardless of what faction (Satanism,Wicca,Thelema) you associate with.
To the Haters, guys come on im not trying to force my way of thinking on you. If you are not into it hey thats cool we all have free will but don't imply that I.we are liars and or insane especially if you don't have the courtesy to do some research on the subject. and no research does not include regurgitating something you read all from one point of view.
Piece! & 93!

I do confess that I haven't delved much into Crowley, but enough to see that I'd really have to be into it to get through the older style of writing. It just takes some more concentration and desire on my part to get into it. I actually have a copy of The Enochian World of Aleister Crowley sitting on my shelf, but since enochian is all about charts of symbols, I found it rather dry/boring for my taste. My brain is not mathematical at all, so grids/charts don't do much for me. My preferred subjects so far are the Tarot and Alchemy. Though I haven't been studying the alchemy as much lately....

When I was a teenager, I was more interested in Wicca and astral projection, etc.... Then I just sort of fell into an agnostic, but anti-organized religion phase. I was WAYYYY into Buddhism for a while, and then a couple of friends of mine started talking a lot about Satanism. Looking back, I think the sharp transition I made from the haphazard form of Buddhism I had to Satanism was kind of funny. But, I've held my ways for years and years since. The only thing is, I have to watch out for who I talk about it around....and this is the internet so...

Thanks for the recommendations, sounds interesting!

I have three Crowley books, because they were recommended to me by someone who I had a quite high opinion of. I have the Book of the Law, the Book of Lies, and Diary of a Drug Fiend. Diary is an interesting novel, and I enjoyed it. I really enjoyed about half of the Book of Lies, mostly the poetry. But all of the rituals, magick and numerology were completely impenetrable to me. Same for basically all of the Book of the Law. It just seemed like it was all gobbledygook. I hope no one takes that in an insulting way, I always took it as a failing of mine that I just don't seem to get it, and any time anyone has ever tried to explain numerology and/or the more mystical side of his writing, my eyes glaze over.

gunslinger_burrito wrote:I'd like to someday read more Rand. I read some of the Fountainhead a while back, but wasn't able to finish it.

That might be because you like, uh, good books?

Agree to disagree on Ayn Rand, obviously. Very interesting life story. Very boring author.

Derelict78 wrote:

alexa. wrote:Is my logic faulty?
Discuss.

I dont think so.
You can read all about Magick but you really don't know anything about it until you spend some time practicing. I could try to explain what it means to me but that will not help with this discussion.

Yep.

Every meaningful revelation is personal and valuable only to those who have actually experienced it - the really good writers can share it in an impressive way but it still misses what is valuable in it to those who have experienced it personally.