Thanks, Knygatin, for the clarification. I had the feeling that you meant the baser types, such as the LaVeyans, but I wanted to be sure. I myself was surprised to discover the variety of beliefs that fall under the heading of "Satanism" when I looked into the subject.

Absquatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 4. Joshi is halfway through a comprehensive
> two-volume history of supernatural literature. It
> is to cover the period of Gilgamesh to the
> present.

Did he mention who would publish this set?

Eldritch Frog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Absquatch Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 4. Joshi is halfway through a comprehensive
> > two-volume history of supernatural literature.
> It
> > is to cover the period of Gilgamesh to the
> > present.
>
> Did he mention who would publish this set?

There is no publisher yet, although PS Publishing are interested.

I too won't re-ignite the science/scepticism vs religion/spiritualism debate, as there have already been enough of those on this forum and others, and little if anything is ever gained; however I think Knygatin raises some interesting points which don't go over the usual ground and has done so in such a reasonable and thought provoking way, I can't help answering...

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> It is a fact that narrow-minded persons who only
> look upon things from their small perspective of
> private interest, will more easily become
> emotionally upset and out of balance when an
> incident goes against them, than a person who has
> a wider perspective and therefore is better able
> to keep an emotional equilibrium to individual
> events, since he sees that they only are passing
> incidents in a greater context.

I totally agree, although I hardly think scientists and sceptics are incapable of taking a wider perspective...

> Now, a
> scientifically educated person, who has the same
> incident go against him, may start to reason, to
> put things in perspective and try reduce his
> emotional upset, but he isn't likely to fully
> succeed very well, unless he is also spiritually
> developed. (In spite of all his knowledge, he may
> be just as narrow-minded from a practical
> personality standpoint.) The difference between
> scientific knowledge, and spiritual wisdom, is
> that the former must rationally mentally argue his
> ideas, while the latter has the knowledge
> integrated in him, like riding a bicycle.

I fail to see why a scientific perspective should result in this... maybe a pessimistic one would, but other than that... I guess you could argue in cases of set backs involving mortality that a spiritual perspective might offer some kind of comfort, but (even if that is true - which I very much doubt) I find the cost of having to put my critical faculties into neutral too higher cost to pay. But the problem I really have with this view is that it seems to require binary thinking: all spiritualists are intuitive and have a wider perspective, while all scientists are logic-ridden robots with no intuition... Surely the truth is both spiritualists and scientists can have knowledge and wisdom... also do rationality and knowledge have no function in wisdom... I'd argue that wisdom without reason and knowledge probably doesn't exist.

> Just like there are people whose minds are gifted,
> for example at sports, running after a puck on the
> ice or trixing a ball, or at being sensitive to
> grasping musical harmonies, or a talented artist's
> ability to grasp proportions and the overall as
> when painting a portrait (in contrast to the
> amateur who gets stuck in details, forever
> doodling over an eye or mouth, refusing to
> understand the importance of proportion),

Slightly off topic, but: While I can accept that there are those who are more naturally predisposed to sport, music, art, science... I think it is practice, opportunity and motivation that really separates the gifted from the journeymen. Indeed sport is littered with examples of less naturally gifted sportsmen, who through perseverance have excelled and beaten their more naturally gifted competition. Of course an artist's artistic vision is different from someone claiming an ability to speak with the dead or whatever (not that you've mentioned anything distinctly supernatural in your post), as an artist makes no claims to see things beyond mortal ken... whereas most Spiritualists are obsessed with being perceived as being special or being gifted in some way that makes them better from the rest of humanity in some pseudo-Nietzschean power fantasy.

> there a
> people whose minds are gifted in the way that they
> more easily have an overlook on Life, putting
> individual incidents in perspective, "seeing" or
> having an equilibrium stance from a broader
> space/time perspective, stretching out towards
> Eternity. But those who can't see in this way, or
> are rigidly steeped in materialistic science,
> can't comprehend such an ability, and therefore
> deny it.

None of what you describe is particularly hard to comprehend from any perspective, least of all a scientific one. At the risk of sounding offensive, but I'd argue that you are a wee bit guilty of projecting your own negative assumptions onto materialist scientist... What you seem to be talking about is 'imagination' - something all human beings have to a greater or lesser degree and not something that I think is limited to non-scientists/sceptics? Surely the General Theory of Relativity attempts to describe in real terms what you describe, surely it is a fine piece of imaginative and intuitive thinking... Just as many other scientific theories are of course and just as many supernatural beliefs aren't.

> Spiritual development, (explained as concretely as
> I find possible) is basically about getting past
> the surface layers of mentally and emotionally
> conditioned thought-patterns that force us into
> compulsory social- and decision-making-
> behaviours. Shedding these conditioned layers that
> make us look out on reality through heavily
> colored lenses, to reach at the deeper untainted
> mind. It's like peeling away an onion, layer after
> layer. To increased conscious purification.

Here I like your definition of spiritual development. There is quite often an assumption that atheists lack spirituality... obviously when it comes to belief in the supernatural they do, but in relations of what you describe here... well, I can get with it! I'm sure others can too.

> Being
> a scientifically educated person, reading books,
> and gathering scientic knowledge, improve our
> ability for reasoning and arguing, but doesn't
> automatically remove such layers of compulsory
> behaviour, that have been built up from early age,
> because we continue to build upon the old.

Agreed, but education doesn't preclude it either.

> It may
> instead require meditation, . . . prayer, . . .
> deep reflection, . . . that goes beyond mere
> rational reasoning, to reach at the subtly devious
> unconscious states that have been conditioned into
> our persons and are blocking us from a pure
> outlook, and become consciously aware of them like
> drawing trolls out into the sunlight.

It may... but it may not..

> The spiritually enlighted person (rare), has
> gotten past all such conditioned compulsions, and
> is clean, looking out on life completely
> openminded, and without compulsory judgment.
> Therefore he has inner peace. He is in contact
> with his pure inner core, and therefore with the
> Whole, as the microcosm reflects the macrocosm.
> (Mind you, he hasn't lost his education of
> scientific knowledge because of this, but has a
> healthy perspective on it, like an observer, freed
> from being compulsively hamstrung.)

Maybe what you call a spiritually enlightened person might do this, but I'm afraid I don't think most Spiritualists do. The one's I've met have been naive at best, ignorant and uneducated at worst: usually embracing the worst kind of conspiracy and supernatural nonsense with no hint of discrimination whatsoever. I'd also argue that it is quite possible to retain a healthy distance from science without also having a supernatural belief. There is plenty of debate within science itself. Now if this 'healthy perspective' is being 'spiritually enlighted' then fair enough... I don't think I'd call it that, but I'm not going to argue with having this perspective.

> If you didn't somewhere inside you have a spark or
> seed of respect for and belief in the spiritual
> aspect of life, even though not consciously aware
> of it, denying it with scientifically conditioned
> surface thinking, I don't think you'd be
> interested in this kind of literature in the first
> place.

Interesting one this... I've often seen it mentioned that supernatural horror requires a reader/viewer to believe on some level with the impossible (a claim usually uttered by those trying to discredit genre fiction), but this doesn't ring true... The first really scary film I saw was The Omen, which scared me so much I didn't sleep all night (I was only 10)... but even at that time I was essentially an atheist (and probably for as many intuitive reasons than material scientific reasons), yet I was scared anyway. At no point did I start believing in Satan or God, but still it scared the life out of me... So, how did it scare me? Simple: imagination! It is quite possible to loose yourself into a narrative or work of art while not sharing a single one of its values or assumptions. I'd argue that imagination and belief are totally disconnected - because if they were then the greatest artists and thinkers would all be religionists... which of course is far from true.

But, yes - I am interested in the supernatural and supernatural belief. I think (if I've got you right) what you call a 'spiritually developed' person may or may not have supernatural belief and may or may not be a sceptic, although I think you think that it favours those with some acceptance of the supernatural - which I do take issue with. I think what you describe as spirituality, is a slightly wider version of what H.P. Lovecraft called 'cosmic' perspective. I think I prefer his term, but you less dogmatic definition.

Apologies for the stupidly long post!

Eldritch Frog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Did he mention who would publish this set?

From his blog, July 15:

Quote:

S. T. Joshi
I have come to an agreement with PS Publishing to publish my two-volume history of supernatural fiction, tentatively titled Unutterable Horror. The first volume is basically done, but I continue to tinker with it. This volume will be released in late 2011, and the second volume will come out in late 2012. I am still hopeful for a US publisher for this project, and Derrick Hussey of Hippocampus Press has offered to publish it if no other publisher can be found.

The English Assassin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> So, how did it scare me? Simple: imagination! It
> is quite possible to loose yourself into a
> narrative or work of art while not sharing a
> single one of its values or assumptions. I'd argue
> that imagination and belief are totally
> disconnected - because if they were then the
> greatest artists and thinkers would all be
> religionists...

Thought-provoking. I will muse over that. I also think that we have difficulty sorting out the line between imagination and belief inside us. What we have decided consciously, at our surface thinking, that we believe in, isn't worth all. The churning underneath the surface, can say more about where we really stand.

> I think (if I've got you
> right) what you call a 'spiritually developed'
> person may or may not have supernatural belief and
> may or may not be a sceptic, although I think you
> think that it favours those with some acceptance
> of the supernatural - which I do take issue with.
> I think what you describe as spirituality, is a
> slightly wider version of what H.P. Lovecraft
> called 'cosmic' perspective. I think I prefer his
> term, but you less dogmatic definition.

Fair enough. What is is, no matter what superficial terms we choose to describe it. From what I can make out of Lovecraft's person, I think he was a spiritual man (in spite of being emotionally unbalanced in certain situations). He was not a materialist.

The same could probably be said for CAS, but I refrain, because his person is much more evasive and difficult to grasp.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 18 Jul 10 | 06:22PM by Knygatin.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lovecraft's person, I think
> he was a spiritual man

Or rather, spiritually minded, as to how he evaluated life.

I would just like to clarify, that when I speak of the materialistic/atheist — spirtual "opposition" (they don't have to be opposed, but can be combined to understand and handle Life), this can be applied to different areas.

1. Philosophically. What one believes in.

2. How a person actually functions. A materialistic person is attached to objects, measures his life's success and well-being by the things he owns. Money and luxury impress him. He easily becomes obsessive.
What I call a spiritually minded person, is not much interested in material things, but instead in the unseen that goes on in-between the material world, inner experiences, relationships. And the truly spiritual has come a long way in his/her inner development, maturity, and sensitivity to what goes on between and beyond the material objects.


And what one philosofically believes in, doesn't necessarily correlate with how one actually functions.

The edit function has been removed from the website. I need to make a few changes to my above comment, so I post it again:

I would just like to clarify, that when I speak of the materialistic/atheist — spirtual "opposition" (they don't have to be opposed, but can be combined to understand and handle Life), this can be applied to different areas.

1. Philosophically. What one believes in. In a mechanistic-materialist reality, or in God, for example.

2. How a person actually functions in everyday life.
A materialistic person is attached to objects, measures his life's success and well-being by the things he owns. Money and luxury impress him. He easily becomes obsessive.
What I call a spiritually minded person, is not much interested in material things, but instead in the unseen that goes on in-between the material world, inner experiences, relationships. The truly spiritual has come a long way in his/her inner development, maturity, and sensitivity to what goes on between and beyond the material objects.

And what one philosophically believes in, doesn't necessarily correlate with how one actually functions.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> And what one philosophically believes in, doesn't
> necessarily correlate with how one actually
> functions.

I definitely concur - in this respect I think yes, Lovecraft is indeed a spiritual person.