Not had a chance to listen to it yet, but Joshi is interviewed on RM Price's Point of Inquiry podcast > HERE

Amusing, and pathetic - Price's inept scholarship is well known to me - but, indeed, using "weird fiction" as a replacement for religeous writing? - "may the Force be with you" - For those of you who might like a brief ticket for admission to some of the "deeper secrets" - collaterally revealed - I recommend Robert Graves' "King Jesus" - he lets many a cat out of the bag - also in "The White Goddess" - both require deeper scholarship than is commonly available to most - but challenging, and the latter text, after the 10th reading, will begin to yield great rewards, both to the incisive reader, and the aspiring author.

I wish that Joshi would stick to Lovecraft and weird fiction, although Shub-Niggurath knows that he sometimes goofs there, as well.

As an aside, I'd really enjoy hearing Joshi and Price debate the likes of Andrew Louth or David B. Hart--these last would chew them up and spit them out.

As a further aside, one has to love the invitation at the end of the program for parents to send their kids to "Camp Inquiry", where the attendees will be cured of the silly illusions of spirituality, and be indoctrinated instead into the dogma of atheistic materialism and Scientism--a real improvement, that!

Anyway, just so that others do not have to subject themselves to the broadcast, the interesting bits. so far as readers of this forum are likely to be concerned, are as follows:

1. While he acknowledges Lovecraft's racism, Joshi does not believe that it is integral to his work or to a moral evaluation of his character. Indeed, Joshi clearly states that Lovecraft's racism is more an intellectual failing than a moral one.

2. Lovecraft's correspondence with CAS should be published next year.

3. Joshi envisages publishing Lovecraft's complete letters in a 25 (or so)-volume set over the next ten or fifteen years.

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

Remember that while the fox knows many things, the hedgehog knows one big thing.

Absquatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Anyway, just so that others do not have to subject
> themselves to the broadcast, the interesting bits.
> so far as readers of this forum are likely to be
> concerned, are as follows:
>
> 1. While he acknowledges Lovecraft's racism,
> Joshi does not believe that it is integral to his
> work or to a moral evaluation of his character.
> Indeed, Joshi clearly states that Lovecraft's
> racism is more an intellectual failing than a
> moral one.
>
> 2. Lovecraft's correspondence with CAS should be
> published next year.
>
> 3. Joshi envisages publishing Lovecraft's
> complete letters in a 25 (or so)-volume set over
> the next ten or fifteen years.
>
> 4. Joshi is halfway through a comprehensive
> two-volume history of supernatural literature. It
> is to cover the period of Gilgamesh to the
> present.

Well, I think you have boiled down the key points - still, news of the last three points alone (the first just being something you happen to agree with) mean it's hardly a complete waste of time in terms of useful content, I hope...

As for the first point, I am sure I am not the only one who agrees with it. It's an important point, one that takes a fair amount time in the discussion, and I think it's also important to hear one of the leading Lovecraft scholars state it, as opposed the opinions of wanna-be online "scholars" with political agendas who troll message boards.

What actually makes most of the broadcast a waste of time, in my opinion, is listening to two individuals with no competence in philosophy or theology fatuously congratulate themselves about how enlightened they are to be atheistic materialists. Listen for yourselves and judge, though; I certainly don't want to discourage anyone from doing so.

Absquatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What actually makes most of the broadcast a waste
> of time, in my opinion, is listening to two
> individuals with no competence in philosophy or
> theology fatuously congratulate themselves about
> how enlightened they are to be atheistic
> materialists.

This is like requiring one to be a licensed homeopathist before one is allowed to point out that homeopathy is pseudoscience.

"No competence in philosophy or theology"? Allow me to remind you that Joshi has done postgraduate work in classical philosophy, and Price has a PhD in theology.

That's fascinating about Joshi's and Price's backgrounds, which indeed I did not know. That makes their fatuous remarks even less excusable.

Quote:

This is like requiring one to be a licensed homeopathist before one is allowed to point out that homeopathy is pseudoscience.

No, it is more like requiring that someone who states that homeopathy is a pseudo-science actually know something about what homeopathy is.

The forum won't let me edit, for some silly reason, so here's the rest:

When endeavoring to refute Aquinas, for instance, it sort of helps to know what Aquinas's arguments are, and to understand them.

Anyway, I am not going to get into a flame war about all this with you, kids, lest once again the ire of the moderator be roused. I summarized the points in the broadcast that I feel would be of interest and relevance to this forum. Anyone who wishes to listen to the rest of the program, which consists mostly of Price's brown-nosing of Joshi and plugging the latter's superficial atheist tracts, is welcome to do so. Have a ball!

it should not be necessary to add this, but I support neither theists nor atheists, and I stand four-square with CAS when he writes,

Quote:

All human thought, all science, all religion, is the holding of a candle to the night of the universe.

Aye, it's weird to have such respect for Joshi on the one point you agree with him, but on everything else he's a tool because you don't. I wouldn't say the interview was particularly revealing or insightful, but then two people who broadly agree with each other are never going to create the most lively of debates... Equally, I'd agree that their dismissal of all religious writers as being feeble reeked of prejudice to my ears. As for RM Price, while I've not heard it myself, I believe that his Bible Geek cast has a strong following by God-bods and heretic unbelievers alike (or so my ex-Born Again friend tells me). I never understand the argument that you can't criticise religion or be an atheist without having read every religious text under the sun first... it doesn't matter what some 2000 year old superstitious dogma says (and I'm sure there's some pearls of wisdom in there too), it's going to require some better evidence than the testimony of some long dead zealots to make me believe in stuff that there is absolutely no evidence for... neither do you have to read the Communist Manifesto to be a capitalist...

But anyway, I mainly added it here because Joshi is a frequent topic in these forums and therefore thought that it might be of general interest and the added bonus of some publication details was a pleasant surprise.

Well I, for one, rather enjoyed the interview; though I will admit that I didn't find much of it particularly revelatory, I did find it entertaining. So thank you for bringing my attention to it.

As for Absquatch's points -- sadly, as usual, I disagree more than agree there, but as he has stated elsewhere, it is pointless to argue as neither of us is going to convince the other, and most of the things I would choose to say have been said either by myself or by other posters.

Absquatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> 2. Lovecraft's correspondence with CAS should be
> published next year.


Would someone with authority please tell them to include Lovecraft's and Smith's illustrations from the letters. Illustrations were included in Lovecrafts's Selected Letters from Arkham House and in Smith's Letters to Lovecraft from Necronomicon Press. They are an integral part of the letters. If the publication is to be a work of love, rather than just as dutiful effort under pressed time schedule, those illustrations should be included.

I feel that if I, with my lack of standing, write to the publisher, it will just go into the waste basket. That is my experience.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Would someone with authority please tell them to
> include Lovecraft's and Smith's illustrations from
> the letters. Illustrations were included in
> Lovecrafts's Selected Letters from Arkham House
> and in Smith's Letters to Lovecraft from
> Necronomicon Press. They are an integral part of
> the letters. If the publication is to be a work of
> love, rather than just as dutiful effort under
> pressed time schedule, those illustrations should
> be included.
>
> I feel that if I, with my lack of standing, write
> to the publisher, it will just go into the waste
> basket. That is my experience.

Illustrations have been included in the other letter collections, so I think it is a safe bet.

Martinus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Illustrations have been included in the other
> letter collections, so I think it is a safe bet.

I am glad Hippocampus Press chose that path! (I don't have any of their Letter volumes. I was on the brink of buying the Lovecraft/Howard, but it was just too painfully expensive. And honestly, I prioritize other unread books on my shelves. Reading through the Lovecraft/Wandrei volume from Nightshade was a bit much. But the Lovecraft/Smith volume will be a must!!)

As to using art, or "weird fiction", as replacement for religious writing, I think at least Algernon Blackwood's weird fiction is worthy of consideration. It surely goes deeper than "Use the Force, Luke!". Blackwood stirs spiritual longing, and possibly helps the mind of the willing individual towards revelation; Well, perhaps not in a Christian way. But surely down the pagan path. ;) Compared to Arthur Machen, the convinced Christian, who considered Pan to be terror, Blackwood welcomed those forces as benign.

And here is an article about spontaneous spiritual transcendence of the poet and artist;
http://www.tm.org/blog/uncategorized/alfred-lord-tennyson-transcendent-wonder/

A phd in theology may be obtained either with great effort and intense scholarship in ancient linguistics, or by turning in a compendium of existing and contrasting opinions on some minor point to some evangelical bible school -
A similar comment may be made about philosophy as an academic discipline - in the classics, if you can read Greek, and perhaps old persian, you will have made a beginning - similarly, if you can decipher Occam's razor, know who Anselm was and the essence of his though, and have perhaps read Hegel's "phenomenology of Mind" in German - and commented thereupon with some measure of insight - you have made a beginning, but, as previously stated - you are not therewith protected from Hubristic and Fatuous irrelevancies -- and you may begin to call yourself a literary critic when you can prove you are able to read, say, Lewis' "Allegory of Love" which has no footnotes and assumes a basic understanding of Greek, Latin, French, Italian, and Anglo-Saxon - all of which are essential ingredients to the subject -
Plain spoken opinion honestly given by the layman is far more useful to the writer - since what the writer wants to know is, "does it work" - authority on any given subject is only earned by results, not by credentials.

I agree that to be an authority on religion will require much academic study.

It is important to make distinction between spirituality and religion. A religious person isn't necessarily spiritually enlighted. He may be, but doesn't have to be. But he likely strongly holds on to dogmatic morals, intellectually formed through his religious studies. Spirit goes deeper and beyond the intellect. Intellectual ideas may trickle down, transcend, and help develop spirituality, to some degree. Some are born with spiritual sensitivity, with wide awareness, and empathic intake of their surroundings. Some may develop it after very painful experiences and a need to transcend the manifested concrete world.

People attain knowledge in different ways, and there are different forms of knowledge. A person may gain valuable insights, and a harmonious relation to the world around him, through meditation. A painter may have profound knowledge about Life and it's workings through his observations, although it is a wordless knowledge.

My personal opinion is that atheists and satanists are of the same low breed or undeveloped character. They are too coarse and numb to have had any spiritual experiences. Or, if their function and lot in life is simply to mold and shuffle around the material matters, and that function fills a meaningful servant part, they should therefore not be belittled.

I see. So the mentally ill and indolent should rule the world, with the rest as their servants?

The wise and the enlighted, not the ill and indolent. To be a leader requires more than sensitivity of the spirit.

To be leader over a specific field, naturally also requires practical knowledge of that field.

Many of the upper level servants see themselves as rulers. That's their biggest mistake.

We are all servants, relatively, under the Great Spirit.

Don't take me too seriously. I am playing around, trying to provoke rigid perspectives. :)

But this much I am convinced of. Spirituality is not mental illnes. Or hokus pokus. It is not supernatural fantasy. Or unscientific. It is a perfectly natural process. Nothing spectacular about it really. A spiritually enlighted person, is simply a person who is able to see reality in a very wide perspective, where each individual incident is viewed in its rightful place in the much greater whole. He/she is therefore not swept along emotionally and intellectually by petty incidents, and is able to handle personal setbacks and tragedy in a much more stable way. The person retains an inner calm regardless of outer events.

I was happy to see the earlier citation from CAS - holding a candle to the universe - Clark was a deeply spiritual man, but not a dogmatist of any kind - he certainly believed in the actual existence in a literal sense of malevolent spirits - and, by extension, as in Brothers Karamazov of their benign counterparts - In many ways he was closer to Zoroastrian thought, and therefore a dualist of sorts - but he maintained no staunch position on matters which he considered ephemeral, and whose reality is experienced tangentially, but cannot be "known".
He and I were much in agreement in those days when I knew him closely - my own position has changed due to experiences of my own - nevertheless, you may be asssured Clark was never an "atheist" of any sort - nor was an animist, nor a pantheist, but from the inner workings of his mind and spirit, recognized what he called "intrusions" from beyond himself. If that may be called his "theology", so be it - it was surely, as he was in all things, "sui generis"/

Absquatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> 2. Lovecraft's correspondence with CAS should be
> published next year.

Original letter from Lovecraft to CAS, for sale on Ebay:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Original-H-P-Lovecraft-Autograph-Letter-C-A-Smith-/380218024248?cmd=ViewItem&pt=Antiquarian_Collectible&hash=item5886c2a138

Seeing spirits, or demons, as CAS believed he did on at least one occasion, is such a very personal spiritual experience, that it can't really be shared with others or used as an argument to convince. Others will not be able to relate to it, and just look askance, like you're nuts. It is a lonely load. Nevertheless, CAS shared his enigmatic encounter (The Demonian Face) with his audience, to their enriched enjoyment.

I know this is all opening up a can of worms, but as it's all quite good natured... what the hell! :)

Having met many spiritualists I fail to believe that they are any more open minded than the most ardent atheist/sceptic... they simply project what they want to see onto the world based on their assumption. They believe what they want to believe... fair enough, but don't expect me to walk the same road... I knew this Canadian pagan a few years ago who during a relatively minor earthquake (a big one for the UK) was surprised when a cup shook off the table... she told me that the first thing she thought was: 'GHOST!' She said this without even a hint of irony or even embarrassment... of course within moments she realised her mistake and knew it was an earthquake, so no harm done, but how exactly did she "see reality in a very wide perspective?" A very wrong perspective - yes! :) Sure, to some extent we all project our assumptions upon the universe, but to my mind a good sceptical mind challenges (or should try to) his own assumptions, striping away useless cultural meanings to seek a higher truth. This is something that few religionist/spiritualist are prepared to do because they know what they will find... nothing. But, no - I don't think supernatural belief denotes insanity... I wouldn't even call it irrational most of the time (no more so than falling in love anyway), but I would call it non-rational... which is fine and dandy on a personal level, but on a societal one... well, I think it deserves to be challenged at least... When I visited Mayan villages in Mexico who practice a local hybrid religion which took the worst parts of Catholicism and the worst parts of animism I was struck by the taint of paranoia in the air... their whole culture was racked by fear of evil spirits and the occasional blood sacrifice of a chicken to appease them... I'm not saying that secular society doesn't have it's share of problems, but... there was no enlightened insight on view there believe me!

I have no problem with CAS' open mind to things, while I don't believe in the supernatural I'm interested in it and frequently go to fortian/folk lore talks, and I do find the lofty attitude of Dawkins & Co a little hard to stomach at times, but I've yet to hear any significant criticism of them that doesn't reek of 'tackling the man, not the ball' - which is usually a sign of someone who knows they're on shaky ground. Similarly criticism that atheists are closed minded or lack insight reeks of name-calling. Surely it's not unreasonable to ask "where? show me?" when someone is trying to convince you of something when there is no evidence for it existing.. indeed, I'd argue that I'd be stupid not too :)

But I think we've reached a point where rationalism, scepticism, science and the objective have become very uncool, whereas the current Zeitgeist celebrates all that is subjective, hence the sudden vigour of the Dawkinsians in their attempt to re-establish a rational world view...

Quote:

I've yet to hear any significant criticism of them that doesn't reek of 'tackling the man, not the ball'

Actually, there's plenty of criticism directed at "Ditchkins" which addresses their philosophical and theological incompetence, yet without descending to ad hominem levels, and it's not too hard to find. David B. Hart's recent essay in First Things offers a good example.

As for the Zeitgeist you mention, I see exactly the opposite, at least, among the educated. For instance, who else here besides Calonlan, Knygatin, and I have anything positive to say about spirituality in some form? So, this "Zeitgeist" to which you refer clearly seems to be a matter of perspective.

Again, from my own perspective, it's not a question of "science versus religion". Rather, it's a question of neither the one nor the other as the final arbiter of any aspect of ultimate or objective reality. CAS seemed to hold that view, as well. Unfortunately, as Calonlan suggests, CAS's perspective is, if not sui generis, then rare to the point of absolute incomprehensibility, for most.

"the latter text, after the 10th reading..." An absurd and ignorant statement, methinks.
Then there are other cats that have been let out of other bags, if one has enough integrity and self-discipline for objective historical and scientific inquiry.

jkh

The English Assassin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Aye, it's weird to have such respect for Joshi on
> the one point you agree with him, but on
> everything else he's a tool because you don't. I
> wouldn't say the interview was particularly
> revealing or insightful, but then two people who
> broadly agree with each other are never going to
> create the most lively of debates... Equally, I'd
> agree that their dismissal of all religious
> writers as being feeble reeked of prejudice to my
> ears. As for RM Price, while I've not heard it
> myself, I believe that his Bible Geek cast has a
> strong following by God-bods and heretic
> unbelievers alike (or so my ex-Born Again friend
> tells me). I never understand the argument that
> you can't criticise religion or be an atheist
> without having read every religious text under the
> sun first... it doesn't matter what some 2000 year
> old superstitious dogma says (and I'm sure there's
> some pearls of wisdom in there too), it's going to
> require some better evidence than the testimony of
> some long dead zealots to make me believe in stuff
> that there is absolutely no evidence for...
> neither do you have to read the Communist
> Manifesto to be a capitalist...
>
> But anyway, I mainly added it here because Joshi
> is a frequent topic in these forums and therefore
> thought that it might be of general interest and
> the added bonus of some publication details was a
> pleasant surprise.

If Joshi and Price indeed dismissed all religious writers as being feeble, I don't see how you can claim there is "absolutely no evidence" supporting religious faith; after all, this would clearly indicate that they regard Shakespeare, a writer of indisputable genius, as feeble-minded, as well as the authors their idol Lovecraft most respected.

jkh

Apparently you believe that Shakespeare was mentally ill and indolent. Atheism is merely the substitution of ugliness for beauty, in order to gratify the ego.

jkh

Quote:

Aye, it's weird to have such respect for Joshi on the one point you agree with him, but on everything else he's a tool because you don't.

I missed this earlier; is it in reference to me? If so, then I need to make clear that there is much about Joshi and his work that I like and respect, and I've said as much in other threads in this forum. There's also much about him and his work that I do not like, as well. Why, I wonder, does everything have to be black and white, or simplistically binary? One must be either pro or anti Joshi; one is either for religion and against science, or for science and against religion. Such thinking is completely alien to me.

Quote:

neither do you have to read the Communist Manifesto to be a capitalist...

No, but you do need to read it if you are going to criticize Marx. If the New Atheists would simply shut up and live and let live, then their ignorance of the finer points of their opposition would be fine; they would not need to engage theological arguments. If, however, they are going to try to refute Aquinas, as Dawkins ineptly tried to do, then they need to understand the arguments.


Note to Knygatin: I wonder what you mean by "Satanists"? There are many different types, and some, such as Setians, are quite spiritual, in their way. I think you need to learn more about the subject before making such derogatory generalizations. There is also the entire concept of Romantic Satanism, with which CAS seems to have been in considerable personal sympathy, and about which I wrote here some time ago.

Very interesting and revelatory fellows - however - the existence or non-existence of the deity (or deities if you prefer) even as the "gender" of the same is a monumentally irrelevant question to me - an individual's opinion on the subject has no bearing whatever on the reality - either there is or is not such an entity - on the other hand, one's opinion does indeed have a significant affect on one's behavior and attitude to one's fellow travelers on this org - and, I may add from close personal observation, as the bed-mate of an Hospice Nurse, and volunteer worker, dealing with the dying and their families week in and week out - those who profess some faith fare much better at the last than the others - I have seen some who have (as far as they are concerned) gone to the other side and come back filled with terror, and deeply resolved to alter their lives for as much time as they have (usually a few days) - similarly, we worked with a 13 year old black child, the elder sister of 7 siblings, with a terrible cancer in the shoulder and arm, whose passing was astonishing - we heard singing from her room - a song with the words "I will enter his gates with thanksgiving in my heart..." - the mother thought is was the radio - but it was the girl, and when we went back to see, she was gone, and absolutely beatifiic - the 2 year old said, and I quote, "the other mother came to take sister home" -- now whatever one may wish to make of such things (ehtnic conditioning etc) - these things happen with great frequency, week in and week out, and I have been observing them closely for 17 years now - I begrudge no one their opinion - so long as "opinion" is held in its proper place and does not gather about the trappings of secular ritual - becoming a dogma wherein all those of other views are held to be misguided fools - As time has gone on I find myself learning more and more about less and less - mathematically, I expect to reach a point where I know everything about nothing - and "Nothing" as poet says, "is often the wisest thing to do, and always the wisest thing to say">

Jojo Lapin X Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I see. So the mentally ill and indolent should
> rule the world, with the rest as their servants?


Apparently you feel that Shakespeare was mentally ill and indolent. Atheism is merely a substituting of ugliness for beauty, for the purpose of gratifying one's ego.

jkh

calonlan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Nothing" as poet says, "is
> often the wisest thing to do, and always the
> wisest thing to say">


That's a great quote. Who wrote that?

No, you don't see, or you wouldn't consider Shakespeare to have been "mentally ill and indolent"... atheism is merely a short-sighted substituting of ugliness for beauty for the purpose of gratifying one's Ego.

This claim that "the latter text, after the 10th reading, will begin to yield great rewards, to the incisive reader" is absurd and pretentious, methinks. There are other bags and other cats you'd do well to consider, as well, for what good is doubt if further information is not sought?

jkh

Absquatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why, I wonder,
> does everything have to be black and white, or
> simplistically binary? One must be either pro or
> anti Joshi; one is either for religion and against
> science, or for science and against religion. Such
> thinking is completely alien to me.

I take it you do not recognize a distinction between right and wrong, or good and bad?

Quote:

I take it you do not recognize a distinction between right and wrong, or good and bad?

I don't believe in black-and-white, all-or-nothing, simplistic dichotomies, especially in areas involving subjective, personal value-judgments. For instance, that Joshi is all bad, without a single redeeming feature.

Kipling Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "the latter text, after the 10th reading..." An
> absurd and ignorant statement, methinks.
> Then there are other cats that have been let
> out of other bags, if one has enough integrity and
> self-discipline for objective historical and
> scientific inquiry.

If you have mastered the master's works (Robert Graves) in one reading - then, Mr. Kipling, "You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din" - but I seriously doubt it.

Geoffrey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> calonlan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "Nothing" as poet says, "is
> > often the wisest thing to do, and always the
> > wisest thing to say">
>
>
> That's a great quote. Who wrote that?


Mark Twain, with variations by myself -

If I had been wise, I probably whould have stayed quiet like Calonlan suggests. But that is only for the fully matured. So here it goes on. :)


The English Assassin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "where? show me?"

There is no outside proof for you. The spiritual is a personal, inner experience. It's an ability to "see". An elite privilege. Either you have it, or you don't. (Although I believe it could potentially be developed in everyone, . . . at least theoretically. :/ )

Well, if we look aside from ghosts and spirits, demons, telekinesis, and other such spectacular stuff. . . . I won't try to argue for that. And instead focus on "spiritual" sensitivity, of "seeing reality in a wide perspective", there is nothing strange or unnatural about that mental condition. Spirituality, to one degree or another, is a subtle part of reality, that affects most or all people, even if they be not aware of it and deny the signals. It's simply a tool for the wise, a developed sensitivity, to better handle daily life, through a balanced mental stance and harmony. An inner process, of the mind. And too subtle and non-material for science to measure in a laboratory.

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. 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.

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), 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.

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. 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. 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.

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.)



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.

Absquatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Note to Knygatin: I wonder what you mean by
> "Satanists"? There are many different types, and
> some, such as Setians, are quite spiritual, in
> their way. I think you need to learn more about
> the subject before making such derogatory
> generalizations.

I admit I am not well read on Satanism. I am aware of the LaVey form of atheistic philosophic Satanism which aims at promoting the ego's desires, and religious Satanism which believes in devils and demons as actual entities. I was generally referring to the former, or my own loose definition of satanists, people who only look to satisfying their own egostic desires and lack sensitivity and empathy for life outside themselves. (The latter, religious form, at least stimulates the imagination a bit. :) )

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.