![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Occult Evangelization
I touched on this in another post, but I think it’s a topic worth exploring in greater depth. Over at the collaborative occult blog Key23, there’s an on-going discussion about something called “ultraculture.” The idea is that it’s the fulfillment of the Hegelian dialectic set up by culture vs. counter-culture. It’s an interesting idea, which I’ve sort of brushed up against myself, and which people like Daniel Pinchbeck have been trying to brand as the “New Edge” (a play on New Age).
I’ll debate the merits of such thinking some other time. But what I’m particularly interested in right now is an item I referenced yesterday from Key23 called “Tactics for Social Engineering“. It’s basically a list of actions people can do to spread ideas - guerilla marketing for the ultraculture concept. It includes stickering, posters, flyers, graffiti - all the techniques that have been employed by the counter-culture up til now. Many of these can be very effective in spreading a viral message, but I think before anybody decides to spread a message, they ought o examine what they are really doing and why.
I posted a comment over there to this effect. The main question I have for them (and for anybody else who’s ever engaged in tactics like this - including myself) is: what’s the difference between doing this and trying to evangelize and force your religion or ideology on somebody else? Is it really any different from religious proselytizing which everyone seems to hate?
There’s also an interesting article over there about meditation and about escaping from the strictures of verbal reality - something we’ve been talking a lot about over here as well. Seems like we’re all tackling the same problems from different directions. My second question feeds into that: if you’re spending a lot of effort to spread a message, spread ideas, spread language, how can you reconcile that with this idea of overcoming verbal reality? It seems instead like you are not only further ensnaring yourself in it, but you are casting the nets out onto other people who may or may not want it.
A reader over there named “totem7″ offered the following response:
People are already so caught up in the ephemeral chains of social reality… sometimes you can’t just drop someone out of something that complicated and something that’s so ingrained into their habitual subconscious. However, if you understand the tides of influence within consensual social reality, you can start pushing people in the direction of looking at new things… just as bad as what the Other Guy does, as far as it being a type of proselytizing, but if it’s used to push people in the direction of empowerment, it certainly can be seen as the lesser of two evils. We’ll all be wrong in a century anyways, so might as well try and fuck around a little with the hold our most influential have on the average Joe.
This is more or less what I was expecting, but the idea still puzzles me. If we can recognize that such techniques are “just as bad” as what we’re struggling against, then why do we still do them? What’s the justificiation? Is “fucking around with people” really enough? It doesn’t really feel like it to me.
I’ve also been wondering about this: what gives us the right to push people around, even if the stated goal is empowerment? What if their idea of empowerment is radically different from ours? What if they don’t even want to be empowered? Why should we become just another brand name screaming slogans at passersby? To me, it seems like one of the great strengths of the occult through the centuries has been it’s disregard for proselytizing. They don’t market themselves. They don’t force people to think or act in new ways. Instead, they extend and invitation: when you’re ready, come see what we’re all about. There’s no pressure; there’s no yelling to the poor tired masses, “WAKE UP! WAKE UP!” People come to the occult who are willing to invest the time, effort and understanding to be a part of it. Frankly, why would you want people who aren’t ready to commit in such a way? Why look for people who just want another dogmatic religion?
In any case, how do we even know that what we’re doing is more right or somehow better than what people already have? This seems like something we tell ourselves to justify the differences between us and them. But does it really hold up under scrutiny? Do we really have a better product, or just a different product? In either case, wouldn’t it be more effective if we lead by example rather than by propaganda?
July 17th, 2005 at 2:57 pm
The occult does proselytize at times. Look at the current Kabbalah fad. Generally, it leads to some flash-in-the-pan attention and then people eventually drop it. All the current non-proselytizing occultism out there is the stuff that has been selected for by not drawing attention to itself and thus not having Crusades declared against it or being scoffed at as a has-been trend.
Generally, I try to avoid anything that puts effort in evangelizing: “once you start down that dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny.” If you spread your ideas by evangelizing, you need to compete with other evangelists, and pretty soon it’s all about the evangelizing and not as much about the original ideals…
July 17th, 2005 at 3:23 pm
I don’t think anyone can ever know whether what they’re doing is more right or somehow better than what other people are doing or saying. I think all you can do is put your ideas out there — if they resonate with other people, that’s great, and if not, then that shouldn’t matter as long as you like what you’re saying or enjoy spending time with your ideas. The moment you start “marketing” the idea or start to do something just to get followers, you become ambitious about wanting more, about gaining more followers, more power.
In any event, if you really believe your ideas are so great, then surely it’s worth a little effort on behalf of seekers to find them on their own, right?
July 17th, 2005 at 4:38 pm
and
Excellent freakin’ point(s)!! It becomes strictly a numbers game where you try to beat your score and forget about why you even started. Soon you’re sitting in a megachurch or a secure compound somewhere trying to take over the world.
The whole thing feels a little like either a popularity contest or an effort to create a clone army. Everyone’s so interested in “presenting alternatives” but if that’s actually the case, what happens when people don’t choose the alternatives you want them too? What if they say: “Thanks for waking me up,” and then turn around and kick you in the ass? I just don’t think either the justification for this or the desired end result has really been thought out.
July 17th, 2005 at 5:24 pm
everything proselytises. we become as good or bad as the next person or group if we think our message is so important that we must exert effort to push it forward. i must advertise my services as a therapist to survive financially. what drives the evangelist to push god? ego? endorphins? a narrow minded view that his ideas are necessary to have if you are to “be” something? i think that we can know whether our ideas are better than others. the answer is they`re not.
July 17th, 2005 at 6:21 pm
Yeah, I guess I’m having a hard time convincing myself that what I’m doing (or all of us) is really fundamentally *better* than what everybody else is up to. And I can’t seem to come up with any firm criteria that would prove that to me. It’s starting to seem more and more pointless to me to try to live according to ideas somehow at the expense of people. Why even try to push ideas on people - why not just let them be who they are & learn to accept what they’re already into? Why do we have to go out and actively recruit and try to re-pattern people? I can’t come up with a good reason for us to do that.
July 17th, 2005 at 8:50 pm
the only people who are doing that are out for power or money. you must keep asking questions though. there are mysteries in the world.
July 17th, 2005 at 8:51 pm
Well, one reason might be because the world is on the goddamn brink of disaster. It’s a nice idea letting people do what they want, but there comes a point where the best thing to do with a rapid dog is to kill it. Yes, this is “power” for you, but the important thing is that it’s not power for the sake of power. It’s using will, force, to effect certain changes. Nothing wrong with that, if the changes have been defined with value.
As for whether we’re right or not, well, we’re right if we feel right. Obviously the feeling of being right will effect itself differently over time, but nothing wrong with that.
July 17th, 2005 at 8:53 pm
i think this ‘occult proselytisation’ thing is pretty lame. nobody’s mind can be changed; people just have to change their minds for themselves. the only effective way to lead is by example. why would they even want legions of ex-”squares” who only changed their minds due to proselytisation & didn’t figure out all this stuff for themselves? for me, all it’s about is making the information available to those who seek, restricting none, and most certainly not forcing info on people.
s’another problem i’ve always had w/leary & raw et al. they still seem to have this weird drive to ’save’ people who are ‘unenlightened.’ talk about a put-off! save yer damn selves! there’s this whole retarded ‘merry pranksters’ thing that a lot of people on that end of the spectrum like to pull off. they like to play-act that they’re some kind of enlightened trickster-types and think it helps people to be fucked with. it’s pretty silly, imo.
July 17th, 2005 at 9:32 pm
Josh, are you really serious when you say that?
July 17th, 2005 at 10:09 pm
Absolutely.
Think about morality–that is, the assignation of value. Where does it come from? Well, it comes from the same place everything we “know” comes from: our experiences, which are absolute as far as they themselves are concerned, however relative they may be to the so-called “external world”. What makes killing small children wrong for me? The fact that I *feel* wrong about it.
All this is directly related to the things I commented about in your “Is Perception Unreliable?” post. If tomorrow I decide that it is in fact right to kill small children, I could say, “I was wrong yesterday”, but this implies that right and wrong are defined outside the specific instances of experience.
Certainly it is the case that people will say things like “I often feel like doing what I know is wrong,” but here we’re dealing with what could be called an instance of “hyperreality”–that is, it represents a copy of an original phenomenon that has become distanced from its origin. What defined right and wrong in the first place? An abstraction? But an abstraction from what? Itself? I don’t think so.
July 17th, 2005 at 10:27 pm
hyper-reality……..meta-reality……. becomes the new reality. we`re back to square one. none of us are getting out alive, we cannot win and there is no way to lose.
if you are right when you feel that you are that`s o.k. as long as it doesn`t step on the toes of the other people who make claims of that nature also.
there are no human rights, only human responsibilities.
i think all of our hyper-theories should be explained while running from a tiger. y`know, to really test thier validity.
July 17th, 2005 at 10:37 pm
The difference between what I’m saying here and a theory is that I’m describing experience I have a very personal connection with. It’s possible the words I’m using will not make sense to *you*, but I have not proposed any theories or models, except in the sense that I have been communicating my experience by way of common language, which itself works as a model. But I hope the words I’m using will be indicitive to the people reading it of their own experience. If not, then I’m not surprised–few things are less certain than words that have been standardized for understanding among millions and millions of different people.
I’d like to add that what I’ve said here is commonly rejected along the lines of, “But if that’s the case, there will be mass chaos! People will be killing each other in the streets!”
This is projecting, I think (I’m proposing a theory, but you can take it or leave it, as I myself do), a rather arbitrary avoidance of “our feelings”, which we’re generally taught are horrible, horrible things that must be controlled. And I guess if you really believe that, then there’s not a lot I can say in response. I know (this is not a theory), however, the greatness of my own feelings, that they have allowed me moments of amazing goodness, moments that just aren’t random killings, but moments of tenderness and compassion. Better (for me) to focus on those feelings than an abstract idea about how it’s “good” to be “nice to people”. The reason for this is that these abstractions have a funny way of becoming experiences in their own right, and that allows crazy instances such as normally decent people “supporting our troops”
July 17th, 2005 at 10:43 pm
I see now that I didn’t address what you were saying as directly as I should have.
Of course the instances of hyperreality are themselves real, and the purpose of making a point of them is debatable, but I think you can make relevant points within specific contexts. Take this hypothetically. If the origin of “right and wrong” is so-called “direct experience” and “direct experience” is lost in the reference, “right and wrong” is referencing something else. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but if a new reference is not created to what originally prompted the reference, then that experience has been lost in understanding. Whether or not this is a good thing is of course for you to decide.
July 18th, 2005 at 1:47 am
Makes me think of some Nietzsche, hope nobody minds a quote (if so, let me know).
“The original founder of a state who subjects to himself those who are weaker … has the right to do it, just as the state now takes the right. Or rather, there is no right that can prevent it. … Force precedes morality”
July 18th, 2005 at 2:23 am
I can see how you make that association, but I’d like to point out that nothing I have said necessarily indicates “force precedes morality”. Nietzsche is drawing on much more, things I have not and would not draw on. Nietzsche’s main focus is will, force, etc., the ability to effect yourself–all understandable themes, especially in the particular context of his life as a somewhat displaced philosopher (and indeed in any context where one must face the reality of powerlessness). It’s true what I have said has allowed Nietzsche to say what he does, but it also allows me to embrace my own values without making incorrect assumptions about perception and reality, and my own values are quite separate. To digress, I think it’s more useful to think about the things Nietzsche said not as they relate to “morality”, per say, but as they observe the will as a scientific phenomenon.
(I don’t really mean to micromanage this thread, but it’s a night at the computer, so there it is, heheh)
July 18th, 2005 at 10:48 am
“Why even try to push ideas on people - why not just let them be who they are & learn to accept what they’re already into?”
I don’t see evangelism as pushing one’s ideas onto another person. What you are doing with this blog is a form of evangelism. What matters is the message being conveyed - is it a sensible message or a stupid message?
In the case of this blog I think the message is very sensible - ask questions, explore the boundries of consensus reality, etc, etc.
In the case of my local fundamentalist mega-church, the message is quote nonsensical - the only path to eternal savlation is through a narrow right-wing interpretation of Jesus’s supposed teachings.
Of course, there is a difference in degree - fundamentalist evangelism is a lot more aggressive, which is one reason why we have the political situation we have in this country.
I am a huge proponent of evangelism. It is the only way our society can raise consciousness of pressing issues to the point where effective action can be taken. If you have a good message, why not share it with others?
The key issue is how does one evangelize a belief system predicated on open-mindedness and free inquiry. Right now, I think Crowley may have come closest to figuring out how to do this. Specifically, by creating a belief system centered on the discovery and use of one’s free will while simultaneously honoring this belief system through systematic ritual (the Gnostic Mass, ceremonial magick, etc.).
People naturally desire communal religious experiences. We desparately need sane religious institutions that are devoted to a genuine spirituality. Right now, there is not much out there. This is why fundamentalist evangelical movements have been so super successful, they are catering to a genuine spiritual need. However, they are extremely reactionary and so get spirituality all wrong. What is needed is a counter-evangelical movement of those who follow the various paths previously described as occult, pagan, or gnostic.
July 18th, 2005 at 1:07 pm
no offense, jason, but i think this is a terrible idea. who’s your target? is it ‘conservatives’? you won’t be able to change their minds, any more than a mormon missionary would change yours. the middle-grounders? then you’re creating a control system in which you’re claiming one side of the coin is better than the other. i don’t want a danged bunch of ‘in-the-middle’ people signing up as gnostics/pagans/etc. just because they think we’re better than the other guys; i’d rather they figured out what was best for them for themselves.
the problem is everyone wants immediate political solutions to everything when REAL change takes time. like a LONG time. i mean genuine change, from within. & the only way to make that change possible is to know one’s self and work with one’s immediate friends, neighbors, family, coworkers, etc., not to organize yet another group that wants to build yet another control system.
th’ fact is, in my experience, most people, even the so-called conservatives that everyone loves to loathe, would stop and help an injured animal, would give food to the hungry, love their friends and family members, are generally nice and polite, on an *individual* level. this individual level is what needs to be addressed, and can only be addressed by leading by example.
of course, that’s just my opinion & i could be wrong, but i tend to think that the most effective aspect of the invisible gnostic underground is that they’re INVISIBLE.
July 18th, 2005 at 1:16 pm
less an industrial approach to ministry then, more a local, community effort where everyone grows together. no franchise operation of turn-key dogma. i could get behind that. it takes guts to put your act on the line amongst your peers, every day, for the rest of your life.
July 18th, 2005 at 1:50 pm
“then you’re creating a control system in which you’re claiming one side of the coin is better than the other. i don’t want a danged bunch of ‘in-the-middle’ people signing up as gnostics/pagans/etc. just because they think we’re better than the other guys; i’d rather they figured out what was best for them for themselves.”
For the record, I have no problem with creating control systems - that is part of human nature. Control should not be viewed as evil in and of itself. Many people confuse control with malevolent manipulation when in fact it is a neutral term used to desccribe a key element in human organization. Without some level of organization human endeavors are bound to fail.
Furthermore, how do you think people figure things out for themselves? Sometimes it is in a seemingly random manner, sometimes it is in a structured manner. Both have their purposes. However, “figuring” things out always occurs in a social environment. I am proposing that what we need are more structure social environments for non-traditional religionists to congregate.
I do indeed want people who are looking for spiritual answers to sign up as gnostics/pagans, etc. I have no problem with people who are in the middle joining up. There are many sincere seekers who want to explore in an organized, systematic, social setting.
I also fully support institutional organizing. I believe going to church once a week is a great idea - unfortunately, there are no churches/temples with a theology I can even remotely agree with (with the possible exception of the UUs, but they are too relativistic).
I think the worst thing about the IGU is that it is invisible and underground. Is it any wonder that the world is not as good as it could be?
BTW, let me be clear that I am not at all a moral relativist. I am an absolutist on certain issues and I firmly believe that gnosticism/paganism/magick etc. are better than Christian fundamentalism AND even better than liberal Christianity. I don’t see why people have such a hard time making judgements. Let’s not be so sensitive.
July 18th, 2005 at 1:56 pm
I don’t think anybody’s being “sensitive” Jason. And I think we *are* making judgements. We just happen to disagree with you. Although I think the points you raise do have a lot of validity to them, they just don’t really work for me. You’re free to go and start a gnostic/pagan megachurch if that’s what you want to do.
July 18th, 2005 at 2:30 pm
My point about being overly sensistive was directed at the following line:
“you’re claiming one side of the coin is better than the other. i don’t want a danged bunch of ‘in-the-middle’ people signing up as gnostics/pagans/etc. just because they think we’re better than the other guys; i’d rather they figured out what was best for them for themselves.”
That seems pretty damn non-judgemental to me. I am claiming to judge that certain practices/beliefs are better for other people than other practices and beliefs. For example, humanism is better than neo-Nazism(OK, that was an easy one).
Yes, I think “we” are better than the other guys on questions of morality and theology.
For example, if someone were to ask whether they should join a homophobic fundie church or an open-minded gnostic church, what would J. Puma tell them? To do what’s right for them? You know what I would tell them.
BTW, I am aware that I am free to go and start a gnostic/pagan megachurch and I am planning on contributing to any efforts to do so. So far, I have not found any definite worthwhile efforts, but I keep looking.
July 18th, 2005 at 2:39 pm
so who gets to decide who has the control? how does one avoid the pitfalls of power-seekers? what’s to prevent a self-proclaimed pagan/gnostic organization to start burning fundamentalists at the stake? what’s to keep such an organization from getting into politics like the fundies do? i dunno, you can do whatever you like. maybe i’m being ’sensitive,’ but to me, the most valuable paths have always been the ones that didn’t advertise themselves as such.
i agree, but i don’t think they should be restricted to one systemic, social setting. they should find what works best for them. should that be fundamentalist christianity, that’s fine; whatever. neither you nor i has all of the answers, and i’ve met some really amazing, nonjudgemental, open fundamentalists who aren’t concerned with converting the world to their way of thinking. imo, if a system is good for people, it’ll attract seekers without the need for proselytization. as for gnosticism, most gnostics i know w/in the community would be appalled at the idea of active evangelizing.
see, this describes my point completely. this statement completely turns me off to any of your other arguments. nobody’s having a hard time making judgements here, they’re just judgements that are different from yours. as to ‘let’s not be so sensitive,’ what does that even mean? does that mean we shouldn’t consider how our actions affect other people? do you expect readers here to go ‘yeah, he’s right after all b/c he’s so forceful– my mind is changed! let’s make judgements and not be sensitive!’
July 18th, 2005 at 2:43 pm
I think he’s calling us “economic girly-men”
July 18th, 2005 at 2:48 pm
actually, i wouldn’t tell them anything. it’s not my business and i’d refuse to respond. at the most i might rattle off some facts i know about gnosticism and fundamentalism, but i’d attempt not to cast value judgements on either. personally, i do prefer gnosticism, but if someone doesn’t, it’s not my business!
but how many people are gonna ask that question, anyhow? isn’t this kind of a straw man?
another straw man. does this mean we need to expend our time and energy converting neo-nazis to humanism? establishing humanist mega-churches?
July 18th, 2005 at 2:57 pm
Oh my god, humanism is better the nazism? I had no idea!
July 18th, 2005 at 3:17 pm
http://www.lvx23.com/images/ultraculture/UCsingularlrg.jpg
If this is the imagery associated with the movement, then count me out. It’s just a rehash of cyber-hippie–New Age-ism.
At least, that is what it appears to be right off the bat. And if this is about pushing propaganda and “marketing,” then that is all they have to work with: the right-off-the-bat. Just my 2¢.
July 18th, 2005 at 3:22 pm
Yeah, that’s not going to appeal to anybody but ex-ravers. I absolutely agree. And the slogan, well, it speaks for itself:
First off, it uses language that only insiders know (ie, singularity, ultraculture). This won’t appeal to outsiders, which is ostensibly part of their purpose. Second of all, it doesn’t offer anything new, or anything concrete. “It’s just a blank canvas” - so what? So is everything. Why should I be persuaded to be a part of it?
July 18th, 2005 at 3:32 pm
My point is that you are clearly making some judgements. For example, by saying you think humanism is better than neo-Nazism you are implying that you think others should follow one and not the other(at least I hope so).
Now why is it that you apply that to neo-Nazism as opposed to homophobic fundamentalist churches? B/c neo-Nazism is deemed unacceptable by the power structure and the other (Christian fundamentalism) is deemed a little weird, but OK?
Again, why wouldn’t you respond and tell someone that it is morally wrong to go to a church that preaches something that is immoral. Unless, of course, you think homophobia is morally OK. If someone is doing something anti-social, why not call them on it? Why just pretend it’s their own thing? BTW, in the case of homophobia, it is clearly not just their own little thing - just ask the lesbian couple who had to leave the state of VA because their health coverage was endangered because of homophobic laws passed there at the insistence of fundamentalist churches.
And you would not comment one way or the other as to whether someone attends and supports such a church is doing wrong?
This is why it is vitally important for liberation-oriented spiritual movements to begin to spread their message. Why should we expect every busy person in this country to do the research to investigate all the ins and outs of religion. Should our lives just become one big long theological research project? Examining the lives of those who have done that, does it improve our fate in any way?
I think this is where Krishna’s advice to Arjuna in the BG can be applied.
BTW, Tim, you are dead-on I am basically calling you girly-men. This debate reveals one of many reason why most people around the world don’t particularly respect liberal men. And why so many Americans keep voting for idiot right-wingers and flocking to idiotic right-wing churches. Because the idiots are the only ones actively standing for moral clarity. Liberal men seem content to merely say “Hey do your own thing” Where is the leadership in that? People need leadership, they are built for it.
July 18th, 2005 at 3:54 pm
Then go lead them. I wish you luck.
Why should we expect them to research politics or anything else for that matter? Hell, why should we trust anybody to do anything for themselves when we have such better vision than they do? We ought to just do all the leg-work and then lay out the perfect formula for them to live their lives according to. After all, that’s what they want, right? Is that basically what you’re saying?
July 18th, 2005 at 4:13 pm
yeah, go for it. best of luck in your endeavours. the world needs more non-idiotic liberal men who are willing to step up to the plate and lead the masses in a great pagan revolution, and you’re the guy to do it.
July 18th, 2005 at 4:17 pm
hee hee check this one out:
http://www.lvx23.com/images/ultraculture/UCmagick.jpg
it’s all like ‘hey, castaneda and mayan pyramids got me laid’– like ‘occultist eye for the square guy.’
July 18th, 2005 at 4:31 pm
HOLY SHIT! That ad is hilarious.
July 18th, 2005 at 4:54 pm
Anyway, from a purely practical standpoint, if you were going to use a religion as a backdrop for social and political reform, I think paganism and even gnosticism would be a very poor choice. If what you’re after is getting people socially conscious and morally aware, then I would put my money down on Emergent Christianity. Trying to defeat both Fundamentalism AND Christianity in one stroke is nearly impossible (and arguably not even useful…). Emergent Christianity would fly under the radar (or at least lower than paganism) and contains within itself a system of ethics based on investigation, conversation and questioning. Open-source Christianity could feed into Open-Source Government and so on. The problem though is once you start questioning everything, you can’t draw a box around what’s okay and what’s not okay to question. Getting swept up in such an endeavor will surely guarantee that ordinary people start questioning themselves, their leaders and the structures of control. And now you’re back where you started.
July 18th, 2005 at 4:58 pm
I’m going to have to go to bat for Jason. The arguments you both express against him are completely incoherent both in practice and in theory.
First, the idea that “you cannot change people’s minds”–”people must make up their own mind.” What does this really mean? Obviously perceptions are processed on an individual level and so it’s certainly true that “people must make up their own minds”, but these statements are invariably used within the context of justifying a kind of passive expression of belief, where the line between “good” expression and “bad” expression is drawn in grey ground that relates not to any truly absolute distinction in its own right, but to a distinction based on subjective preference for passivity.
For instance, it’s not okay to effectively market an idea by way of the effectively proven techniques of advertising, but it’s okay to market an idea by way of the ineffectively proven techniques of keeping obscure blogs that create exclusive, snobbish cultures. It’s okay to put your ideas out, but only if you do it *a certain way*, where the certain way has been defined *because you like it*. Call it like it is, folks.
When you believe something, as obviously you do–as everybody does–you necessarily create a hierarchy of value that necessarily places you both above and below other beliefs, whether you like it or not–it’s an analytic truth. What your argument amounts to is a kind of “I can believe things without believing things”. It is, as Jason said, being “girly”. By acting like you are, you are hiding behind your weakness, and you would do well to take that quote Chiggles provided from Nietzsche to heart: “Force precedes morality”. Nietzsche doesn’t actually mean to say force *is* morality, or that force is better than morality; he is only pointing out that if you don’t support your beliefs, then they will amount to nothing. And he’s right. You could certainly see Crowley about this, too.
The strong inherit the earth, whether or not they are good, and indeed that has happened. What are you going to do about it? Make the ridiculous claim that “you cannot change people minds”? Because that’s just not true, and if you really think it is then you have completed missed a crucial aspect of human experience, probably due to confirmation bias. The fact is that people change their minds all the time, and while “they make up their own minds”, they do this based on their perceptions, and other people are valid objects of perception. If you have never changed somebody’s mind, then I feel sorry for you, and if your mind has never been changed, then I feel sorry for the people you know.
The whole scope of your argument justifies doing nothing, when things can in fact be done. This is understandable, of course: it’s very nice to live by precluding personal failure.
By the way, Jason, thank you for so reasonably expressing this sentiment. Maybe I have been reading in all the wrong places, but I thought I was the only person with a coherent grasp on the nature of morality. This kind of “leftism” has so completely ruined people’s minds that it seems we’re all doomed indeed, when the will of the people has been so completely crushed that they have started telling themselves that will is the problem. Will is not the problem. The problem is evil.
And part evil is this desire to sit in closed spaces making fun of the people outside.
July 18th, 2005 at 5:03 pm
Whoops, when I said ” When you believe something, as obviously you do–as everybody does–you necessarily create a hierarchy of value that necessarily places you both above and below other beliefs” I should not have said “below”.
July 18th, 2005 at 5:07 pm
You guys are welcome to disagree. That’s the whole point of having this conversation in the first place. While you criticize us for writing on blogs, what are you doing - writing on my blog, arguing points that I brought up in the first place. And quit suggesting that because I don’t agree with you, I must not understand the situation, or I must not understand what it means to be a human. If you want to get into bloated half-assed pompous piece of shit arguments, then you just stepped in it.
July 18th, 2005 at 5:12 pm
I’m not criticizing you for writing on blogs. It’s not that simple I actually think blogs are great. We have responded to the things you have said in hopes of changing your mind, and here, rather than continuing the dialogue, you are putting your fingers in your ears and saying blah blah. If you do in fact understand the situation, then we must be wrong. Please explain how this is rather than just saying the reality of the situation is in fact otherwise.
July 18th, 2005 at 5:15 pm
What? Fuck that. That’s exactly what you’re doing. Saying it must be otherwise. Maybe I’m doing it too. I don’t care.
I don’t need my mind changed, and certainly not by you. That’s what I’ve been saying all along. I’ve raised consistent arguments and followed through with them again and again. At this point we’re all just rehashing things that have already been said. If you want to continue to do that, fine. You win. Great job arguing. I don’t have the answers - all I have are questions.
July 18th, 2005 at 5:20 pm
josh–
great, so do it! get out there and change peoples’ minds. organize, start pagan/gnostic megachurches, rail against the ‘evil’ people sitting in ‘closed spaces.’ that’s fine with me, girly-man that i am. meanwhile i’ll go ahead and pursue my ‘evil’ pursuit of ‘nothingness,’ and sit around waiting for the liberal nietzchian ubermenschen to tear down my door and lock me away for laughing at stuff i couldn’t possibly understand.
To quote Joshu, “Mu!”
July 18th, 2005 at 5:20 pm
I shouldn’t have used “situation” twice. What I meant was referring to the specific context of that comment you made. Maybe you have responded to the issues just raised previously, but pardon me that I’m not already aware of these responses. In this specific context, you have not followed through, because following through from my post would require 1) addressing my observations about the fact that people’s minds can be changed 2) addressing what I say about heirarchies of value. I don’t presume to know the full scope of your arguments, but I have responded to what has been posted here. If you don’t want to talk about it, if you think I am not worthy of being addressed, fine. But that doesn’t mean you have followed through.
July 18th, 2005 at 5:22 pm
seconded. you’ve convinced me that your arguments are more practical than any tim and i have put forth. i hereby acquiecse– you win.
now, let’s see those ideas in action!
July 18th, 2005 at 5:31 pm
This is them right now. Me talking to you, even though it is a huge stress on my nerves and the odds are crazy. I look at your site, at Tim’s site, and the absolutely spectacular amount of effort being put into them, and I wonder, what is this all about? Surely this effort could be better directed. I have made my arguments in hope you will agree. If you don’t, then I accept that as a necessary consequence of natural laws, but alas, I tried.
July 18th, 2005 at 5:38 pm
And you call me a girly-man? You’re sitting here bitching about how I’m not respecting you? Get over it.
Okay:
1) People’s minds can be changed. Fine. My mind changes constantly, from day to day. I never actually said they couldn’t, if you go back and look. I simply think it’s better they are in charge of that themselves. I’m simply not qualified to lead anybody’s life but my own. And I may not even be doing a great job of that.
2) “Hierarchies of value” isn’t an argument. It’s a buzzword. A Ken Wilber buzzword, if I’m not mistaken.
But if you want to tango, then dance monkey, dance:
It’s not an analytic truth. It’s a statement of opinion dressed up as analytic truth. Anyway, can you give me a good definition of what analytic truth even means?
I never said marketing isn’t okay. Do I think the ultraculture stuff that I’ve seen is good marketing? No. Nor do I think the motivations for it are all that good. Does that mean they shouldn’t do it? They can do what the fuck they want.
That’s exactly the problem here. You believe that you have a monopoly on the truth. I’m seeking to engage others in conversation, because I believe that I don’t and I’m hoping to learn something by starting a dialogue. So far all I’ve learned from you is that you think I’m weak, girly, don’t understand life and that you are some kind of hulking superman who could crush me like an ant. What a valuable lesson!
The “whole scope” of my argument actually consists of allowing for and incorporating all other arguments whether or not I agree with them. I’m not saying: “Do Nothing!” I’m saying “Consider the effects and intentions of your actions!”
Oh, silly me! I thought evil had something to do with controlling people who don’t want to be controlled and forcing your ideas and value system on them. It’s a good thing you’ve showed me that by starting conversations about serious issues, I’m actually the world’s biggest perpetrator of evil acts. My “leftism” has destroyed my mind to such a degree that I could never have seen that if it wasn’t for your mighty discernment.
One real question for you though: If you are so strong and macho and Nietzschean, how come you can’t even change my mind? I mean, I’m just weak and girly and liberal and pathetic, and you can’t even dominate me!
July 18th, 2005 at 5:42 pm
Hey! WHOA WHOA! You don’t just get to pack your bags and go home, son. Especially not after you accuse me of giving up!
These are your ideas being put into action? Wait, I thought you were just sitting at a computer writing your opinions. So is that all we have to do to take action in the world? Shit, then I must be doing awesome! I’m so sorry this is such a stress on your nerves. Maybe you better bow out now before you hurt yourself!
Hm, here’s an idea: why don’t you simply just ask us what we’re all about?
July 18th, 2005 at 5:55 pm
I’ve never said anything about your relative “girliness”; I just pointed out specific things I observed in the posts here that indicate that attribute. You make several cases of selectively applying certain statements I’ve written without considering their application within the larger context of my other statements. As such, you are not really responding to what I’ve said. Here are a couple of examples:
You say ” I never actually said they couldn’t, if you go back and look. I simply think it’s better they are in charge of that themselves.” But I never said they shouldn’t be in charge of that themselves–I even said they are necessarily in charge of that themselves. I never said “heirarchies of value” is an argument; I used that expression to reference an argument.
An analytic truth is something that is true by definition of the terms used, such as a=a.
If what I said is not an analytic truth, you need to show me where the definitions split, at least if you want to respond to what I’ve said.
I never said you thought marketing is bad; I said you were making distinctions based on philosophical incoherent. By all means, if I am wrong, show me how. Then I can learn.
If you are in fact weak and incoherent in certain ways–if you are in fact misapplying yourself in ways you yourself would judge wrong once made the wiser, then it would seem a valuable lesson indeed.
Considering actions is very well and good, but my points have been made to the end of saying that once you consider them, you should acknowledge the values you have created as a result. My observations have been to the end of pointing out that you are not acknowledging these values, and that you are not doing it for high and mighty ends, but as a justification for your own inability to effect yourself on the world, as a justification for continuing to be so ineffectual. That is my argument–the arguement for “moral clarity”–which you have not responded to in any meaningful way, as evidenced by what I wrote just above.
July 18th, 2005 at 5:58 pm
Btw, that point of wondering what you’re all about was a narrative construct. Obviously I have come to conclusions about this, pointing specific instances of what you are about at least as expressed in words on this site, which are all I can respond to.
And as far as communicating with you by way of internet being some kind of inferior concession, do you really think you’re not worth of being communciated with? Is this medium really so inferior? Sounds more like an ad hominem argument than a substantial one.
July 18th, 2005 at 6:07 pm
And to add, while obviously this exchange has become confrontational, that’s really not my intention or my desire. I really don’t approach people with my ideas with idea of forcing my ideas for their own sake (the ideas’ sake). It shouldn’t be the case that you feel the desire to refute everything I say just because I am attacking certain ideas of yours. Let’s talk about ideas, not ourselves. If something I have said is unclear, I really want to clarify it–maybe then I will notice that it isn’t even clear to me after all.
July 18th, 2005 at 6:29 pm
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA… oh shit, wait wait…
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Wow, if I am a part of some kind of pansy occult subculture I am not aware of, I hate myself.
July 18th, 2005 at 6:34 pm
So, you want me to not respond to the things you said, but to the things you haven’t?
Seems like you’d have to know me to make a statement like that.
Again, I’m not allowed to respond to the things you say…
Ideas for their own sake don’t have a lot of value to me. I’m tired of ideas about ideas about ideas. What has value is what we do with them, how we apply them. I’m trying to break down my own ideas in an effort to get to the bottom of what really matters. What matters is not who argues the most points, but the simple fact that we’re sitting here and talking. Even if it gets ugly, we’re trying. I don’t have the answers. I don’t have “moral clarity” or anything else that I can give you.
July 18th, 2005 at 6:36 pm
Fell, you know that’s you in that photo!
July 18th, 2005 at 6:45 pm
Hehehe…
You are so dead. No one was supposed to know.
July 18th, 2005 at 6:52 pm
You continue to miss my points.
The first one you address concerns the fact that taking certain statements out of context obscures their meaning. The idea is for you to respond to what I *have* said, of course. I pointed out how you did not do this, specifically.
And as for the second, obviously I do not presume to know *you*; I have responded to what I have perceived here in full awareness that it may not be the full picture–with the idea that if it is not the full picture, then you will help make my picture more complete. But again, instead of showing how my perceptions may be incorrect, you simply say that they are incorrect. That is not an argument.
I’m not sure you understand what I meant by the term “narrative construct”. I was only introducing the process by which I had come to present my arguments here, albeit I did so uncleary–but how does saying that’s what I was doing mean you cannot respond to what I say? What I was saying in that case is mostly irrelevant anyway.
I wasn’t meaning to imply we should discus ideas for their own sake, of course–I am strongly against that. I meant to indicate that you seemed to be responding to perceived insults on the totality of you as a complete person, rather than my more separate observations, saying that your responses seemed more emotionally charged in response to some kind of perceived attack on your ego rather than a reasonable analysis of my observations. I apologize for not being more clear.
I’ve broken down several of your ideas for you. If you think I’m wrong, well, fair enough, but if that’s the case I’d of course be interested in why you think I’m wrong, at least if you have good reasons, and if you do you have not yet articulated them to me. I am proposing answers, and you are rejecting them. But why? Do you think there are no answers? Well, you are certainly free to make that argument, but that’s not what has happened here. If you are going to reject what I have said, I would hope you have a coherent reason for doing so.
July 18th, 2005 at 7:00 pm
Feel free to accuse me of missing your point a hundred more times if that somehow helps.
Being emotional is valuable and natural. Trying to be distant and totally logical and analytic (which I don’t think you’ve been) neglects the totality of human experience.
Maybe in your mind, but not in mine. In my eyes, you’ve merely accidentally supported everything I said I was against originally. I liked Jason’s arguments much better because he actually brought up the point of: what do we do so that we can be spiritual in a social community? That’s an idea I’d really like to consider, because I know that I’m failing to see certain aspects of it because of my own biases.
I don’t want your answers. I don’t want my answers. I don’t want anybody’s answers. I want questions. I want to dissolve the answers and see what’s left.
July 18th, 2005 at 7:11 pm
I have accused you of missing my points and have illustrated how you have done so. If I have been wrong, you have not explained how I have been wrong, or even attempted to do so. T
And you make more generalizations that only serve to subvert the dialogue. Emotionality may be an asset, but that doesn’t actually address my point, which was that by way of emotionality you missed what I was trying to say. Certainly in this case it was not an asset. Certainly I, too, am emotional, but I am trying to advance reasoned dialogue in spite of this.
Again, it’s obvious you don’t agree with what I’ve said, but you have not properly explained why that is. Again, if you don’t want to do that, if you’re not interested in my ideas, I am okay with that. Obviously we have to all budget our time and energy. But it seems like you haven’t even understood what I’ve been saying, and I have pointed out how in each instance of your responses to me practically everything has failed to address what I’ve been trying to say, even though you have certainly been attempting to address what I’ve been trying to say. Of course if somebody approached me with a bunch of crap I didn’t understand, I probably wouldn’t bother with them. But I hope I would realize my lack of understanding and be able to admit the concession I am making by not pursuing it.
And as for saying you don’t want answers, that’s all well and good, but again, my point has been that you have accepted certain answers all the same, and that the answers you have accepted are invalid. But again, I am not necessarily addressing this to you as a complete person, but to certain statements made, and not necessarily by you in at least one case, but by Jeremy. If these statements incorrectly portray you, then fine.
July 18th, 2005 at 7:33 pm
Josh, remember how I told you twice already to stop using the argument that I don’t understand?
Don’t lecture me about subverting the dialogue. Did you even see the original post that this chain of comments started at? While you may feel like I have not addressed all your points to your liking, it seems to me that you’ve done the same with my original piece. Merely all you did was jump in once somebody else (Jason) had already formulated a strongly worded argument and you added your nod of approval to it.
I don’t believe in reasoned dialogue. That there is any such thing is an illusion.
Haven’t I said again and again that I don’t know what the right answer is here? Again you seem to be the one not understanding.
According to who? You? So I should accept your answers then, simply because mine aren’t as cunningly argued? Why would that make sense for me to do that? This is precisely my point in regards to the original material: Ultraculture and using marketing tactics to try to get people to buy into your ideology. If you can’t even convince me through a half a day of arguing, why would a sticker I say on the subway be of any consequence to me whatsoever
Did it ever occur to you that the reason I don’t “understand” your argument is simply because you aren’t making it effectively? Nevermind whether or not I agree.
It might also be worthwhile at this point for us to examine our relative goals with this conversation. As I see it, your goal is to convince me what you’re saying is right. My goal is simply to have this conversation. I don’t need to be logically consistent. I’m not a math problem.
July 18th, 2005 at 7:42 pm
nonono, tim, *i’m* the one who has accepted “invalid” answers, see? josh’s cunning rhetorical skills have rendered me unable to rationally defend my own obviously shoddy conclusions. that’s why i’ve conceded defeat and eagerly await the arrival of those hariy-chested liberal macho men who will step boldly forth and display the morally righteous leadership i so ardently, yet subconsciously desire.
on an unrelated note, i once had a drama instructor who had two huge afghan hounds named jason and josh. they were really beautiful dogs. i asked them about their nature once, and they replied, Mu!
July 18th, 2005 at 7:44 pm
Jeremy, that’s just the kind of weak-willed argument I’d expect from a leftist-liberal such as yourself. You should be ashamed of your inability to understand even the simplest of ideas.
July 18th, 2005 at 8:08 pm
[…]
Building Spiritual Communities
Golly gee! My article on occult evangelization has certainly spawned a lively debate. There seem to be […]
July 18th, 2005 at 8:10 pm
You can tell me to stop doing anything, but if you can’t offer me a better reason for not doing what I’m doing than the one I have for doing what I’m doing, then I must persist.
Of course I realize my responsibility in this conversation. But I don’t actually make a point of responsibility because it requires a very uncertain metaphysical assumption, which would probably be a total waste of time to go into here, but suffice it to say that it projects sentiment “yes, it is all my fault, but then, everything is fault”.
I’m not expecting anything for the same reason. I have offered a response to certain things you have said, albeit it has been a very “logical” response. I have not presumed to make this a point of huge, spectacularly important and crucial existential significance, though at this point it may seem like it. Obviously what I have said has not been useful to you, but instead of leaving it as it stood, you started going on about “bloated half-assed piece of shit arguments” and responding to what I said nevertheless and in questionable form, at least if there was going to be any pretense of advancing on my argument.
You say I “merely” jumped in once somebody had already formulated a strongly worded argument. But understand this: I didn’t want to go into it before Jason made the points he did, because before that I wasn’t exactly sure of your perspective. And I did actually add a further exposition on a philosophical justification behind some of Jason’s points, and though that has not been useful to you, I have found it to be useful, and so posting it publicly seemed like a reasonable thing to do–so that other people might find use in it.
So OK, you’re having this conversation to have this conversation, but I guess I’m not much for conversation for its own sake. If you can’t argue your points, then you should probably stop presuming to address those who can, in the context of arguing points anyway. It’s obvious I came here to argue my perspective. If you weren’t interested in that, then why have gone at such length to deliver reckless and poorly thought out responses to what I have had to say? But if really you aren’t interested, then it seems we have nothing to say to one another.
July 18th, 2005 at 8:13 pm
Just let it go brother…
July 18th, 2005 at 8:24 pm
Haha…
;P
July 18th, 2005 at 8:33 pm
Don’t even get me started on you, pyramid boy!
July 18th, 2005 at 8:44 pm
Hehe, I have my own opinions. And I’ve given up on even trying to debate them reasonably online.
Reason is for ninnies.
July 18th, 2005 at 8:51 pm
Yeah, I’m tired of debating. I don’t see what the point of it is anymore. Nobody gets anywhere. Nobody wins. Everybody just goes until they are exhausted. I can think of other activites where that’s fun, but this ain’t one of em.
July 18th, 2005 at 8:56 pm
Right, I’ll just let it go.
You prompt me not to run off because you supposedly have a response to me, and after your points have been utterly deconstructed for the nonsense they are and all you have are snide, baseless depreciations of what I’ve said, you appeal for me to just forget it about it.
That’s the problem with this site, and perhaps it indicates something about you as a person. You spend all this time supposedly prompting questions and advancing ideas, but whenever it comes to actually owning up to your actions, you back down and bring out the nonsense about how you’re not a math problem, how people can’t be forced, how you can’t be expected to make sense, etc.
Because I am pressing my points that to which you are unable to respond, I’m supposed to come off as some kind of immature zealot with insecurity problems and whatever, but I don’t buy it. Have fun wasting your time here. No doubt it provides a great service to everybody else who can stomach your completely useless efforts.
July 18th, 2005 at 9:02 pm
Josh, Josh, Josh… the claws come out at last, eh? Why didn’t you just jump right into the personal attacks from the get-go? Would have saved us all a lot of time, don’t you think?
July 18th, 2005 at 9:10 pm
[…]
Kids Say the Darnedest Things!
I don’t make this stuff up folks: That’s the problem with this site, and p […]
July 18th, 2005 at 9:11 pm
This is directed at no one in particular (and by no one in particular, right now I mean Josh), but anyone so intent on chasing debate around the room like a dog chasing its tail is coming off a touch zealous.
Take a step back and remember that perhaps supporting each other in our endeavours to explore these topics may be more important than arguing semantics, reason, logic, and any other man-made dogshit that can easily be deconstructed with art and poetry.
It’s amazing how quickly we all become slaves to language in debate. Christ, semantics be damned.
Smash the control images, smash the control machine.
July 19th, 2005 at 12:14 am
Josh Said: “As for whether we’re right or not, well, we’re right if we feel right. Obviously the feeling of being right will effect itself differently over time, but nothing wrong with that.”
Simple ecology, adaption, and evolutionary fitness aside, does it matter who’s right? You can sit around and debate the merits of who’s right or wrong all day but the real change happens when people actually do something. There are a whole lot of powerful people out there trying to proselytize their will onto a whole bunch of less powerful people. I personally don’t really care to be governed by the prevailing shallow materialism and corrupt greed that’s being advertised to the world. They have some great marketing tools but the message sucks, IMHO (all effects, no plot).
I’d like to encourage like-minded folk (of which I believe there are an aweful lot of) to grab these tools and spread the word. Paint the canvas of reality. Write the dream. Media is ours, etc etc. Ultraculture is nothiing more than a connecting point to network like minds and encourage real world action.
July 19th, 2005 at 12:18 am
Excellently stated LVX. I’m not interested in being right so much as I am in making things happen. I’m finding out more and more that sometimes the best way to make things happen is to admit that I’m not right, move forward and see where I end up by removing those blinders. I like the basic premise of Ultraculture, but I see a lot of pitfalls and areas that need to be worked out. Maybe these are things that will work themselves out. Maybe the imperfections that all of us have are what will carry us forward and win the day in the end.
July 19th, 2005 at 1:53 am
Then please, please, please read a graphic design text or perhaps a book on guerrilla marketing or something by Seth Godin or Malcolm Gladwell before you attempt to “infiltrate” the world in which the They have taken the time to master.
God forbid anyone’s actually read Thundersqueak, by Ramsey Dukes?
Or else you come off looking like…
July 19th, 2005 at 11:25 am
there are schools that teach reason and arguement as tools to convince. these tools of conviction can be wielded as razor-sharp swords that cut down the opposition, leaving no opponents left at the end, whether the content of the arguement was valid or not. where are the schools that teach inclusiveness? one may learn inclusion when one decides first to attempt to be included. with that in mind we can disagree and still exchange ideas. this position may seem weak and without conviction but trying to guage a persons strength and convictions is similar to trying to guage spiritual maturity. a job best left to wilberites.
the jesuits(at least the one that raised me…) can argue that black is white, and when you are convinced they will begin to argue the opposite.
July 19th, 2005 at 5:07 pm
The jesuits just sound cooler all the time
July 19th, 2005 at 6:05 pm
Ok, let me take a stab at this too, then….
First off, I love this site, and think what goes on here for the most part is very important. Debate is wonderful, especially when it’s between intelligent, well-read folk who are passionate about their beliefs (or lack thereof). This is why it saddens me to see the debate here turn into a bunch of mean-spirited and counter-productive sniping.
Having said that, I am going to now step firmly into the corner of “We need to organize, and be less invisible”. I would like, however, to sidestep all this bickering and approach it from a different angle, so bear with me if I don’t make sense at first.
I am not a New Ager, by any means, and the fact that people here are trying to lump the idea of ultraculture into that pile is disturbing. The New Age movement was a bad thing because it had absolutely no discernment (well, there were other reasons too, but let’s not go there right now). I have always likened it to children opening presents on Christmas morning- they tear thru all the wrappers and go “OH WOW!” at everything they find before tossing it into the booty pile. Soon they have a big pile of stuff, and think they are the luckiest…. But as soon as they get past that, and start examining the take, they begin to realize that it’s not all gold.
The New Age also seems to me to have evolved into to separate camps since its hey-day -one being the dogmatic dogs, loyally guarding their pile of shite, the other being today’s Seeker set, attempting to use that shite for what it’s worth, as fertilizer.
And before anyone here attempts to exempt themselves from that second group, remember that if it weren’t for the New Agers opening all those presents, few of us would even know about all this stuff.
So, once they stripped all the angels, crystals, gurus and channelers away, all the claptrap that discerning people learn to detest the New Age for, you still get a silver thread of truth. The same can be applied to Christianity, with its Jesus worship, and Buddhism with its own peculiar dogma, and even Paganism, with all that Mother Goddess stuff. Dogma is dogma, but few if any of the major players throughout the years have been completely in the dark, they just tend to hide the truths they carry under a bunch of garbage.
This is basic. We all know this.
So if we as a group, as a unified front, the Pagans, the Wiccans, the Psychopaths and the Leryites, the Hippies and the Primitives and the Monastics and all the disparate sides can agree on a few of the fundamental truths, and present that as a unified, stripped down message to the world, is that not for the better?
Let me put it differently… If the message that I am “evangelizing” is simply that “Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be the Whole of the Law”, am I dogmatic?
Tim, your question was “what’s the difference between doing this and trying to evangelize and force your religion or ideology on somebody else? Is it really any different from religious proselytizing which everyone seems to hate?”
My answer is, putting the plate of cookies out for people to help themselves to (which is what they are doing at Key23) is a far cry from shoving the cookies down everyone’s throat, and nobody there is saying that there is only one type of cookie that we all have to adhere to.
And we’ve got enough variety in the cookie dept. to ensure everyone getting one they like…. Which is in fact the problem with Christians in general (not all, just in general): They want to throw all the cookies away and replace them with a pack of saltines.
They have done that so well, that most people in America have never had a cookie, and don’t even know they exist, or worse, fear cookies immensely. Isn’t that sad?
Haven’t you ever been told you can’t have a cookie by someone capable of enforcing that upon you? I have. That’s the sort of environment most of us grew up in, and that’s what we want to change. And if organizing around a few simple, common truths is a way of accomplishing that, HELL YES!
I too have issues with our side taking skepticism and relativism to the point of being ineffectual. Shifting the metaphor now, I spent a long time in that hallway, refusing to open any doors because I was so afraid of being wrong, but then Crowley and Wilson and a number of experiences began kicking the doors open for me, against my will. Now I see that it until you pick a door (and it can be ANY door, YOU choose), you are not going to experience the mystic, the divine.
You have to come to the point where you step past what you know, and believe *in spite of* fact (many Christians get that one right at least), and you cannot be ruled by your own fear of being wrong.
Ok, I’m guessing I lost half of you, but I had to at least try to get this out.
July 19th, 2005 at 6:41 pm
Thanks Jack, I appreciate your balanced insight. This is much closer to the type of discussion I had originally intended to bring to this topic before it got twisted totally out of context and beyond repair (and I fully acknowledge my own complicity in allowing that to happen.
July 19th, 2005 at 6:54 pm
jack–
i think you have some really good points! i like your cookie analogy, and i don’t have any inherent problem with organizing like-minded individuals for the sake of sharing info in a community. i’m really not opposed to spiritual community whatsoever!
what puts me off is stuff like that post tim linked to about ‘tactics for social engineering.’ it’s all about burning conservative books, postering in subways, ‘protesting graveyards;’ it’s all this crazy culture-jamming stuff that in my experience will pretty much be preaching to the choir. like, your average city dweller walks by a group of ‘transhumanists’ protesting a graveyard and they’re automatically gonna start getting all horny for cyborgs? they’re gonna see some hippie-raver ‘ultraculture’ poster or flyer in the subway and immediately leave their silly fundamentalist ideas behind? i just can’t see it. that’s what i meant by ‘you can’t change peoples’ minds.’ if someone converts from fundamentalism to ‘ultraculturism’ because of a poster or a protest, how valuable is that? if, however, they convert from fundamentalism because they have *changed their own minds*, then that’s incredible & valuable & utterly fantastic; the conversion has to come from knowledge instead of faith, otherwise it’s not genuine!
i don’t have a problem with presenting/defending a particular semiotic set. s’why i have a blog, innit? but if someone agreed with something i posted simply because they like the format of the website, or because they liked some other post of mine and not because they *really truly decided for themself*, i’d be really put off!
imho, building a community is most definitely *not* about putting up posters of dudes standing in front of a pyramid and extolling the virtues of magick. it has nothing to do with tagging walls of public buildings with magick sigils. that stuff is all self-referential choir preaching. if you wanna build a community, it’s about getting people together to drink coffee and hang out, maybe play some video games or watch movies, be nice to one another, have really neat conversations.
i like the invisible thing because it’s difficult to co-opt. the archons have a nasty habit of taking stuff that’s cool and turning it into corporate garbage.
July 19th, 2005 at 7:10 pm
[…]
How to Fight the Empire and Win
Jack of Orange Pill left the kind of insightful comment I’d originally hoped for on my piece ab […]
July 19th, 2005 at 7:18 pm
Fell, for a teacher you have a funny way of teaching. Sort of a “shoot first, offer advice later” approach. FWIW, I wasn’t trying to express any great design effort or create a marketing device to reach millions of people. I spent all of 10 minutes throwing those images together on a whim just to create a nebulous fog around the Ultraculture meme (which had not yet actually been publicly defined at that point). It was for a very small audience, most of whom enjoyed the gimmick. And it did actually draw more interest to the meme. I think you’d call it “buzz” in the marketing vernacular.
And personally, I find it a bit snobbish when people suggest that only industrial design geeks know how to package ideas. The majority of people are decidedly lo-tech and surprisingly simple. If some kid from Kansas manages to hack together a shitty website so he can post his thoughts on magick, I don’t think it would be fair to trash him just because his html sucks and he has flashing animated gifs all over the page. Just an example, but content is ultimately more valuable than packaging.
Having said that, I would like to learn more about design & marketing so I’ll have a look at the links you’ve posted. And I’ve wondered about Dukes for a while now but haven’t gotten around to reading much of him beyond a few articles and interviews (not sure why since I’m always on the lookout for more engaging occult authors). I’ll pick up Thundersqueek asap.
But next time you come over to Key23, do us all a favor and try to restrain your urge to attack before getting the facts straight.
July 19th, 2005 at 7:20 pm
And there I agree with you wholeheartedly. I’ve wrestled for years with the idea of somehow writing a very simple, very innocuos and “under-the-radar” type of book whose very message would be so contrary to being co-opted that there would never be a way to co-opt it, subvert it, or take it to war.
Still wrestling.
By the way, I believe the pyramid guy was meant to be humorous.
As for the rest of it, the bookburning and postering, well, I’ve always been a fan of guerilla ontology, and to have said bookburning would not convert all the masses by any means, however don’t you think it would open a few eyes? How many people would you have to rescue from oppression before it became worth it?
Somewhere along the line, a campaign is bound to catch the attention of someone who is ready to hear what you are saying, and they might just be to the point of thinking “Now why would they go and burn those books?”, and you will have germinated a seed of curiosity….. This is how the Christians do it, and up to that point, I don’t find it distasteful.
It’s what you do with them once you have their attention that imprints some sort of value on it, IMHO. Me, I’d rather just show them that plate of cookies.
As it is, as much as I love the idea of campaigning and starting a new megachurch, I’ve always been a much bigger fan of the other Christian model: Lead by example. Every time I’ve ever “converted” anyone over to my way of thinking, it was simply by being myself, and letting my values shine thru my actions. You’d be amazed how effective that is. Live your own life, and if those around you see that and resonate with it, they will make their own choices right?
One last thought- To anybody who still believes that we should all be invisible and silent and let people run their own paths, I ask, who are your occultic and spiritual role models? Whether it’s Crowley or Christ, Leary or LeVey, odds are you have a few. Where would you be if they had been silent?
Ok, I’ll stop now. Sorry I’m so verbose. I just feel very strongly about this particular issue….
July 19th, 2005 at 7:26 pm
Chill baby, nobody attacked anybody. At least not in my original piece on the topic. I meant to start a discussion not a flame war.
July 19th, 2005 at 7:33 pm
Heh… I think he was referring to the comments Fell left on Key23… I am not even actively part of that community and I felt offended.
Actually, I think betrayed was how most people felt, as Fell does seem ot be one of “us” ( a very nebulous term, but apt, I believe), which made his criticism seem even more harsh. I may be alone on that, but it’s how I took it.
July 19th, 2005 at 7:39 pm
Oh I actually didn’t see that, but he’s his own man… got any links?
I think something that all of us take for granted though (myself included) is that we’re talking about stuff here that is really emotionally charged. Beliefs and values go right to the core of our identities. Everybody’s really accustomed to treading lightly because of that. And to some extent I agree, but on another I feel like the conversation sometimes gets crippled because we’re all too scared of offending each other or triggering an emotional outburst. I mean, really it’s just to be expected. There are obviously good ways and bad ways to do this though. And I’m trying myself to figure out what the good ones are and how much is too much and when do we just toss out the critique and hold hands.
July 19th, 2005 at 7:43 pm
J. Puma, You have some very valuable points about community building. But I’d suggest that there’s a difference between building your avergae local community and trying to connect occultists to share ideas and inspire some sort of real world action. Hanging out and drinking coffe is great. But if you only talk about shit that matters with friends, then isn’t that the ultimate choir preaching?
Personally, I enjoy culture jamming. It’s just a way to shake up people’s expectations. They may or may not get the message, but at least their day will be a bit weirder. And I feel that some of them do get the message.
Ok, here’s the workflow: Johnny has an odd experience on the subway that makes him reconsider something his parents/teachers told him as truth. At 17 he’s only just starting to question his entrained reality but is increasingly feeling like a misfit amongst family and peers. Across from him a stranger is reading a book called Join My Cult! (or Illumintaus!, or Generation Hex, etc etc) which touches something un-namable in Johnny’s head. A yearning. He steps off the subway and see’s a sticker that says “ULTRACULTURE”. For whatever subtle reason this message sticks with him. He goes online, finds a discussion group with the same name and starts asking questions. He talks to other kids having similar odd experiences. He gets advice and guidance from folks who’ve been heading down the path for some time. Books to read. Music to listen to. Rituals to experiiment with. Techniques to avoid having your head blown apart and ending up in an asylum.
Nobody is trying to create a religion or offer salvation with Ultraculture. It’s just a portal. A meeting point where people can hopefully come together and exchange ideas about occulture. The key is that it goes beyond the web and encourages meatspace meetups, gatherings, events, couplings, etc. A community of people connected by the undeniable realization of mysticism.
July 19th, 2005 at 7:51 pm
I dig what you’re saying LVX. But if I might interpret on behalf of Jeremy (and myself) what we’re saying is that why use the internet, stickers etc to “encourage meatspace meetings”. Why not just go straight for the meatspace meetings? Why do we even need to call it meatspace? It’s real life. It comes first, not second. Why can’t we sit down with somebody we don’t know that well (or a good friend) and simply talk to them and be close with them? Why does that conversation need to necessarily revolve around ideas about the occult or mysticism? If we want a “unified front” then we’ll never agree on which brand of magick or which types of esoteric inquiry is the right one. But can’t we all agree that simple human values cut across everything else?
Why does somebody need to get involved in the occult if they have a dozen friends who would lay down their life for them and vice versa? Why does somebody need to read Robert Anton Wilson when they are out there already living conscientiously and setting an example for everybody around them?
July 19th, 2005 at 7:54 pm
Here’s the thread. Fell’s comment is number 14.
And sorry, I don’t mean to turn this thread into a flame war. I’d rather discuss valuable criticisms then defend against random insults.
July 19th, 2005 at 7:57 pm
you got it right on, tim. (and i must say i despise the term ‘meatspace.’). i have more to say on ths subject, but it’ll have to wait as i’m headin’ out the door into meatspace.
btw, as for the pyramid dude, it’s been effective enough in creating a buzz over here.
July 19th, 2005 at 8:06 pm
Ding Ding Ding!
That’s a winner for me…. And exactly what I was getting at with the “lead by example” part. My 5 year old knows damn well he’s made of energy, and that with his mind he can affect the world around him, ala Matrix. He can almost read Dr. Suess now, so he has never touched Wilson.
There are a lot of ways to wake people up to their own ability.
But then, shoudn’t we employ as many methods as possible? Not looking at numbers so much as just achieving the 51% we need for a decent shift…. Before it gets any uglier.
The only thing I would be able to comeback to on your above statement, Tim, would be “They may be living conscientiously, but are they living CONSCIOUSLY?”
July 19th, 2005 at 8:06 pm
Because the internet exists. It’s a valuable tool for communication and information exchange. Why not use it? Same with stickers and any other communicative technology. You have to know where the “meatspace” meetings are in order to attend, right? You have to invite people and know people to invite. I know a lot of people online that I’ve never met in person. I’ve been trying to make it a priority to actually meet some of them. And it is real life but the term meatspace acknowledges that a lot of things happen only online with no real connection to real life. I’d like to see the two worlds interpenetrate more.
Your questions seem very binary to me. Why is everything either or? I have great friends who are into magick and I have even better friends who don’t really care about it. We all hang out and drink and laugh and share about emotions and life and love. And I get in deep conversations about spirit and politics and religion and evolution. Sometimes at the same gatherings. Sometimes with completely different people. You can have great friends and a great life and still be looking for something more. There are vast forces and energies afoot in the cosmos. Friends can’t explain them all. Magick is a set of tools, a school, that tries to offer greater meaning and integration with the dizzying world within and without us.
July 19th, 2005 at 8:41 pm
I think getting involved in the occult is a calling. Seemingly random events begin to organize themselves around certain people that guide them towards magick. It’s not for everyone. I like to think that any magickal agitprop I engage in or encourage might create one of those synchronicities in someone else’s life that will cause them to question the fabric of reality a bit more.
It’s not so much about turning people on to Crowley or Spare or Leary or Wilson (though they all have great info to offer, IMHO). It’s about empowering people to question themselves, their fears and hatred, their laws and rulers, and to get out and actually open up to the experience of nature. Maybe if enough people move in this direction over time, we won’t be dealing with as