All hail Satan

[Keith&Co.]

But if these rituals can change your thinking and behaviour in measurable and positive ways it's not a con job.

Placebos can have positive results, but they're still a con.

The doctor may sell it as the latest product of cutting edge research into your-symptoms-here, but it's just sugar in tablet form, and you're being tricked into producing your own results.

If Satanic rituals are appealing to entities and powers the author does not really think exist, then it's a con, no matter how it works out.

 

[DrZoidberg]

But if these rituals can change your thinking and behaviour in measurable and positive ways it's not a con job.

Placebos can have positive results, but they're still a con.

The doctor may sell it as the latest product of cutting edge research into your-symptoms-here, but it's just sugar in tablet form, and you're being tricked into producing your own results.

If Satanic rituals are appealing to entities and powers the author does not really think exist, then it's a con, no matter how it works out.

No, it isn't. If you tell somebody that something will change you somehow if you eat it, you do, and it does exactly that... how have you been conned? That's the opposite of being conned. The placebo effect is real.

I'm not sure how Satanic rituals work. But Thelema rituals appeal to your mind or possibly your subconscious and those exist. So not necessarily a con.

 

[ruby sparks]

It depends what you mean by con. The effect is real. Yes, you ('your system') is being tricked (including being tricked into producing helpful internal effects, it seems) but it's arguably a 'good trick', and one that most doctors are happy to use, if a situation deserves it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But if these rituals can change your thinking and behaviour in measurable and positive ways it's not a con job.

Placebos can have positive results, but they're still a con.

The doctor may sell it as the latest product of cutting edge research into your-symptoms-here, but it's just sugar in tablet form, and you're being tricked into producing your own results.

If Satanic rituals are appealing to entities and powers the author does not really think exist, then it's a con, no matter how it works out.

No, it isn't. If you tell somebody that something will change you somehow if you eat it, you do, and it does exactly that... how have you been conned? That's the opposite of being conned. The placebo effect is real.

The Placebo Effect IS real, but it doesn't work if you tell them you're giving them a worthless pill of no medicinal value. You HAVE to lie to them, in order for it TO BE the Placebo Effect.

You're going by the results.
I think the definition of a 'con job,' however, is in the mind of the person running the con.
IF THEY say 'advanced medicine' or 'spirit guides' or 'fairies' or 'divine cosmic power,' but also know it's just self-hypnosis and biased reporting, then it doesn't matter if it works or not, it's a con.
Maybe a GOOD con, maybe with the best of intentions, such as a pain-relieving placebo, but it's still the opposite of honest reporting.

 

[DrZoidberg]

No, it isn't. If you tell somebody that something will change you somehow if you eat it, you do, and it does exactly that... how have you been conned? That's the opposite of being conned. The placebo effect is real.

The Placebo Effect IS real, but it doesn't work if you tell them you're giving them a worthless pill of no medicinal value. You HAVE to lie to them, in order for it TO BE the Placebo Effect.

You're going by the results.
I think the definition of a 'con job,' however, is in the mind of the person running the con.
IF THEY say 'advanced medicine' or 'spirit guides' or 'fairies' or 'divine cosmic power,' but also know it's just self-hypnosis and biased reporting, then it doesn't matter if it works or not, it's a con.
Maybe a GOOD con, maybe with the best of intentions, such as a pain-relieving placebo, but it's still the opposite of honest reporting.

I don't think that's true. That was the old idea of placebo. But I think today it's widely accepted that placebo's work even if you know it's a placebo. There's much about going to the doctor that is ritualised. Waiting room, and so on. Not a ritual in the woo sense. But still ritual. Going through these steps places your subconscious in a state that is receptive to the placebo effect. Even if you are told they won't work.

Any religious ritual can be used in the exactly same way. In my own case, when I meditate I go through a set of movements which weren't initially intended to be ritualistic, only designed to help me sit comfortably, but they've become ritual. The instant I start preparing for meditation I'm in the meditative state. It's an altered state of consciousness. It's pretty obvious when it's working. Meditating in groups is much more powerful/effective. Why? Fuck knows. But it works. And everybody who's tried meditating in groups knows.

I think it's more accurate to say that your rational faculties are conning your emotional brain. But that part of us has always been a complete idiot. So that's not much to brag about. But you're still conning yourself mainly, and I don't think that's technically a con.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I don't think that's true. That was the old idea of placebo. But I think today it's widely accepted that placebo's work even if you know it's a placebo.

If that were true, wouldn't that just tank all the results from double blind clinical trials of experimental drugs? If the control group had benefits from the placebos, it would skew the evaluation of the actual, functioning drugs.

I think it's more accurate to say that your rational faculties are conning your emotional brain. But that part of us has always been a complete idiot. So that's not much to brag about. But you're still conning yourself mainly, and I don't think that's technically a con.

So, it's not a con job, but it's a con job.

Got it.

 

[ruby sparks]

Maybe a GOOD con, maybe with the best of intentions, such as a pain-relieving placebo, but it's still the opposite of honest reporting.

Maybe honesty is over-rated?

 

[DrZoidberg]

I don't think that's true. That was the old idea of placebo. But I think today it's widely accepted that placebo's work even if you know it's a placebo.

If that were true, wouldn't that just tank all the results from double blind clinical trials of experimental drugs? If the control group had benefits from the placebos, it would skew the evaluation of the actual, functioning drugs.

It depends what the drugs are for. I think the placebo effect only works for pain relief, sedation, anxiety control, and everything related to that. I'm unaware it actually worked for anything else?

I think it's more accurate to say that your rational faculties are conning your emotional brain. But that part of us has always been a complete idiot. So that's not much to brag about. But you're still conning yourself mainly, and I don't think that's technically a con.

So, it's not a con job, but it's a con job.

Got it.

Yes, assuming that in that statement you've made it clear that you mean two different types of con jobs.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It depends what the drugs are for. I think the placebo effect only works for pain relief, sedation, anxiety control, and everything related to that. I'm unaware it actually worked for anything else?

I don't believe it actually works for ANYTHING. It's just the patient's subjective impression that something's changed.
So it only 'works' on the part that's under the patient's control.

I think it's more accurate to say that your rational faculties are conning your emotional brain. But that part of us has always been a complete idiot. So that's not much to brag about. But you're still conning yourself mainly, and I don't think that's technically a con.

So, it's not a con job, but it's a con job.
Got it.

Yes, assuming that in that statement you've made it clear that you mean two different types of con jobs.

No, I'm pretty much using the same words to mean the same thing. Presenting something dishonestly is a con, no matter the results, no matter whether the actual mechanism is being tricked or tricking yourself. It remains a con.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Satanism is the hippie guy with an ironic beard of religion. They think they're being all clever and edgy, but really they're just another guy with a beard.

If you want to have a secular organization advocating for various moral tenets, then just have a secular organization which does that. Define yourself by who and what you are, as opposed to tacking on all the religious bullshit and defining yourself by what you are not.

 

[Angry Floof]

Satanism is the hippie guy with an ironic beard of religion. They think they're being all clever and edgy, but really they're just another guy with a beard.

If you want to have a secular organization advocating for various moral tenets, then just have a secular organization which does that. Define yourself by who and what you are, as opposed to tacking on all the religious bullshit and defining yourself by what you are not.

I think they play a very useful role. They're there to challenge the backward, authoritarian, inhumane Christian status quo. Nothing makes a Christian take notice more than Satanists. Plus, secular principles are already instilled in schools. They don't scare zealots as much as Satan Hisownself passing out booklets to elementary school kids.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Satanism is the hippie guy with an ironic beard of religion. They think they're being all clever and edgy, but really they're just another guy with a beard.

If you want to have a secular organization advocating for various moral tenets, then just have a secular organization which does that. Define yourself by who and what you are, as opposed to tacking on all the religious bullshit and defining yourself by what you are not.

I think they play a very useful role. They're there to challenge the backward, authoritarian, inhumane Christian status quo. Nothing makes a Christian take notice more than Satanists. Plus, secular principles are already instilled in schools. They don't scare zealots as much as Satan Hisownself passing out booklets to elementary school kids.

But that's still defining their organization by what they're in opposition to, not what they're actually for. It's as if the Women's Rights movement called itself the Men Need Go And Fuck Off movement. It would catch men's attention and scare all the incels and the people in the movement could talk about how it's really all about equality for women and not about men needing to go and fuck off, but calling it that would mean that the movement is really lame and dumb, regardless of what it's actually about.

Satanism may be a good and positive secular organization with a lot of value, but all the meaningless quasi-religious trappings make it really lame and dumb, regardless of what it's actually about.

 

[Angry Floof]

Satanism is the hippie guy with an ironic beard of religion. They think they're being all clever and edgy, but really they're just another guy with a beard.

If you want to have a secular organization advocating for various moral tenets, then just have a secular organization which does that. Define yourself by who and what you are, as opposed to tacking on all the religious bullshit and defining yourself by what you are not.

I think they play a very useful role. They're there to challenge the backward, authoritarian, inhumane Christian status quo. Nothing makes a Christian take notice more than Satanists. Plus, secular principles are already instilled in schools. They don't scare zealots as much as Satan Hisownself passing out booklets to elementary school kids.

But that's still defining their organization by what they're in opposition to, not what they're actually for. It's as if the Women's Rights movement called itself the Men Need Go And Fuck Off movement. It would catch men's attention and scare all the incels and the people in the movement could talk about how it's really all about equality for women and not about men needing to go and fuck off, but calling it that would mean that the movement is really lame and dumb, regardless of what it's actually about.

Satanism may be a good and positive secular organization with a lot of value, but all the meaningless quasi-religious trappings make it really lame and dumb, regardless of what it's actually about.

I still disagree. They are FOR autonomy and critical thinking and inclusiveness, etc., and they make that plain in their tenets and in their state/religion separation challenges.

 

[couch_sloth]

Satanism is the hippie guy with an ironic beard of religion. They think they're being all clever and edgy, but really they're just another guy with a beard.

If you want to have a secular organization advocating for various moral tenets, then just have a secular organization which does that. Define yourself by who and what you are, as opposed to tacking on all the religious bullshit and defining yourself by what you are not.

I think they play a very useful role. They're there to challenge the backward, authoritarian, inhumane Christian status quo. Nothing makes a Christian take notice more than Satanists. Plus, secular principles are already instilled in schools. They don't scare zealots as much as Satan Hisownself passing out booklets to elementary school kids.

But that's still defining their organization by what they're in opposition to, not what they're actually for. It's as if the Women's Rights movement called itself the Men Need Go And Fuck Off movement. It would catch men's attention and scare all the incels and the people in the movement could talk about how it's really all about equality for women and not about men needing to go and fuck off, but calling it that would mean that the movement is really lame and dumb, regardless of what it's actually about.

Satanism may be a good and positive secular organization with a lot of value, but all the meaningless quasi-religious trappings make it really lame and dumb, regardless of what it's actually about.

I asked a ‘Satanist’ about this 30 years ago , i. e. Why take on all the religious trappings, if you are just simply against Christianity. I compared it to someone who opposed Israel’s policies calling themself a Nazi. He thought that was a fair anology, but still thought calling himself a Satanist was okay.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I still disagree. They are FOR autonomy and critical thinking and inclusiveness, etc., and they make that plain in their tenets and in their state/religion separation challenges.

Right, I have no problem with any of the things they believe in, just with the silly way that they go about it. It's like if someone sees a flyer for a group getting together to clean up trash at a local beach and shows up to join in and the interaction goes like:

"Hey, I'm here to help clean up the beach"
"Great, nice to have you. Just go put on this Batman costume and the bus will be leaving in 20 minutes"
"Wait ... what?"
"Oh, we rented a bus to take everyone down to the ..."
"Ya, I got that part. I meant the other thing where you want me to put on a Batman costume"
"Well, we dress up as superheroes when we go and clean up trash"
"OK, I don't want to do that. I just want to help clean up the trash"
"Sorry, this is for superheroes only. You'll need to drive yourself down there if you don't want to put on the suit"

The end goal of cleaning up trash on a beach is still a good one, but adding in the part where everyone needs to dress up as a superhero makes the group lame and stupid, despite it's laudable objectives. It's the same thing with Satanism. Its tenets of a secular basis of morality are great and its battles for the separation of church and state are noble, but all that other bullshit just makes the organization lame and stupid.

 

[ruby sparks]

I wonder if.....

Say for example you're in a fairly edgy nightclub. Is 'Hi, I cleaned up trash today' as good a chat-up line as 'Hi, I cleaned up trash today wearing my satanist's outfit'?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I wonder if.....

Say for example you're in a fairly edgy nightclub. Is 'Hi, I cleaned up trash today' as good a chat-up line as 'Hi, I cleaned up trash today wearing my satanist's outfit'?

Well, it's been a long time since I've been out to a nightclub, but I assume that the fact that you cosplayed as anything would mean that the ladies would be throwing themselves at your feet.

Nothing makes a woman swoon more than a man who traipses through the streets wearing a silly costume. After all, Bruce Wayne does very well with the ladies and I can't think of anything else about him which would explain that aside from the spandex.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I don't believe it actually works for ANYTHING. It's just the patient's subjective impression that something's changed.
So it only 'works' on the part that's under the patient's control.

Congratulations that you've never suffered from any kind of mental affliction. Otherwise you'd realize how silly that last sentence was.

I think it's more accurate to say that your rational faculties are conning your emotional brain. But that part of us has always been a complete idiot. So that's not much to brag about. But you're still conning yourself mainly, and I don't think that's technically a con.

So, it's not a con job, but it's a con job.
Got it.

Yes, assuming that in that statement you've made it clear that you mean two different types of con jobs.

No, I'm pretty much using the same words to mean the same thing. Presenting something dishonestly is a con, no matter the results, no matter whether the actual mechanism is being tricked or tricking yourself. It remains a con.

Then you misunderstood me

 

[steve_bank]

I read Crowley's book Diary Of A Drug Fiend back in the early 70s, the days of psychedelia.

From what I read of Crowley he was typical of the occult. Wealthy clients for which he provided rituals and an exclusive club. Taboo mysticism.

Hubbard was the next generation. Science mixed with mysticism. Same con job. There is an alleged collaboration between Hubbard and one of the occultists of the early 20th century.

Scientology and Church Of Satan and other occult systems all went through the same kind of evolution into a final form with a following. It is all about creating the feeling of religious exclusivity and belonging. Secret rituals known only to the chosen. I believe Masons actually have secret handshakes and signs.

But if these rituals can change your thinking and behaviour in measurable and positive ways it's not a con job. I know quite a lot of people, including myself who got immersed into Crowley and the occult. It's something that intellectually curious teenagers tend to explore. It was a lot of stuff that happened to me mentally around there. But I was a miserable prick as a teenager. Reading Crowley (and Nietzsche) primed my mind for embracing the mysteries of life. Accepting fate and not feel sorry for myself. When I took acid at 18 it was the boot that kicked me over the edge. My life was in an instant changed forever. I've since been very positive and happy about life. True story.

BTW, when I read Crowley I was always a staunch atheist. I always only saw the magick (that's how they spell it) as metaphor or psychological tool. I think that's normal. Reading Crowley is what intellectual types do, and they tend not to be suckers for woo. There's no problem reading Crowley as an atheist. I didn't think so. I got the impression that Crowley himself understood the difference. It's important to understand the age in which he was living. Spiritualism was the word de jour. That whole movement was rife with actual con artists, and he knew it. If he wanted to get his movement off the ground it was important to align himself with the spiritualists. Use their language. Just clean it up from the worst intellectually offensive ideas. Which I think is what he did.

We're still living in the tail end of the age of scientism, which didn't peak until the 1950'ies (or perhaps later). So that's the language we're most comfortable with. So we got to adjust our reading based on the context IMHO. Just the way I look at it.

Using the Star Wars metaphor, the fork side vs 'the force'. Trump is a bad leader, he uses his skills to manipulate masses for his own glory and power. A 'dark sider' of the force.

JFK motivated people to public service.

Both sides are a con in a general sense.

 

[4321lynx]

steve_bank said

Using the Star Wars metaphor, the fork side vs 'the force'. Trump is a bad leader, he uses his skills to manipulate masses for his own glory and power. A 'dark sider' of the force.

JFK motivated people to public service.

Both sides are a con in a general sense.

So did Hitler and Stalin and Hirohito and Mao and many others.

What kind of people to what kind of "service" does matter.