PDA

View Full Version : A interesting view on a touchy subject


nitwit
23-08-2005, 09:14 PM
Here is a passage that i have taken from an interview done with Anton LaVey, for those that do not know of him (Founder of the Church Of Satan)

The interview is worth a read for sure but may be slightly boring for some. Some parts had me in fits of laughter (although i do have a sick sense of humour)

Comment on the concept of equality by Anton LaVey

Well, naturally - I say "naturally" as a Satanist - I don’t believe in equality. I don’t believe there’s anything equal. If you’re going to dissect it or analyze it, even in the sense of quality control or something that’s seen under a microscope or if a spectrographic analysis is made, there are going to be tiny differences in everything, even if they’re rubber-stamp-type things or mass production things. Nothing is really equal. And it might be quite similar, but when we’re dealing, as I assume you’re asking, in human beings, very few human beings are equal. The most equal of human beings, I would say, would be on the lowest level. Because there are, I mean, God must have loved them, ‘cause he made so many of them. But when you get higher up the evolutionary scale - or social order, whichever you prefer - you’re going to find more differentiation in human beings as you ascend. And then, of course, the higher you go, the more unequal you find those from the ones at the bottom. What is usually meant by ‘equality’ is really ‘common denominators.’

But I feel that the question that would normally be put to me would be "Well, who are you to say who is equal and who is not equal, or who’s superior and who is inferior?" And my only answer to that would be simply based on the product or the impact that these individuals have on the cosmology as we know it, our world. And the contrast between the performers and the audience - those who are the performers in life are certainly not equal to the audience, who occupies a much vaster space than the performers onstage. That isn’t to say that everyone has to be a performer, but certainly, as far as inequality is concerned, the performer, or the stimulator, as I like to call him, is someone who deserves a little more, if you want to call it, subsidizing, than the person who needs stimulation and gains stimulation from that performer. As far as I’m concerned, the greatest need of human life is stimulation. That allows these spores in this great yeast mold to know that they’re alive, that they’re actually functioning. They feel something. The stimulation is sort of like a cattle prod or a mild shock. Anything will do to give these people an awareness that they are indeed alive - they have a functioning nervous system. I call them people because, to me, the word ‘people’ is not a positive thing. It is very much a derogatory expression.

And the second most vital need would be identity. Obviously, collective identities - that is, herd mentalities - seem to be in the majority. And of the herd mentality, people in the world - and again, I use that derogatorily - people - there are very few, or fewer, certainly, that are not collective in their identities. In other words, they haven’t gotten their identities from something that’s been prepackaged or mass-produced, but they’ve found something a trifle different to get more of a personal identity. And this is not to say that it’s less important to them than it is to the people, but it still, to me, is probably the second-most important human need.

And getting back to equality, or staying with equality, rather: The whole concept, the entire concept of equality is simply one of wishful thinking or flight of fancy that, very much like the concept of reincarnation, will allow the lowest to feel that they are equal to the highest. And the concept of equality, with that in mind, is designed to keep the lowest satisfied, to serve as pap, or serve as a sort of cosmetic indulgence or enticement to the lowest so that they, too, can feel that they are of the same stuff as the highest.


"Discuss"

wtr
23-08-2005, 09:46 PM
HOWEVER, equilibrium DOES apply to chemistry, hence both entities are 'equal' or at least so.

But in terms of our social structure..there can never exist equality.

fieldy
31-08-2005, 03:23 PM
i see said the blind man to the deaf man.

cileo
31-08-2005, 07:59 PM
And getting back to equality, or staying with equality, rather: The whole concept, the entire concept of equality is simply one of wishful thinking or flight of fancy that, very much like the concept of reincarnation, will allow the lowest to feel that they are equal to the highest. And the concept of equality, with that in mind, is designed to keep the lowest satisfied, to serve as pap, or serve as a sort of cosmetic indulgence or enticement to the lowest so that they, too, can feel that they are of the same stuff as the highest.


"Discuss"


Without a doubt, LaVey was a fantastic bullshit artist. But not a professional Sociologist by trade.

danv
01-09-2005, 04:12 AM
The key to this guys argument has to be to define 'equality' and the criteria used to judge it, in detail. And then he has to define exactly what equality or one's status actually means to him or one's life and others' perceptions of them. Some sort of specific context would be helpful. These two things are not done adequately in the peice of writing posted. He should also either make a clear distinction between one's status in his social order, and the value of their life, or specifically recognise that value is actually defined by status (I think he is of this latter view)

To an extent, he has defined what he believes makes one person superior to another, and I would agree with him, within a specific context. And that is to say that yes, for example, a musician (a peformer) is superior to some one who is not a musician, within the context of musical ability. But what this guy has failed to adequately do, is define what 'equality' is, and the criteria for which to judge people. To do so ultimately means you are claiming to have truly defined the meaning of life, as some of specific, detailed and finite concept, and also the 'properties' (ie values, knowledge, ability etc.) in people that we should recognise as the truly meaningful ones in accordance with the meaning of life. This is something I don't believe anyone can do (My mind is very open on that question, and to the possibility of an answer. But I haven't seen anything convincing from anyone, yet.).

A fundamental point in this guy's argument is that we can define the value of human beings on the "product or the impact that these individuals have on the cosmology". This is a significant statement. It means he has limited the complexities of a human life to a spectrum or realm that only he (like the other 7 billion of us) experiences - the cosmology - and he has no way of knowing how much of human life extends beyond that which we cannot conceptualise, no matter how enlightened we might feel we are. My belief is that no one this planet can truly know wether they are ignorant or enlightened to that which is beyond what we percieve as our realm of time and space. This means that one person's theory is just likely as the next, but what it really alludes to is the idea that all forms of enlightenment actually do not reach beyond our earthly experience. I just believe that it's entirely possible that the 'meaning' (I use this term loosely in this context, as the concept of 'meaning' is something defined in our realm, the bigger picture I am talking about is not simply some 'meaning' to facilitate and rationalise our existence) behind our contradictory universe and everything beyond it is as accessible to us as Marxist theory is to piece of bacteria that lives for 3 days at the bottom of the pacific ocean.

And so in the end all I think you can do is endlessly think about it and discuss it (and i'll make another analogy here - this process of thinking about life that occurs throughout our population, collectively, could be as significant to the bigger picture as one little ant, in the middle of nowhere, thinking about where to find food, is to our earthly experience) and reach epiphanies and profound realisations, and then think about it some more, until you reach new conclusions, and think and discuss some more; doing it until you either die, or you settle on some sort of theory or philosophy, because you require it to enjoy your life (consciously or not, and not neccesarily permanently).

One last point i want look at is how this guy uses his definitions of equality and the value of individual lives, and what, according to him, they mean for the people at the various levels of his hierachy. I plan to do a net search on him after I post this, but in this particular argument he doesn't go in to what it actually means to him to be either the "lowest common denominator" or their grand superior. You could interpret it as anything from 'it doesn't matter if the LCD have rights or not, wether they lived or died' to 'love everbody the same, but respect the fact the some people contribute or show ability in tangible ways, and that should be duly respected relative to what they achieve.'. From his tone though, it seems he tends toward the former.

The bottom line for me is that this guy thinks he can judge the worth of a persons' life based on their contribution to the cosmology - the cosmology, which is our plane for life, and our experience of the cosmology (our lives), being something that as far as we can possibly know, only really exists in his, and everbody elses minds. His response to the obvious question of how he judges one person over another is "the product or the impact that these individuals have on the cosmology as we know it, our world". This gives a spectrum from which choose measures to judge people, but he does not actually provide us with either specific or broad measures or criteria with which to judge. To provide specific measures would be ridiculous. To provide ambiguos, general, but definite criteria on how to judge a person (and thus provide a criteria to become a better person or a 'good' person) is a practise as old as humanity, and I doubt that his take on what makes a good person, whilst it might be interesting and unique, would be any more profound or valid than the next person. This practise of, from our earthly perspective, ultimately defining good and evil, worthless and worthy, beyond our earthly existence, and beyond the practical need for social cohesion, is a mugs game that has got us no where in the past few thousand years - other than providing fuel for thought. And that is the fucking point.

Anton LaVey is egocentric and arrogant.

ooh deep breath. ciggie time. faaark, i started that 2 hours ago! please read it somebody! :)

cileo
01-09-2005, 10:32 AM
This practise of, from our earthly perspective, ultimately defining good and evil, worthless and worthy, beyond our earthly existence, and beyond the practical need for social cohesion, is a mugs game that has got us no where in the past few thousand years - other than providing fuel for thought. And that is the fucking point.

Anton LaVey is egocentric and arrogant.

ooh deep breath. ciggie time. faaark, i started that 2 hours ago! please read it somebody! :)


If I ever return to study/uni (as I've been threatening to since the late 80's), can you ghostwrite my work? :o

LaVey aside, I always found Crowley to be an absolutely fascinating character. But that's another thread. And I'll cease before someone accuses me of attempting to convert Farkin's readership to devil worship and other nefarious practices. :D

nitwit
01-09-2005, 10:53 AM
I am not saying i agree with him at all, most of the his views i totally disagree with, i posted this as a means for dicussion about equality. It was something i came across during some research and thought it would be a great basis for discussion.

Ps, danv, you argued the point quite nicely, good read. And i completly agree with you that he was an egocentric bullshit artist.

"more post like danv's please :)"