Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Mushroom-Hut Mono Tub Substrate   Original Sensible Seeds High THC Strains

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
OfflineShrooms4menow
Stranger
Registered: 01/31/22
Posts: 194
Last seen: 1 month, 13 days
Draft for section 5 of my upcoming book
    #28292136 - 04/23/23 08:30 PM (9 months, 18 hours ago)

Section 5; The Shadow of God:
“The web of present-day hypocrisy is attached to the edges of two realms, between which our time swings back and forth, attaching its fine threads of deception and self-deception. No longer firm enough to serve morality without doubting of weakening, not yet reckless enough to live entirely through egoism, it dithers now toward one side and now toward the other in the spider-web of hypocrisy, and, paralyzed by the curse of half-measures, catches only stupid, wretched gnats.”
Max Stirner, The Individual and his Property

The New Atheists promised us an end to religion and a New Enlightenment: the supreme reign of reason, a new era for humanity. Yet all that it accomplished was a demonstration of its own emptiness as the New Atheists reduced Atheism to simply another ideology to be preached and sold en masse. Of course, this is not a new trend, in fact from the very beginnings of Modern Antitheism with the contradictory writings of d’Holbach and his half-ironically nicknamed “cult of reason,” this tendency for Antitheists to end up mimicking the behavioral and thought patterns of the religious nuts they sought to criticize in the first place has been a staple of anti-religious movements since the Enlightenment. After which religious modes of thought and behavior persisted in supposedly “secular” forms so that, even after the conditions that made these modes of thought possible disappeared, many of the essential patterns may be replicated unconsciously. The failure on the part of Antitheists to effectively counter this tendency and to create a coherent new approach to reality to replace it with, without either reinforcing or reconstituting the current Theological mode of thought, has been the primary factor in the development of the current historical situation. All the conflict, confusion and disarray that has manifested itself since the collapse of New Atheism, including the rise of neo-Fascist Ideologies, seems to be a direct result of this intellectual, psychological and philosophical failure.

Both the Intersectional nuts and the Anti-SJW Brigade base their worldview on an erroneous approach to the world which Nietzsche calls the “error of a false causality” and which consists in projecting our subjectivity onto the outside world then attempting to see it in terms of psychological forces that cannot exist outside the mind. Everything from the Intersectional lunatics conspiracy theories about the “Cis-White-Heteronormative-Capitalist-Patriarchy” to Jordan Peterson's conspiracy theories about “Postmodern Neo-Marxists infesting the academia and spreading their resentment fueled ideology” can be understood in these terms. As Nietzsche wrote:
“we had created the world on that basis as a world of causes, a world of wills, a world of minds. The oldest and most long-standing psychology was at work here, and this is all it did: for it, all happening was a doing, all doing the effect of a willing; for it, the world became a multitude of doers, a doer (a “subject”) was imputed to everything that happened. Human beings projected their three “internal facts,” the objects of their firmest belief—will, mind, “I”—beyond themselves; they originally derived the concept of being from the concept “I,” they posited “things” as existing in their own image, according to their concept of the “I” as a cause. No wonder that they later rediscovered in things only what they had put into them!—The thing itself, to say it once again, the concept of a thing is just a reflex of the belief in the “I” as a cause.”
Twilight of Idols

For a brief period of time in the New Atheist Movement we did see a certain degree of cultural inventiveness courtesy of such performance artists as TJ Kirk AKA The Amazing Atheist, but whereas such radical projects as taken up by our favorite face-paint-wearing shaman of critical thought and obscene humor must progress, the online new atheism meme machine must have by its own internal logic become completely vapid and irrelevant. The result of this has been that, instead of being “left alone with our freedom,” as Sartre claimed, we were instead plunged into a new era of ideology wherein it is in many ways more taboo to criticize or talk cynically of the sacred ideals of our day than was the case with Christianity during the middle ages. (In fact the Spanish Inquisition was a reaction to just this)
This development has been particularly disheartening to Mr Amazing Atheist, who as far back as 2011 could be found remembering with fondness his days sitting in a Christian Church, listening to all of the insane, depraved and deranged apocalyptic tales of the Pastors his parents brought him to listen to, and talking nostalgically of the days when he would look forwards to a future that had collapsed into absolute anarchy and wherein the norms of social discourse had been completely eliminated, after which a new era of self-expression would begin, complete with orgies in the streets.
Alas, this Insurrection never came, and as our dear Amazing Atheist began to lose faith in LaVey’s promise of a “New Satanic Era,” the New Atheist Movement shrank further and further into irrelevancy. Since then these tendencies have only worsened with the rise of Intersectional Feminism, thus pushing even further away these hopes for an authentic, “unsimulated” future.
The hoards of bloodthirsty Satanists we were promised never turned up, leaving our bewildered friend to take it upon himself to simulate and replicate the old promises of transgressive Popular Modernism with his THC and psilocybin infused absurdity, creating bold new forms of humor and entertainment yet unseen by the eyes of man. But then came the ad-pocolypse, wherein the corporate fiefdom under which he labors, YouTube, changed their algorithm to deprive him of yet more of his productivity.
Later, as his income and audience waned, our now desperate and struggling Amazing Atheist began to produce lower and lower levels of quality before resorting to more and more extreme means to realize his vision of a world with no social moores at all, where “fuck you” is the closest thing to an exchange of formalities and wherein religions and ideologies are unheard of. Whether or not he will be successful no one can say, but one thing is for certain: our hopes for a world free of religious dogma have been hampered, not just by a recent rise in the popularity of traditional religion, but also by a gradual tendency for these anti theistic views to become diluted within a culture that is still primarily Christian.

“The sociological view that the loss of support for objective religion and the disintegration of the late precapitalist residues, in conjunction with technical and social differentiation and specialization, has given rise to cultural chaos is refuted by daily experience. Culture today is infecting everything with sameness. Film, radio and magazines form a system. Each branch of culture is unanimous within itself and all are unanamous together.”
The Dialectic of Enlightenment

Nietzsche did not invent the concept of the Death of God, instead the term was used by many other philosophers such as Hegel or Stirner. What Nietzsche added to the concept was that it was not an event that had already happened but rather a process that would occur gradually over a long period of time, during which Christian modes of thought would still dominate people's minds.
Nietzsche detailed this aspect of his concept in his book “the gay science” (108/”New Struggles”) before he even got to the far more popular section which he is best known for (125/”the madman”).
“After Buddha was dead people showed his shadow for centuries afterwards in a cave, - an immense frightful shadow. God is dead: - but as the human race is constituted, there will perhaps be caves for millenniums yet, in which people will show his shadow. - And we - we have still to overcome his shadow!”
The Gay Science

In many ways this realization has become more and more widespread. For example, it is now somewhat commonplace online to find claims that Intersectional Feminism is both a new form of Marxism and a new religion: when cross examined with Nietzsche's claim that Socialism is itself a new form of Christianity, we are only a few steps away from painting a picture of Christian ideals replicating themselves in the form of a variety of self-referential ideologies in a process continuing on into the present day. There is even some evidence for this: statistics show that, since the 1990’s, people have begun to identify less and less with their religious affiliations but have simultaneously begun to identify more and more with their political ideologies. All the while these ideologies have become more extreme as the cultural divide between them has expanded. However, although the social divide between political ideologies has expanded, our political parties have both in their principles and function become more similar.
The consequences of this transformation will no doubt be very disheartening to our more secular types, from whom a reaction will come soon enough, but whether or not it will be effective will depend on political factors. However, according to Jordan Peterson, our current crisis of hyper-politicization and hyper-ideologization are themselves the result of the decreased popularity of Christianity in recent decades.
Peterson correctly notes that those who seemed to have abandoned religion often resort to “rationalist ideologies” as a means of filling the God-shaped hole in their hearts, and correctly concludes that Intersectional Feminism is itself a manifestation of this (he even tries to appeal to the authority of Nietzsche to substantiate these claims). Peterson credits Postmodern Philosophy as the primary driver of these tendencies, equating it with identity politics and claiming it to be a new form of Marxism, even though most Postmodern Philosophers were highly critical of Marxism and many, such as Deleuze, even had theories of truth and reality which are more realist than Peterson's views, according to which truth is an illusion and the closest thing to objective truth that we can attain is simply those ideas that aid in our survival as they developed over the course of the history of our species.

In many ways Peterson’s ideas are really a repackaged back-catalog of old Christian Arguments from the days when New Atheism was still a thing. His favorite repackaged non-argument seems to be the so-called “moral argument” which consists in a bare assertion that without the existence of some vaguely defined being the person making the arguments actions would possess no significance from their own perspective because all value judgements, according to this delusion, are dependent on the existence of this imaginary entity for their validity. Variants of this argument typically include claims that their opponent would be out raping and/or butchering people in the streets if not for their supposed “latent belief in Christianity”
This so-called “argument” has and will always be a pure assertion as no one has ever proven logically why the concept of “values” or “ethics'' should at all be based on the existence of any imaginary entity at all, regardless of its status in people’s minds. This conception of Ethics is intrinsically nonsensical because, to prove it, they would have to prove, not only that God exists but also that we should obey him. It would require a system of ethics to be proven ahead of time (God's views must be relevant to an ethical system) and this would require God to be relative to Ethics enable for his/her/its existence to have Ethical Significance in the first place, otherwise his “Divine Commands” couldn’t be described as objectively right. This is for the simple reason that for something to be “objective” literally means that it is not relative to anyone's perspective: if morality is objective, it is objective regardless of the existence or non-existence of God, if morality is not objective it is not objective regardless of the existence or non-existence of God. Christian apologists try to avoid this problem by reducing ethics to a status entirely subservient to their conception of “God,” defining “right and wrong” and “morality” as consisting in their concept of “God,” thereby reducing “right and “wrong” to mere descriptive terms used to indicate Gods mood, but this only serves to demonstrate my point.
In no way, then, do the claims made by various religions make morality objective and neither does believing in them: the only credibility this argument may have would come from the capacity of religions to warp the realities of those who believe in them in accordance with the requirements of their continuing to so believe. In this sense, the mindless clinging to nonsensical religious beliefs is itself transformed into an argument for religion: as long as they are obsessed by these insane beliefs, they will not behave in ways contradictory to them, and they regard this as a good thing because it is in line with their beliefs. The actual value of those values or their related behaviors is never put into question, because this is itself seen as immoral from their already existing perspective. After having invested so much of their lives and emotional energy in the truth of claims they never cared to look into the evidence for, Christians are shocked by the prospect that anyone at all would want to base their lives on anything else.
This entire argument presupposes Christian Morality to be an objective standard of right and wrong, even though it is exactly this claim which is being held in question. The supposed absolute certainty which Christians believe their beliefs confer to them is by no means a substitute for an actual ethical engagement with the world, for the honest approach to the subject of ethics required for ideas to have any meaning or value whatsoever.
Peterson represents an adaptation to this very failure on the part of Christian apologists to come up with sensible reasons as to why they should be taken seriously: he presents his simplified and eviscerated versions of these arguments as more intricate and nuanced entirely new arguments and the purpose of this is to provide an intellectual veneer for his reactionary ideas, such as returning to socially enforced monogamy. Petersons defenses of Christianity are not based in some conviction of the value of these beliefs but in an unwillingness to take responsibility for his own concepts, a disbelief in the old Western idea that human reason can overcome all the problems posed by life, combined with an economic incentive to serve a psychological need on the part of his followers to continue believing in Christianity or to at least avoid having to admit that it is utter nonsense.

There is not a single ethical statement in the entire Bible or Quran. Christianity is not a “mythological manifestation of human values” but rather it has developed gradually over time and has undergone a series of changes in its development [from Gnosticism to Catholicism to Protestantism to Contemporary Evangelicism] which have rendered it virtually unrecognizable from its original form. Throughout this development, the concepts and values which structured it have been switched out, have had their meanings overemphasized, deemphasised or outright reversed to fit the political demands of the [then] present. The downfall of Christian Mythology is the ultimate manifestation of its long term historical development, and if there is such a thing as “trans-historical values” embodied in the myths of Christianity they would be found, not in the Bible, but in what’s left of the ancient Gnostic manuscripts.

In “The Satanic Bible,” Anton LaVey poses a question: “what could be more contradictory than the term “Christian Atheist?”” To which Jordan Peterson has finally offered us an answer: “Pragmatic Christian.” Christianity and Christian beliefs are only “pragmatic” for grifters (such as Jordan Peterson, Joel Olsteen and formerly Billy Graham) who use them to convince people to hand over their hard earned cash.

Contrary to claims by the likes of Jordan Peterson, Peter Boghossian and Douglass Murray, the dogmatic supremacy and witch-hunt mentality seen in our Intersectionals is not only not worse than old school religion, but is in fact a neutered version of the Satanic Panic of the 1980’s and 1990’s, which was led by hyper-religious Christian Fundamentalists.

“When a puppy reaches maturity it becomes a dog; when ice melts it is called water; when twelve months have been used up, we get a new calendar with the proper chronological name; when “magic” becomes scientific fact we refer to it as medicine, astronomy, etc. When one name is no longer appropriate for a given thing it is only logical to change it to a new one which better fits the subject. Why, then, do we not follow suit in the area of religion? Why continue to call a religion the same name when the tenents of that religion no longer fit the original one? Or, if the religion does preach the same things that it always has, but its followers practice nearly none of its teachings, why do they continue to call themselves by the name given to the followers of that religion?
If you do not believe in what your religion teaches, why continue to support a belief which is contradictory with your feelings. You would never vote for a person or issue you did not believe in, so why cast your eccloesiastical vote for a religion which is not consistent with your convictions? You have no right to complain about a political situation you have voted for or supported in any way- which includes sitting back and complacently agreeing with neighbors who approve the situation, just because you are too lazy or cowardly to speak your mind. So it is with religious balloting. Even if you cannot be aggressively honest about your opinions because of unfavorable consequences from employers, community leaders, etc., you can, at least , be honest with yourself. In the privacy of your own home and with close friends you must support the religion which has your best interests at heart.”
The Satanic Bible

Max Stirner would tell us that, if someone is holding onto such a set of ideas so fiercely, it must be because it serves some psychological function, and this function seems to be a desire to deny that these ideas are being held to serve a personal reason, to claim them to be something more than merely these ideas, to suppress their nature as arising out of and consisting in egoism. As he wrote:
“Sacred things exist only for the egoist who doesn’t recognize himself, the involuntary egoist, for the one who is always out for his own, and yet does not consider himself the highest essence, who only serves himself and at the same time always thinks of serving a higher being, who knows nothing higher than himself and yet is crazy about something higher; in short, for the egoist who doesn’t want to be an egoist, and degrades himself, i.e., fights his egoism, but at the same time degrades himself so that he will “be exalted,” and thus gratify his egoism. Because he wants to stop being an egoist, he looks about in heaven and earth for higher beings that he can serve and sacrifice himself to; but however much he shakes and chastises himself, in the end he does everything for his own sake, and the disreputable egoism never gives way in him. This is why I call him the involuntary egoist.
His effort and care to get away from himself are nothing but the misunderstood drive for self-dissolution.”
The Individual and his property

“The Christian person is the believer in thinking, who believes in the supremacy of thoughts and wants to put thoughts, so-called “principles,” in command. Indeed, some examine the thoughts and choose none of them as their master without criticism, but in this they are like the dog who sniffs at people in order to smell out “his master”: he’s always anticipating the ruling thought. The Christian can reform and revolt to infinity, can demolish the ruling concepts of centuries: he will always seek for a new “principle” or a new master again, always set up a higher or “deeper” truth again, always give rise to a cult again, always proclaim a spirit called to rulership, lay down a law for all.”
The Individual and his Property

A reevaluation of values, as prescribed by Nietzsche, would consist in a grand historical project aimed at restructuring our minds and concepts and cleansing them of the “muck of ages.” Such a project will take generations to complete, but its neglect will result in complete societal self destruction and mass psychosis.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Mushroom-Hut Mono Tub Substrate   Original Sensible Seeds High THC Strains


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Drafts for Introduction and First Section of my upcoming Book Shrooms4menow 1,209 0 04/23/23 08:26 PM
by Shrooms4menow
* Drafts of the Second and Fourth sections for my upcoming book Shrooms4menow 1,154 0 04/23/23 08:28 PM
by Shrooms4menow
* book of the dead jahfeelirie 2,633 12 04/23/04 07:59 PM
by faelr
* People who model their life after some book
( 1 2 3 all )
Scarfmeister 3,011 48 05/29/03 11:38 PM
by atomikfunksoldier
* A sneak preview of the book (The Introduction) Anonymous 645 5 03/07/02 12:59 AM
by CuckoosNest
* please read- thinking and destiny, crazy book I ran across-? Malachi 1,883 18 08/24/03 10:24 AM
by fireworks_god
* Wasson Reviews Castaneda's 1st - 4 Books mjshroomer 1,094 4 04/25/05 07:47 AM
by mjshroomer
* How is the draft any different than slavery?
( 1 2 all )
Evolving 1,891 20 10/08/02 05:04 PM
by Buddha5254

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
1,195 topic views. 1 members, 15 guests and 7 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.018 seconds spending 0.004 seconds on 11 queries.