Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Dunkeldood

[1] 2 ... 4
Metal / Re: Autopsy confirmed for Maryland Deathfest 2010
« on: August 23, 2009, 05:59:52 PM »
That line-up is no joke.  May be time for a metal Hajj.

Haha, seriously. This line up is awesome news.

Interzone / Re: Free and legal metal downloads
« on: August 20, 2009, 10:31:13 AM »

Interzone / Re: Movies replace reality
« on: August 18, 2009, 05:37:44 PM »
I've noticed people increasingly adopting stereotypical emotional or personal narratives from movies instead of actually experiencing and defending ones personal knowledge of real life themselves. This is incredibly frustrating when trying to converse with someone who when called on to explain or defend their beliefs simply winds up in disbelief that you don't also adopt and accept the unreal narratives everyone else doesn't have any problem with. I've noticed this a lot with people who have "personality disorders," it's as if they often can't function because their assumed narrative they project onto reality doesn't interface very well with what is actually real and it leaves them feeling scared, empty, or purposeless. It's unfortunate because ultimately people are not able to appreciate what is simple and real (or just plain more direct and honest than the fake, oversimplified movie narratives), whether that be the beauty of nature, discourse on the human condition, a simple hobby like learning an instrument or skill, scientific achievement, or what have you.

Instead of appreciating their lives for what they are people demand and are fed abbreviated versions of meaningful things in increasingly more compressed and immediate forms, which seem to have to be be consumed without respite so as not to be "bored" with the stagnant and homogenous state of industrialized society. Not sure if anyone here is a comic book fan, but I've found the movie adaptations of Alan Moore's comic books to be particularly pointless and disturbing as superhero narratives in movies have become more and more popular. For those that are unfamiliar, Alan Moore's comic books stand out in the medium as very insightful works on society, history, human thinking and so on. In other words they aren't your typical comic book. Anyway, I've only seen one or two of these films and I didn't need to see anymore. It left me wondering why someone would transfer an incredibly creative, unique, insightful, visually very engaging work that in itself was perfect in its medium simply because people were too fucking inept to seek it out or understand it (and of course money).

Obviously many great books have been made into movies but I bring up these comic book movies because they're particularly exploited these days and completely stripped of their original integrity (movies that adapt novels are sometimes an alternate look at a book, not just an empty shell stuffed with hollywood bullshit) and it leaves me wondering why. I've also noticed, I really wish I hadn't, that television is now mostly all reality TV shows, even the only interesting channels like History and Discovery (thank someone there is a Science channel that seems to retain some value). It's no wonder people confuse reality with simple, unreal narratives, they watch people on TV seemingly living them out in "real life" every single day! It's really disturbing to me because, like the recent article posted on "seeking" or sheer information addiction, this behavior dilutes the human capacity for insight, understanding and communication. Most people depend with their lives on scientific achievement, even "get off" on it with television, gadgets, the internet, etc. as is suggested in the other article I mentioned, yet people exist in a mental state that completely blurs supernatural fantasy with the natural world so there is little discrimination between the two, and especially a severe lack of appreciation for the unique, individual value of each. I realize I have rambled, but in closing for a real kick check out the movie "10,000 B.C.", I watched it purely because I heard it was so inaccurate and it is really mind blowing that people could actually accept that kind of stuff as fact.

Metal / Re: Autopsy confirmed for Maryland Deathfest 2010
« on: August 15, 2009, 10:57:24 PM »
I agree that a one time show could be most awesome. I thought that the new tracks were a cool return to the past but I'm not looking forward to a whole new album, I doubt that's the path they'll take.

Metal / Re: Autopsy confirmed for Maryland Deathfest 2010
« on: August 14, 2009, 02:49:18 PM »
But is it really good news that Autopsy will reform for this gig? I have tremendous respect for Chris Reifert (a true individual who does things his own way) and Autopsy's mutant Death/ Doom stylings and thus I genuinely hope this doesn't end in yet another pointless reformation and new lacklusture album; a trend all too common amongst most great bands from the 80s/ 90s. I am delighted I missed Celtic Frost's come back, I hasten to add...

Have you heard the new material? I thought it was pretty good.

Interzone / Re: Religion in Modern America
« on: August 08, 2009, 05:19:04 AM »
The reason I refer to the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus is because of the childish, ridiculous nature of religion's cartoon characters (like the cartoon character Jesus) and its cartoon-like, simplified view of the world.

I think the reason why this upsets people is because it's an anachronism. The only reason why you would juxtapose the Easter bunny with religion is because it serves as an argument by analogy. Both are examples of supernatural beliefs that are equally unfounded. However, in no other way do I see it constructive to compare these two things and I don't think anyone here is seriously going to argue against the irrationality of the unfounded belief in either.

What makes religion unique is how it is inextricably bonded with our existence. If you take the Easter bunny out of the history of civilization I don't think it would matter that much, but if you took all of religion out then who knows what our lives would look like. I doubt they'd be as good as they are now, at least from the standpoint of our level of comfortability and understanding of the observable universe, among many other factors. Whether we like it or not, religion is the foundation for the philosophy and morality of our civilization which has organized us and led us to produce all of the great ideas, technology and scientific achievements in the history of humanity. There is much knowledge to be gained from religion; knowledge about how people think, hope, desire and dream, how they want to be treated, how they deal with life, how one can train ones mind to focus and perceive more and effectively work and share things with others, let alone many other things. Comparing someone/something like Jesus to the Easter bunny beyond the example I made above (which I think has been beaten into the ground) is ridiculous.

I still think that the original post is an unnecessary dichotomy. Science has already begun to replace religion, otherwise you'd probably see a lot more employed shamans and a lot less hospitals, and I think having to side between religion and science is again another unnecessary dichotomy. What led people to found science as a worldview is the same passion and fervor that religion has, or had, for experiencing the unknown or even divine. Consider children trying to reach a cookie jar on top of a counter. They have to work together, possibly without knowing they're going to be successful but they do it because they think the goal is worth it. Maybe when the kid on top of the other kid's shoulders reaches the cookie jar he realizes something about the cookie jar that the other kid doesn't know; let's say the kid on the bottom never even finds out whether there was a cookie jar or not. Both still want, and always wanted, the cookies and that's the point. Obviously you see what I'm saying, something RedReign (I believe) actually pointed out when he/she said religion is a basic form of science, but I'd like to add to it. I don't think it matters whether one wants the cookies because they will give the person contentment or because the cookies taste good or they have some kind of nutritional value. We all want explanations for the unknown and those that need supernatural crutches will undoubtedly be left behind along with all the unemployed witch doctors.

What has brought us to our current understanding of the universe in the first place is no different for religion or science, we've already left behind our fear of a supernatural force that cleanses us of evildoers, and we're still here and relatively okay. As others have said, why exactly do we need something to replace God? I would argue that science already has (begun to) and it is worshipped just as much, although very different in practice. I believe what we need is a lifestyle, understanding, or philosophy worthy of what science has given us freely, that which we squander like the abundance of energy and technology. It is ultimately irrelevant whether the symbolism we use to achieve this is religiously based or otherwise, frankly, we should be well versed in as much knowledge as is relevant to communicate effectively with all people. I also don't think an increased appreciation of science has necessarily lead to an obsession with materialism. Humans have abused both religion and science for personal, basic desires and certainly the abuse of religion has led to unnecessary conflict and destruction. Instead of allowing science to become another scapegoat I think we should focus on aligning it with a sustainable lifestyle and worldview that will continue to allow us and future generations to push our knowledge of the known universe as far as we are able and whether this is imbued with religious philosophy and symbolism is irrelevant.

Interzone / Re: Religion in Modern America
« on: August 04, 2009, 10:24:15 PM »
Incredibly engaging thread. There are a lot of points I want to reply to and I'll try to do my best. I'll start with the initial post:

Religion no longer matters on any other scale than the individual.
Sure, there are billions of people actively involved in church, temple, etc. And billions more that practice praying or confessing or Good Fridays or whatever.
But who do they do it for?
A society?- Does the collective believe that if they do not follow their religion that God (or whatever holds the power) will punish them as a whole? With droughts or disease or other such things? And if they do follow God's will that they will be 'blessed' with things that help the community? (rain for crops, good health, etc)?
No, no one living in the modern world practices religion for such reasons ANYMORE. These are old ways. Ways that are no longer in practice.

This is a false dichotomy. Religion is ingrained in most every culture on the planet and doesn't necessarily exist for individuals or because societies on the whole believe they will be punished by an irrational, supernatural force.

If the fear of God no longer holds us back, what will?

I'm cutting to your conclusion to save space, although I am considering your entire post. Again, all I see is a fallacious argument. You're jumping to a conclusion not founded on history or reality. For example, I could easily answer this question by saying any of the following: the judicial system, police, the military, the government, other countries, the united nations, a desire for order, the basic tendency people have to avoid conflict and to strive for contentment, etc. There are many, many more factors to consider than those presented in your argument. Religion is a tool, and it has been used and abused throughout history. The state of religion in modern America is the result of thousands of years of progress and being a tool it serves a function it has evolved to serve. That function may be personal, spiritual development for some, the glue that binds certain communities together, a convenient story to help people cope, a method of social control, a meme that helps us to relate to others, and so on. There is no simple way to sum these things up as is the premise of your argument. Religion is very multi-faceted and whether or not the examples I've mentioned are sufficient, I'm sure they at least scratch the surface of the actual complexity of the issue.

What if this fear was conceptualized in another way, for example, as respect?

In my research on ancient culture and religion, I tend to find that the fear and control aspects were overstated by 20th century thinkers within their various leftist, liberal or humanist schools of dogma. Much of ancient tradition was held together by awe and reverence, with all of its positive connotations.

I understand where you're coming from, but I still think the majority of religious traditions operated under a real fear of the supernatural, and those that claimed to arbitrate between the supernatural and the rest of the population pretty much always used this position to their own advantage resulting in corrupt ruling classes. This "corruption" may not even be what we think of corruption today since these arbiters would have believed in the supernatural forces themselves and the majority of people would have probably led relatively similar lives even if there wasn't a religious hierarchical component, but as this supernatural component of society arbitrated by the minority, the ruling class and/or priesthood, was not as genuine as people were led to believe there would have always been a major disconnect between this minority and the general population resulting in the consistent wars, uprisings and overthrown kingdoms we observe in ancient history. I can see I'm trying to sum up something of great depth in too few words, but while I agree that these ancient societies may have carried on religious traditions that were more positive or healthy than may be misrepresented by some modern thinkers, they were ultimately shaped by ruling classes that had their own interests in mind, most often using fear of the supernatural to pursue these interests.

Religion's here to stay, folks. You don't have to like it, but it's not going away. It's nice to know facts about the world, for which science is great, but facts without context are meaningless. Knowing the difference in the distances to the sun at the apogee and perigee of the earth's orbit doesn't provide the bearer of that knowledge with a purpose to use that knowledge towards. The universe is meaningless - religion is a method of imbuing it with a meaning.

That's right.  Science only shows us HOW, not WHY.  Maybe there are some tough guys out there who claim they don't need a WHY, but I guarantee that long-term, big picture, for humanity, in general, WE NEED A "WHY."  It doesn't necessarily have to be "religious" in nature or imply the existence of a God, but we need a WHY, and science can't give it to us.  As Nietzsche said, if we have our WHY, we will take almost any HOW.

To both posters, I believe you're trying to assert something without fully defining your terms. How do you define "how" and "why?" What's to say the how and why aren't the same thing? Or that our assumption there is a separate "how" and "why" isn't just some semantic, or other type of fallacy? In this case you've simply downplayed the value of either religion or what you call the "why" by aligning it with a vague and unnecessary concept of meaning beyond the tested and observed meaning we see in things all around us. Science has a very definite, meaningful context, why demand or assume that there must be some other underlying metaphysical narrative, to what we as humans perceive, beyond the natural and the real?

Quote from: Istaros
Religion's here to stay, folks. You don't have to like it, but it's not going away.

Actually, amazingly, this is not the case.  Fewer young people-- drastically fewer-- call themselves religious or spiritual than ever before.

I've noticed that you've used this as an example that religion is not going to stick around forever in this thread, but I think a far superior one is all of the religious traditions that are already gone, either literally or in the complete lack of their observance or practice. There is much evidence that as much as people want to believe their particular religion bears some ultimate, supernatural, immortal truth, many others have believed the exact same thing, for similarly irrational reasons, and they and/or their beliefs have completely died out.

Read Evola, Guenon, Schuon, Meister Eckhart and the Bhagavad Gita for some authentic spirituality

By "authentic" do you mean that it has some evidence supporting it?

If by evidence you mean empirical evidence, then no, of course not. If there was empirical evidence, then we would be dealing with the physical dimension, not the metaphysical dimension. The basis for metaphysical knowledge is intellectual intuition.

Quote from: Frithjof Schuon
The metaphysical perspective is based on intellectual intuition, which by its very nature is infallible because it is a vision by the pure intellect, whereas profane philosophy operates only with reason, hence with logical assumptions and conclusions.  


Terms like "metaphysical knowledge" and "intellectual intuition" are purposely vague because they do not refer to anything that can be known rationally and are essentially irrelevant unless connected to some knowable definition. If by metaphysical dimension you mean supernatural dimension then you might as well call it anything; the [insert word] dimension, because there's no way anyone can know what you're talking about. If this is the case, that it is something outside the physical or natural world and therefore by definition unknowable, unobservable and untestable, then it doesn't mean anything. Any attempt to rationalize the existence of these things would simply be applying a real definition to an otherwise nebulous and pointless phrase.

How would spirituality help science, or with more precision, human life?

Let's suppose we have a flower in front of us, and we wish to understand it. Through a scientific method, in an objective mindset, we will study it chemically, botanically, mathematically, etc. That will bring us a a series of data about the flower, a series of abstractions. We understand the flower through its materially quantifiable constitution. But, if we gather all these dissected data from nothing , does it gives bring us the emotional approach to the flower (its beauty)?.

The spiritual  approach to the flower is immediate, non-logical (not illogical), doesn't bring such detail, but it allows an identification with the flower, and subsequently, with the cosmos and the "Being". That's why some religious people talk about a "wider" approach to reality.

Yes, the scientist is able to perceive such beauty (he has a soul) but spirituality is a potentation of this capacity, which in an ultimate matter, doesn't affects his scientific capability.

The flower's beauty, as you describe it, is not something that is an intrinsic part of the flower.  You are describing a phenomenon that is related to how the sight, smell, etc. of a flower causes a reaction in a human being (specifically their brain).  This can be understood scientifically by observing the various stimuli of the flower and the reactions they cause in the human brain.

I will concede that it is not necessary or useful to always look at the world scientifically, but whenever someone adamantly insists that their "truths" exist outside the domain of science, it's usually because they're full of shit.  And spirituality is one of the biggest culprits.

I would agree but add that we look at the world scientifically, i.e. rationally, regardless of whether we want to or not. As another poster pointed out, religion is just an early form of science. People look at the world, observe phenomena, and explain that phenomena. We have gotten better at aligning our understanding or model of causality with the observed phenomena itself, whether you call it nature or reality or what have you, but one thing we never do is fully abandon this understanding. Spiritual "truths" are usually fallacious, but I would argue that all perceived truth comes from a concept of causality, it is simply a matter of how well this concept or model fits with what is consistently observed, or the actual causality.

I will concede that it is not necessary or useful to always look at the world scientifically, but whenever someone adamantly insists that their "truths" exist outside the domain of science, it's usually because they're full of shit.  And spirituality is one of the biggest culprits.

Yet the problem with science, as we found on the Eugenics list, is that it's inherently reductionist and thus linear in thought, which means it's great for details and utterly useless for tying them together. It's also useless for prescriptive decisions; it can tell us why something happens, and how to get a detail to repeat, but not much about systemic architecture, architectonics or structural design.

Fuck science. It's a false god too.

I apologize but I simply don't understand your point. Could you elaborate? Are you talking about the inability of science to offer a unified theory? What exactly are you suggesting should supplement science (if that's what you're suggesting)?

After all, if you have any kind of value system, like a two-year-old, I could just keep asking "why do you believe that?" and you would run out of answers.

If you examine this reasoning you'll find that one would run out of answers because the answer you're looking for could have never existed to begin with.

Without irrational, unfounded, metaphysical meaning (Baldr) in my life, I would find myself in a state of permanent existential crisis, unable even to feed myself, because I cannot prove there is a good reason to. Don't waste time by saying "instinct," it's just as unfounded.

addendum: Valuing rationality and truth is irrational and has no logical or scientific basis. At some point you're going to have to accept the fact that you are a mere human being, with subjective experiences, unreasonable preferences, and will not always be completely right about everything. It is forgivable.

You're assuming something that doesn't exist, a supernatural reason, and running your logic into the ground because you can't use logic to prove something supernatural in the first place.

If you value your life, then you can objectively prove they are worth doing.

Even the sense of accomplishment one gets from physical accomplishments, even the valuing of one's own life, even the valuing of music and culture (which is likely why you're here, whoever is reading this), even the valuing of a realistic understanding of the universe are all completely irrational and unfounded by empirical evidence. The valuing of these things comes from a metaphysical mindset, which someone can hold, even as they call it a steaming pile of shit.

No it doesn't. You're making a completely unnecessary assumption. All of those things can be explained rationally. You don't even have an argument, you're just making fallacious statements based on the fact that you're assuming a priori the existence of something supernatural or metaphysical.

Religion is primitive science.  It's a collection of lies that attempt to explain the universe.  

Like I said above, religion is not science at all. The two do completely different things. One sees how the physical world works - using experimentation and observation. With it we can figure out HOW to do things. Spirituality/Metaphysics uses intuition, anecdotal evidence from other cultures, and it even evolves (cultures with workable values thrive, cultures with unworkable values, or none, die). It's goal is to give us a reason WHY to do things. Using both of them, we can find WHAT to do (what is physically possible and metaphysically valuable). That's why religion shouldn't be used to disseminate objective or physical information (I know it was in the past and sometimes still is) and scientists shouldn't tell us what's right or wrong (Like showing racial lines are more related than we thought, so we should all just get along).

Hasn't this distinction been made a few times in this same thread before? Why do I need to repeat it?

Because you don't even understand the point you're trying to assert. Simply try to identify what metaphysics, spirituality and intuition are and you'll realize the instance you have you will have rationalized them and placed them back in the natural, observable world. As long as you leave them purposely undefined and undefinable, they might as well not exist, which they clearly don't in the context that you are asserting them to.

(I've responded to the points above because I found them particularly interesting or in other cases, somewhat flawed. Sorry for the long post but I enjoyed reading this thread and responding to these different points, looking forward to more discussion.)

Metal / Re: Deathcore/Death Metal
« on: August 01, 2009, 12:46:51 PM »
Someone just made me watch a Psycroptic video.  I'm not buying the singer's toughguy act.  I'm not buying their distortion.

It's something-- what it is may even have merit from a mathrock perspective-- but it's not metal.

I have The Isle of Disenchantment by them, which I like, but that's all I've heard. I'm not sure if I really understand the concept of deathcore and I kind of vaguely understand what metalcore is.

Metal / Re: WDNFRA (Band)
« on: August 01, 2009, 02:00:26 AM »
So here it goes
Straight up in your face
Wondering why does nobody
fuckin rocks anymore!

They're so lame, who to blame
Feel this reign, then you wont be the same
Call it sick, call it heavy, kill yourself
Really I dont give a damn

God could be different
Since he exists
Only in our minds
We just gotta believe

It's Chaotic Madness
All 'bout this so fuck the rest
No need to breath no need to watch
All you need is to fuck up this place

Somethin better for you to do?!
If you say no then start to move
And if you're still standing right there
Then shut the fuck you're just a queer

Yeah Shut the fuck youre just a Queer!

Man these lyrics really speak to me.

Metal / Re: Decline in metal popularity?
« on: July 30, 2009, 02:47:09 PM »
The graph of underground metal seems really erratic. What's up with that?

I'm assuming it's a relatively uncommon term compared to the others.

Interzone / Re: Exterminate all the hipsters
« on: July 30, 2009, 12:07:16 AM »

I would put Bone Awl in there somewhere as well.

Did they also fabricate a story?  I thought they just bored everybody with ILDARN + house beat "black metal."

No, I just consider them to be on par with the others mentioned as far as hipster black metal goes. Particularly Bone Awl, and now that I think of it Drowning the Light as well are bands that instantly come to mind. They both have a large catalogue of "cult" releases (often tapes and 7") for being such recent bands and it's all completely uninspired bandwagon music. Bone Awl, from what I understand is literally what hipsters imagine black metal to be, some kind of dressed up minimalist punk/noise that in my opinion is way too much of a compliment to compare to any Ildjarn material. Drowning the Light on the other hand is typical bedroom black metal that desperately tries to identify with a previously established image, whether that be NS, satanic, or simply being a band that makes limited ebay worthy releases, because it has no inherent substance itself; really pathetic.

edit: Responding to these bands misrepresenting themselves, I don't think they've fabricated any major stories outright or anything like Velvet Cacoon or Nargaroth have, but it is pretty clear to me that they have nothing to do with metal. They seem to be in it just to identify themselves with the image (whatever it is they think that is...) or the scene, for popularity's sake.

Interzone / Re: Exterminate all the hipsters
« on: July 29, 2009, 07:23:33 PM »
Of course this group soon sadly ran out of gas (diesel).


I would put Bone Awl in there somewhere as well.

Interzone / Re: Free and legal metal downloads
« on: July 29, 2009, 05:56:43 PM »

Interzone / Re: "Freedom": revenge against those who want order
« on: July 29, 2009, 05:41:58 PM »
I agree with pretty much everything said thusfar. I'd also add that I don't think people even really want (or need) freedom. They think they do, but when they're exposed to real freedom they're impotent and incapable of functioning. Obviously you have to consider varying meanings of freedom for various types of people, but ultimately peoples' minds are finite and they come to a place of feeling free by overcoming relatively small (in the grand scheme of things) but significant obstacles. Who knows, eventually maybe all obstacles can be overcome, but that state of freedom doesn't come from importing freedom into your life or your society, it comes from freeing your mind and life from the obstacles they are already constantly plagued with. The internet is a perfect example of a freedom that people think they want, but certainly don't need. Most people treat the internet like a playground for overloading on stimuli, and the result is that instead of the quality of the stimuli being most important (good music, talented people, intelligent people, good movies), the quantity of the stimuli becomes the focus (how much music, how cheap, how many monkeys spinning how many plates). In reality this becomes life threatening, like the consequences of global warming, whereas I think for all of us our core value systems are based on selectivity by necessity, the things we care about and pay attention to are simply better to us than any other option. Unfortunately there are a lot of people (politicians, corporations, popular media) that profit by deceiving us of this simple fact; we already know what we fucking want, we don't need you to tell us what that is or offer us an unlimited amount of it and/or versions of it. In this case opting for "freedom" really is enslavement.

Interzone / Re: Playing instruments to release stress
« on: July 29, 2009, 05:04:34 PM »
A central idea of Buddhism (yes I realise I have been prattling on about Buddhism) is taking a very positive emotion and making that one's default state. Then from this new position one finds a more positive emotion and reaches for that in a never ending cycle. I suppose the main difference between this and the will to power is Nietzsche makes it sound like a battle where Buddhist thought makes it seem like a peaceful journey. Then regardless of what happens around you one can maintain that same level of peace whether you are sniffing the roses or awaiting your execution. Essentially you are expected to be in a state of meditation while one does any task. Thus doing anything can be a form of meditation and to link this to the thread's topic anything can be a form of stress relief ergo playing instruments can be a form of stress relief.

As an aside there are certain branches of Zen Buddhism that meditate while playing instruments.

Traditional Indian music also has a long tradition of being a meditative practice, or having a meditative component. I would bet that's where the idea came from in the first place, also probably having evolved from ancient tribal traditions where music and ritual was a way of transcending material boundaries and interacting with spirits/deities. I find playing an instrument to be very meditative sometimes. I often feel like my mind has been recalibrated and instead of outward stressors being any different themselves, my mind can perceive them for what they are instead of the narrative I've created around them.

[1] 2 ... 4