Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 31

Thread: Brief Critical Analysis of Cosmotheism

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Last Online
    Saturday, March 31st, 2007 @ 04:31 PM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    Gender
    Posts
    22
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Brief Critical Analysis of Cosmotheism

    Brief Critical Analysis of the Cosmotheism of William Pierce




    Introduction:


    Cosmotheism, as propounded in the 1970's (CE) by William Pierce, is a kind of rationalist world-view which asserts that: First, there this an abstract non-anthropomorphic "God" (or Creator) Who, or which, acts in some way as an animating, or guiding, force; and, Second, this guiding force is or can be manifest in such things as "the survival of the fittest", in eugenics, and in a strict hierarchical order.

    In general, this philosophy (or religion as some of its adherents call it) - which is a kind of hybrid system based upon bits of Nietzsche, bits of Herbert Spencer, bits of Plato, bits of Dalton, and bits from others - is very short on detail, and generally quite vague, with, for instance, this Creator, or God, never being defined or explained in any detail. Furthermore, it also lacks a plausible theory of ethics.



    The Creator, Reality, and Ethics:


    According to Pierce, Reality is defined in terms of a Creator: "Reality is the Whole. It is the Creator, the Self-created". However, since this Creator is not itself defined, or explained, except as being "self-created", this does not amount to much. Thus, there is no understanding of the difference, for instance, between Being and being, and no attempt to define, let alone understand, the notion of Time, or how both Being and being(s) can be manifest in the world (in "Reality").

    Furthermore, according to Pierce: "All matter, living and non-living, is ordered in a hierarchy". This statement, as with most such statements by Pierce about his Cosmotheism, is not explained - it is just a statement, rather like the statements of Nietzsche's Thus Spake Zarathustra or Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. There is no attempt to explain the how or the why of this allegedly Creator-ordained hierarchy - which is a serious flaw. In addition, this abstract assumption leads on to other abstract assumptions, so that Pierce defines good and evil according to whether the purpose of this "Creator" is fulfilled, even though this purpose has never been explained: we are expected to accept the tautology that since there is an unexplained hierarchy, the purpose is to adhere to or strive for such an unexplained, and un-detailed, hierarchy.


    According to Pierce: "He shall guide the progress of his stock from generation to generation: he shall act as the wolf and the winter have acted, pruning and selecting." As always, Pierce gives no details as to how this guiding toward such "progress" (which progress is itself not defined) will be achieved - and how such "pruning and selecting" will, or should, take place. Will this be done through force, violence, killing?

    However, what all this does amount to is a very rigid system: an ethics - if ethics they can be called - based purely upon some abstract assumptions. That is, there is in this Cosmotheism the inhuman error of abstraction: of judging people according to a posited, theoretical, abstraction and a striving to have people and life conform to some abstract ideal, regardless of the personal suffering caused. (1)


    Hierarchy and Society:


    According to Pierce: "The members of the Community of Divine Consciousness, the Awakened Ones, the People of the Rune, serve in the new way, which is the way of higher man, the way of true reason. They are conscious agents of the Creator's Purpose..."

    Here, and elsewhere, we have abstract, suffering-causing, abstractions such as "chosen ones" - agents of the Creator - with these elect, the "chosen ones", being assumed to have some divinely-given ordained "right" to, as Pierce says, "overcome the men of false reason..." Yet again, we are left to speculate as to how the chosen "higher men" will overcome the un-chosen ones - although it is easy to assume from the abstract, moralistic, tone and the definition of good and evil, and so on, that this will be by and through violence, force, suffering, subjection and killing.

    Pierce also states that "in every society men are ranked, in high station or low..." - although, of course, no details are given as to how they will be ranked, by what criteria, and why they are so ranked, although one can assume, from his other writings, that this will be by force, by "strong men" who, regarding themselves as chosen and superior, will subjugate others. This is very "social darwinian" - the so-called survival of the fittest immorally applied to human beings. (2)

    Furthermore, according to Pierce: "Likewise are those elements concerned with defense against the corruption of men's spirits necessary, for survival depends not on the physical aspects of men's lives alone: Just as the defense of the physical health and welfare of the Community is a proper social function, so is the defense of its spiritual health and welfare." This is basically the old morality of totalitarianism, of fascism and communism: of The State, or whatever, being supreme, with individuals subservient and obedient to some such abstract entity, and with obedience obtained by punitive measures.


    Race and Community:


    There is, in Cosmotheism, a lot of waffle about community, and some mention of "race", although, as often with Pierce, these are never defined or explained in clear terms. According to Pierce, in yet another Thus Spake Zarathustra like quote: "Man stands between sub-man and higher man..." This so-called higher man is, it seems, to belong to some sort of ethnic community which regards itself as superior, and chosen, and which has cleansed itself of inferior specimens. Quite how this is to be done is never explained, although one is left to speculate that it would be very much along the lines attempted by NS Germany.



    The Inhuman Abstraction of Perfection:


    In many ways, the crux, the essence, of Pierce's Cosmotheism is contained in the following statement, by him:

    " The Community elevates itself by refining and strengthening all of its institutions, by striving always to make them more nearly perfect..."

    This is the following of, the striving for, some abstract ideal, for some mythical Platonian perfection, which following and which striving always causes suffering and always involve the use of force, violence, coercion and subjection against those who do not accept whatever ideal is being striven for and whatever "perfect" society/State/community/nation/whatever has been, usually grandiloquently described, by some ideologue, by some theorist, by some leader, by some politician, or by some religious visionary or social reformer.

    As I have tried to explain, many times in many recent essays and writings, all such abstractions, and ideals, however they are described or categorized, are fundamentally immoral (3) - for they assume that whatever abstraction is being followed, or striven for, is more valuable, more important, than life, more important than human suffering, and more important than inflicting damage and suffering on the other living-beings with whom we share this planet. Thus, people like Pierce argue or assume or believe that in the pursuit of some abstraction, some ideal, it is "right" and "necessary" and "justified" to harm others, to subjugate others, to imprison them, to kill them, to cause them unhappiness and suffering. For thousands of years people have argued or assumed or believed this, and millions upon millions upon millions of human beings have suffered and died.

    Another fundamental error of such a belief - which error is inherent in abstractions - is the error of judging human beings according to some abstraction, or according to some criteria established by some abstraction. That is, the "value", the worth, of human beings has, and still is, judged according to how well, or not, they measure up to some abstract criteria, or to some posited abstraction, according to some ideal. This is immoral, inhuman, because every human being is a nexion, one connexion to Life, and is unique, and can and should only ever be judged as an individual and on the basis of their own actions, their own deeds. True evolution, for us as human beings, is this moving-toward empathy with Life, with other human beings, and thus an understanding of them, a knowing of them, on the basis of their individuality - on the basis of their very being, as they are, and not as they are assumed to be, or described as, according to some abstraction which we project onto the reality of Being and being: onto the reality which is the Being of Cosmos, manifest as this reality is to us in the numinous presencing of Life (acausal Time) and in the causal presencing of non-living "things". By so manufacturing and projecting such abstractions, we distort reality - we distance ourselves from Being; by being empathic, and thus compassionate and honourable, we return to the true source, to the essence, of our own being and thus can live, in unison, with both Being and beings. (4)



    Conclusion:


    The Cosmotheism of Pierce thus stands condemned as an abstract theory, which theory is itself not at all well-described or explained. Furthermore, the morality of this Cosmotheism is firmly based in the past, and is shown to be basically inhuman: a return to the primative barbarism of the past instead of an evolution of ourselves, as human beings.

    David Myatt



    Notes:

    (1) Of course, I myself, in my earlier political writings - and before, through pathei mathos, I discovered my error - made the same mistake as Pierce persisted in making. That is, in not understanding the true basis of our humanity - of our very being - which is our ability of consciousnesses and especially empathy, which empathy leads us to, or can and should lead us to, compassion and honour and thus to changing ourselves in a positive way through using our will. This human, empathic, ability is essentially a knowing of ourselves as a nexus, which knowing leads us to understand, to feel, the causes of suffering and gives us a desire to alleviate suffering: to not contribute to suffering.

    While Pierce posits, in a very abstract way, such a connection between life, he does so in a hierarchical, immoral, way which undermines our humanity and which destroys empathy itself.


    (2) As mentioned in the now rather out-dated essay Darwin, Evolution and Civilization (which essay -like many - needs revising in the light of the development of The Numinous Way) there is a fundamental flaw in this so-called "social darwinian" theory because:

    "It must be understood that acceptance of the theory of evolution, as it applies to us as human beings, does not mean we are "merely animals" and totally at the mercy of those natural forces which have shaped evolution, and which some consider to be "anti-cultural".

    For what is of supreme importance is that our development of consciousness - and the subsequent expansion of consciousness through Science - enables us to creatively intervene in our own evolution. That is, it is this development of consciousness, and understanding, which enables us to appreciate Nature, civilization, culture, the cosmos, and continue our evolution in a positive way.
    We can do this because we possess the power to change ourselves through using our will. This, essentially, is what civilization, honour, and reason mean. Real culture - the living or organic culture with its own ethos and homeland - is a means to aid this development of will, this promotion of a supra-personal and numinous understanding."


    (3) A forthcoming essay - tentatively entitled The Inhumanity of Abstraction - will also attempt to outline why this is so.

    (4) The relationship between empathy, compassion and honour is outlined in Honour, Empathy and the Question of Suffering.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Last Online
    Saturday, March 31st, 2007 @ 02:35 AM
    Location
    USA
    Gender
    Politics
    Cosmotheist
    Posts
    42
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A Brief Critical Analysis of whose Cosmotheism?

    By this "David Myatt"?:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Myatt

    Interesting.

    Let's do a little critique, ourselves, shall we?

    Best regards,
    Needle

    http://www.cosmotheism.net
    http://www.nationalvanguard.org
    http://www.cosmotheism.net

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Last Online
    Saturday, March 31st, 2007 @ 04:31 PM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    Gender
    Posts
    22
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A Brief Critical Analysis of whose Cosmotheism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Needle View Post
    Indeed, that is the person.

    When I posted the article, I expected some critique of his criticism of this cosmotheism, since it does seem as if some people do adhere to this cosmotheism.

    Perhaps an interesting debate will arise, which can explore things such as ontology.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Last Online
    Saturday, March 31st, 2007 @ 02:35 AM
    Location
    USA
    Gender
    Politics
    Cosmotheist
    Posts
    42
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A Brief Critical Analysis of Cosmotheism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Needle View Post
    Indeed. This is the Cosmotheism thread, and I am a true Cosmotheist.

    However, "The Numinous Way" and these other writings of this person,
    perhaps, should actually have their own "subject" or their own "thread"?

    Also, is "torlundy" just a given false "sock-puppet" for this D.M. person,
    or is "torlundy" just one of his own followers?

    Curious.

    Best regards,
    Needle

    http://www.cosmotheism.net
    http://www.cosmotheism.net

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Last Online
    Saturday, March 31st, 2007 @ 02:35 AM
    Location
    USA
    Gender
    Politics
    Cosmotheist
    Posts
    42
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Brief Critical Analysis of the Cosmotheism

    Quote Originally Posted by torlundy View Post
    As I have tried to explain, many times in many recent essays and writings,
    all such abstractions, and ideals, however they are described or categorized, are fundamentally immoral (3) - for they assume that whatever abstraction is being followed, or striven for, is more valuable, more important, than life, more important than human suffering, and more important than inflicting damage and suffering on the other living-beings with whom we share this planet.

    Thus, people like Pierce argue or assume or believe that in the pursuit of some abstraction, some ideal, it is "right" and "necessary" and "justified" to harm others, to subjugate others, to imprison them, to kill them, to cause them unhappiness and suffering. For thousands of years people have argued or assumed or believed this, and millions upon millions upon millions of human beings have suffered and died.

    Another fundamental error of such a belief - which error is inherent in abstractions - is the error of judging human beings according to some abstraction, or according to some criteria established by some abstraction.

    That is, the "value", the worth, of human beings has, and still is, judged according to how well, or not, they measure up to some abstract criteria, or to some posited abstraction, according to some ideal. This is immoral, inhuman, because every human being is a nexion, one connexion to Life, and is unique, and can and should only ever be judged as an individual and on the basis of their own actions, their own deeds.

    True evolution, for us as human beings, is this moving-toward empathy with Life, with other human beings, and thus an understanding of them, a knowing of them, on the basis of their individuality - on the basis of their very being, as they are, and not as they are assumed to be, or described as, according to some abstraction which we project onto the reality of Being and being: onto the reality which is the Being of Cosmos, manifest as this reality is to us in the numinous presencing of Life (acausal Time) and in the causal presencing of non-living "things".

    By so manufacturing and projecting such abstractions, we distort reality -
    we distance ourselves from Being; by being empathic,
    and thus compassionate and honourable,
    we return to the true source, to the essence, of our own being and thus
    can live, in unison, with both Being and beings. (4)



    Conclusion:


    The Cosmotheism of Pierce thus stands condemned as an abstract theory, which theory is itself not at all well-described or explained. Furthermore, the morality of this Cosmotheism is firmly based in the past, and is shown to be basically inhuman: a return to the primative barbarism of the past instead of an evolution of ourselves, as human beings.

    David Myatt
    Quoting "out of context", false presumptions and false assumptions,
    using false "straw-man" and "red-herring" and other "rationally-false"
    arguements and "false-reasoning" to "condemn" Cosmotheism as an
    immoral "abstract theory", and when it actually is by Pierce not only
    quite "well-described and it is well-explained" when it is ever properly
    "read and understood" or as it should be, in its "own proper context",
    and also, "as a unified whole", is just more "David Myatt" nonsense.

    In other words, this "David Myatt" critic is both full of BS and himself,
    and as the provided Wikipedia article link on him shows, isn't quite all
    that "mentally nor spiritually" stable:


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Myatt


    There is nothing that's "inhuman" or "immoral" or "primitive" nor
    "barbaric" about our "insuring and ensuring" both the continued
    survival and advancement via racially-conscious-evolution and
    of our race and ourselves as Human Beings or ever upwards in
    both consciousness and in Human being and thus ever upward
    towards a Personal Godhood.

    Best regards,
    Needle

    http://www.cosmotheism.net
    Last edited by Needle; Thursday, March 8th, 2007 at 08:08 PM. Reason: Added link to the Wikipedia article on "David Myatt"
    http://www.cosmotheism.net

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Last Online
    Saturday, March 31st, 2007 @ 04:31 PM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    Gender
    Posts
    22
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Brief Critical Analysis of the Cosmotheism

    Quote Originally Posted by Needle View Post
    Quoting "out of context", false presumptions and false assumptions,
    using false "straw-man" and "red-herring" and other "rationally-false"
    arguements and "false-reasoning" to "condemn" Cosmotheism as an
    immoral "abstract theory", and when it actually is by Pierce not only
    quite "well-described and it is well-explained" when it is ever properly
    "read and understood" or as it should be, in its "own proper context",
    and also, "as a unified whole", is just more "David Myatt" nonsense.
    Interesting riposte, but you haven't so far as I can see addressed any of the specific points raised by Myatt.

    Such as - just what are the ethics of this cosmotheism? What is the relation between Being (the Creator) and beings?

    How is "perfection" to be achieved? And what is this perfection? Etcetera.


    Quote Originally Posted by Needle View Post
    In other words, this "David Myatt" critic is both full of BS and himself,
    and as the provided Wikipedia article link on him shows, isn't quite all
    that "mentally nor spiritually" stable:
    Using argumentum ad hominem is not a good idea, and weakens the cause you are trying to defend.

    Furthermore, if you had taken the trouble to read about Myatt's peregrinations from the man himself, rather than relying on a socalled encyclopedia whose edits and sources are often far from objective, then you might be able to form a more balanced view of Myatt.


    Quote Originally Posted by Needle View Post
    There is nothing that's "inhuman" or "immoral" or "primitive" nor
    "barbaric" about our "insuring and ensuring" both the continued
    survival and advancement via racially-conscious-evolution and
    of our race and ourselves as Human Beings
    It is inhuman and immoral according to the ethics of the numinous way, which is what Myatt was explaining - because it is based upon the ideal of perfection and upon pre-judgement of people according to that ideal.

    Here is a relevant quote:

    A fundamental error of such a belief - which error is inherent in abstractions - is the error of judging human beings according to some abstraction, or according to some criteria established by some abstraction. That is, the "value", the worth, of human beings has, and still is, judged according to how well, or not, they measure up to some abstract criteria, or to some posited abstraction, according to some ideal. This is immoral, inhuman, because every human being is a nexion, one connexion to Life, and is unique, and can and should only ever be judged as an individual and on the basis of their own actions, their own deeds.

    In addition, since neither Pierce nor yourself have explained the ethics of cosmotheism in detail, it is a relevant criticism of the theory.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Last Online
    Saturday, March 31st, 2007 @ 02:35 AM
    Location
    USA
    Gender
    Politics
    Cosmotheist
    Posts
    42
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Brief Critical Analysis of the Cosmotheism

    Quote Originally Posted by torlundy View Post

    Interesting riposte, but you haven't so far as I can see addressed any of the specific points raised by Myatt.
    Needle writes:

    Indeed, and that is only because those "specific points" raised by Myatt,
    were only false presumptions and based upon false assumptions, or were
    "straw-man" arguements, rationally-unworthy of their being addressed.

    Quote Originally Posted by torlundy View Post

    You wrote:

    Such as - just what are the ethics of this cosmotheism?
    Needle writes:

    It is quite clear that David Myatt doesn't really understand them,
    but, that doesn't stop him from making false judgements anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by torlundy View Post
    You wrote:

    What is the relation between Being (the Creator) and beings?
    Needle writes:

    Again, David Myatt just doesn't really understand that relationship,
    and yet, that still doesn't stop him from making "false judgements".


    Quote Originally Posted by torlundy View Post
    You wrote:

    How is "perfection" to be achieved? And what is this perfection? Etcetera.
    Needle writes:

    And again, David Myatt doesn't know, he only falsely assumes and presumes
    to understand just how and what that "perfection" that Pierce was actually
    alluding to by only taking it completely out of context to thus "prove" David
    Myatt's own false assertions and false arguements and false judgements. It
    is silly.

    Quote Originally Posted by torlundy View Post
    You wrote:

    Using argumentum ad hominem is not a good idea, and weakens the cause you are trying to defend.
    Needle writes:

    Indeed, but, that is exactly what David Myatt has done with Dr. Pierce and
    his Cosmotheism, and you are right there, people in glass houses should not
    throw stones, and as that link to Wikipedia about David Myatt had illustrated
    so well.

    One should first read and understand what Dr. Pierce's Cosmotheism actually
    is and far before attempting to be any really valid "critic" of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by torlundy View Post
    You wrote:

    Furthermore, if you had taken the trouble to read about Myatt's peregrinations from the man himself, rather than relying on a so called encyclopedia whose edits and sources are often far from objective, then you might be able to form a more balanced view of Myatt.
    Needle writes:

    LOL!

    Perhaps, if David Myatt had taken the trouble to read and to
    understand Dr. Pierce's Cosmotheism, in context, and not use
    "logical fallacies" to criticize it, then he could, perhaps, have
    been taken a little more seriously, but, he just didn't do so.


    David Myatt and you too should take your own advice and go
    attempt a far more "balanced and objective" view of both Dr.
    Pierce and his Cosmotheism.
    I am aware of the "limited objectivity" of Wikipedia but unless
    what was there was "factually untrue" and you can proof it was,
    I see no reason not to doubt both the "mental and spiritual"
    stability of David Myatt and his own false reasoning.

    Quote Originally Posted by torlundy View Post

    You wrote:

    It is inhuman and immoral according to the ethics of the numinous way,
    which is what Myatt was explaining - because it is based upon the ideal
    of perfection and upon pre-judgement of people according to that ideal.
    Needle writes:

    The ethics of the "numinous way" are immoral and inhuman because
    what David Myatt is charging Cosmotheism with is completely false.

    David Myatt doesn't understand that he is actually the one that is
    pre-judging both Dr. Pierce and his Cosmotheism by taking what Dr.
    Pierce "out of context" regarding the ideal of our striving towards a
    perfection of only of our own consciousness and our own being ever
    towards Godhood. There is no "pre-judgement" on Dr. Pierce's part.

    Quote Originally Posted by torlundy View Post
    You wrote:
    Here is a relevant quote:

    In addition, since neither Pierce nor yourself have explained the ethics of cosmotheism in detail, it is a relevant criticism of the theory.
    Needle writes:

    LOL!

    Hardly.

    The actual "ethics" of Cosmotheism are all based upon Dr. Pierce's
    own three main books or main writings on his Cosmotheism called
    "The Path", "On Living Things", and "On Society" that can be read
    here:

    http://www.cosmotheism.net

    They are quite "clear ethnics", not based upon the false "quotes"
    of David Myatt, and that were taken out of their original context,
    and are "moral" and "human" and do not require "violence" at all.

    The ethics of the "numinous way" are immoral and inhuman because
    what David Myatt is charging Cosmotheism with is completely false.

    David Myatt doesn't understand that he is actually the one that is
    pre-judging both Dr. Pierce and his Cosmotheism by taking what Dr.
    Pierce "out of context" regarding the ideal of our striving towards a
    perfection of only of our own consciousness and our own being ever
    towards Godhood. There is no "pre-judgement" on Dr. Pierce's part.

    Just like the Jews on Wikipedia, this "David Myatt" is equally guilty
    of "falsely pre-judging" Dr. Pierce and his Cosmotheism on "false-
    reasoning" and by equally faulty facts, deliberate distortions, and
    by slanderous "lies" and mostly for his, like their own, false and
    Malignant Narcissism and own false "purposes" and/or "egotism".

    What else isn't new?

    Best regards,
    Needle

    http://www.cosmotheism.net
    http://www.nationalvanguard.org
    http://www.cosmotheism.net

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Last Online
    Saturday, March 31st, 2007 @ 04:31 PM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    Gender
    Posts
    22
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Brief Critical Analysis of the Cosmotheism

    Quote Originally Posted by Needle View Post

    Indeed, and that is only because those "specific points" raised by Myatt,
    were only false presumptions and based upon false assumptions, or were
    "straw-man" arguements, rationally-unworthy of their being addressed.
    Once again, you do not answer the specific criticisms, but just dismiss them as based on misunderstanding and false assumptions, and by writing that they are "unworthy of being addressed".

    Surely, if cosmotheism is indeed a philosophy and/or a religion, then such rational criticisms, based upon ethical and philosophical arguments, need to be addressed, in a rational, theological and philosophical way.

    By dismissing them as "unworthy of being addressed" it seems to me that you are showing a lack of depth in cosmotheism.


    Quote Originally Posted by Needle View Post
    It is quite clear that David Myatt doesn't really understand them,
    but, that doesn't stop him from making false judgements anyway.
    Just saying that someone does not understand them, without any elaboration, is not very helpful, especially as you have it seems failed to address any of the legitimate ethical and philosophical concerns raised in the original article.

    Quote Originally Posted by Needle View Post

    David Myatt and you too should take your own advice and go
    attempt a far more "balanced and objective" view of both Dr.
    Pierce and his Cosmotheism.

    A balanced and objective view is being given, and as a result some questions about cosmotheism have been raised, which you just brush aside by assuming we have not been objective and that, in your words, this objective and rational criticism of cosmotheism is "unworthy of being addressed".

    For instance, Myatt quotes the following:

    " The Community elevates itself by refining and strengthening all of its institutions, by striving always to make them more nearly perfect..."
    and asks how this striving for such an idealized perfection will be achieved. The question should - philosophically - be answered by cosmotheists by reference to the ethics of cosmotheism, but what are these ethics?

    Myatt's main criticism, which you have brushed aside by argumentum ad hominem is that cosmotheism posits and relies upon an abstract perfection, with this ideal then being used, in a value-judging way, to judge the worth of individuals. Since the ethics of the numinous way posit that what is good is the avoidance of suffering via empathy and honor, then such a value-judging of individuals based upon some mythical, non-existent "ideal" is immoral.


    Quote Originally Posted by Needle View Post
    The actual "ethics" of Cosmotheism are all based upon Dr. Pierce's
    own three main books or main writings on his Cosmotheism called
    "The Path", "On Living Things", and "On Society" that can be read
    here:

    http://www.cosmotheism.net

    Those are not books but rather essays which themselves are but a collection of stated and assumed propositions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Needle View Post

    They are quite "clear ethnics"
    Where? There is no theory of ethics, as there is no theory of ontology.


    Quote Originally Posted by Needle View Post
    not based upon the false "quotes"
    of David Myatt, and that were taken out of their original context,
    and are "moral" and "human" and do not require "violence" at all.
    As Myatt states, nowhere is it made clear just how the "perfection", and such things as the triumph of the higher man over the "lower man" will be achieved.

    I have snipped the rest of your argumentum ad hominem directed at Myatt.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Last Online
    Monday, July 16th, 2012 @ 02:14 AM
    Ethnicity
    CeltoGermanic
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    State
    Alabama Alabama
    Gender
    Age
    38
    Family
    Married, happily
    Occupation
    Tree Wizard
    Religion
    Wotanist
    Posts
    431
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Re: Brief Critical Analysis of the Cosmotheism

    2:3

    But the Creator has a spiritual manifestation, which is the Urge toward the One Purpose. The Urge lies at the root of all things and is manifested in the relations between all things.

    2:4

    The Urge is in the tenuous gases of the void, for they have a purpose, which are the flaming suns and all the planets, which form from them. The Urge is in the earth, for it has a purpose, which is the realm of plants and animals which flourish on it. And the Urge is in man, for he has a purpose, which is higher man.

    2:5

    And the purposes of all these things are steps on the Path of Life, which leads to the One Purpose, which is the Self-realization of the Creator: the Self-completion of the Self-created.

    2:6

    And the matter and the spirit, the Universe and the Urge, are One, and it is the Whole.

    5:2

    Man stands between sub-man and higher man, between immanent consciousness and awakened consciousness, between unawareness of his identity and his mission and a state of Divine Consciousness. Some men will cross the threshold, and some will not.

    6:8

    And all these predispositions of the man or woman of true reason are like rays thrown out by the Divine Spark which burns in his soul. And this Divine Spark is the immanent consciousness of the Whole. It is the presence of the Creator's Urge in him.

    10:3

    And they are ordained to overcome the men of false reason and to put an end to the works of all those who contravene the Creator's Purpose.

    http://www.cosmotheism.net/thepath.shtml
    Maybe some insight into the morality of it..??

    And so we are now to recognize in the history of our subject a secondary stage of mythic seizure: not mythic identification, ego absorbed and lost in God, but its opposite, mythic inflation, the god absorbed and lost in the ego. The first, I would suggest, characterized the actual holiness of the sacrificed kings of the early hieratic city states, and subsequent dynastic states, and the second, the mock holiness of the worshiped kings of the subsequent dynastic states. For these supposed that it was in their temporal character that they were god. That is to say, they were mad men. Moreover, they were supported in this belief, taught, flattered, and encouraged, by their clergy, parents, wives, advisors, folk, and all, who also thought that they were god. That is to say, the whole society was mad. Yet out of that madness sprang the great thing that we call Egyptian civilization. Its counterpart in Mesopotamia produced the dynastic states of that area; and we have adequate evidence, besides, of its force in India, the Far East, and Europe as well. In other words, a large part of the subject-matter of our science must be read as evidence of a psychological crisis of inflation, characteristic of the dawn of every one of the great civilizations of the world: the moment of the birth of its particular style. And if I am correct in my notion of the earlier hieratic stage, a certain sequence appears to be indicated, namely: 1. mythic identification and the hieratic, pre-dynastic state, and 2. mythic inflation and the archaic dynastic styles.
    The pharaohs in their cult were no longer simply imitating the holy past, "so that the scripture might be fulfilled." They and their priests were creating something of and for themselves. We are in the presence here of a line of grandiose, highly self-interested, prodigiously inflated egos. Furthermore, as we have seen, these megalomaniacs were not satisfied to be merely one god; they were two, and as such, had two burial palaces apiece. On the Narmer palette, which was worked on two sides, two crowns appeared, one on each face; and they represented the two Egypts, which again were represented by the interlaced necks of two symbolic beasts. On one side of the palette the pharaonic principle was represented in the bird form of the falcon Horus, on the other as mighty bull. And in the pageantry of the Sed festival two coronation were celebrated. In the royal sealing of King Zer, the monarch is shown twice, while in the little scratched picture of King Den-Setui nimbly stepping from the presence of his father (with whom, though they were two, the king was one) we have seen that both wear double crowns.
    Moreover, the ceremonial name of the Will, the final symbolic warrant of pharaonic rule, is the "Secret of the Two Partners." What are we to think of that?
    The answer appears beneath the sands of Abydos, in the tombs of the pharaohs of Dynasty II, which are enormous and exhibit every evidence of a lavish display of suttee. For the fourth pharaoh of this line is always represented by two cartouches and two names, over one of which, Sekhemab, there is shown the usual Horus falcon of the royal house, while over the other name, Perabsen, there appears the curiously characteristic quadruped somewhat resembling an okapi that always stands for the arch-enemy of both Horus and Osiris--namely, Seth. And on the seals of the seventh and last pharaoh of this line, Khasekhemui, the two antagonists, Horus the hero and Seth the villain of the piece, stand side by side, together and co-equal (Figure 12), while the monarch himself is termed "the appearing of the dual power in which the two gods are at peace"
    The name of the Will, then, "the Secret of the Two Partners," was a referenece to the hidden understanding of the two gods, who though they appear to be implacable enemies, are of one mind behind the scenes. And we are forced to revise--or at least amplify--our view of the wisdom of the pharaoh's madness. Mythologically representing the inevitable dialectic of temporality, where all things appear in pairs, Horus and Seth are forever in conflict; whereas in the sphere of eternity, beyond the veil of time and space, where there is no duality, they are at one; death and life are at one; all is peace. And there it is known, also, that that same transcendent peace abides even in the cruelties of war. So that in the Narmer palette, where the pharaoh, with the lifted arm of Horus, slays the chieftain of the harpoon folk, together with six thousand enemies, who are here in the role of Seth, the scene is one of peace. And of this peace, which is the inhabiting reality of all things, all history and sorrow, the living god Pharaoh is the pivot. He is an epitome of the field--the universe itself--in which the pairs-of opposites play. Hence, to follow him in death is to remain in life, there being in fact no death in the royal pasture beyond time, where the two gods are at one and the shepherd crook gives assurance...

    Oriental Mythology, by Joseph Cambpell..pages 80-82
    "And the matter and the spirit, the Universe and the Urge, are One, and it is the Whole."

    Horus being the spirit, Seth the matter, the Will the Urge, the Universe "where all things appear in pairs", which in The Pharaoh are One..and it is Whole .."this peace, which is the inhabiting reality of all things".

    Just a thought..??

    -Lyfing
    Last edited by Lyfing; Friday, March 9th, 2007 at 10:21 PM. Reason: I had "And on the seals two antagonists" instead of"And on the seals of the seventh and last pharaoh of this line, Khasekhemu

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Last Online
    Saturday, March 31st, 2007 @ 02:35 AM
    Location
    USA
    Gender
    Politics
    Cosmotheist
    Posts
    42
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Brief Critical Analysis of the Cosmotheism

    [QUOTE=torlundy;763648]
    Once again, you do not answer the specific criticisms, but just dismiss them as based on misunderstanding and false assumptions, and by writing that they are "unworthy of being addressed".

    Needle writes:

    Exactly, because those "specific criticisms" were "unworthy of being addressed", just as would be, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

    Quote Originally Posted by torlundy View Post
    You wrote:

    Surely, if cosmotheism is indeed a philosophy and/or a religion, then such rational criticisms, based upon ethical and philosophical arguments, need to be addressed, in a rational, theological and philosophical way.
    Needle writes:

    Yes, and as Cosmotheism surely is, and only "rational" vs any "irrational"
    criticisms of "David Myatt", are actually worthy of their being addressed.

    I have not seen any valid "ethical, rational, theological, or philosophical"
    arguements by this "David Myatt" that were not all just "logical fallacies".

    Those that are valid would first need to be based only upon truthful and
    rational arguements and based only upon the facts of Cosmotheism and
    not false presumptions and false assumptions and deliberate slanders.

    Quote Originally Posted by torlundy View Post
    You wrote:

    By dismissing them as "unworthy of being addressed"
    it seems to me that you are showing a lack of depth
    in cosmotheism.
    Needle writes:

    Hardly. LOL!

    It is "David Myatt" that has shown his "actual lack of depth" regarding
    Dr. Pierce's Cosmotheism and with his own false presumptions and false
    assumptions and which leads me to dismiss them as "unworthy of their
    being addressed".

    I can assure you that I know the actual "answers" to all of David Myatt's
    questions and that he had only "falsely assumed" and "falsely presumed".

    Quote Originally Posted by torlundy View Post
    You wrote:

    Just saying that someone does not understand them,
    without any elaboration, is not very helpful, especially
    as you have it seems failed to address any of the legitimate
    ethical and philosophical concerns raised in the original article.
    Needle writes:

    It is helpful to any of those that want to discover the Whole
    Cosmotheist Truths of Reality for their own selves and to not
    rely on moronic criticisms of the likes of David Myatt and Jews.

    As I have already stated, "none" of the so-called "ethical nor
    philosophical concerns raised in the original article were at all
    "legitimate" because ALL of these were irrationally based only
    upon "David Myatt's" own false premises and false reasoning.

    Quote Originally Posted by torlundy View Post
    You wrote:

    A balanced and objective view is being given,
    and as a result some questions about cosmotheism have been raised,
    which you just brush aside by assuming we have not been objective
    and that, in your words, this objective and rational criticism of cosmotheism is "unworthy of being addressed".

    Needle writes:

    No, "a balanced and objective view" is NOT being given,
    none of those questions are valid anymore than is "Have
    you stopped raping your sister?" would be, as it would be
    an equally a non-objective and irrational criticism of you
    or it would be just equally "unworthy of being addressed".
    It is clear that you have no idea as to what any objective
    or rational criticism of anything, nevertheless Cosmotheism.
    would be. When you do, valid questions can be addressed.

    Quote Originally Posted by torlundy View Post
    You wrote:

    For instance, Myatt quotes the following:

    and asks how this striving for such an idealized perfection will be achieved.

    Needle writes:

    It is clear that it is just a "leading question" and "red-herring",
    because the quote was taken out of its original context. For
    that reason, amongst many others, "David Myatt" is full of BS.

    Quote Originally Posted by torlundy View Post
    You wrote:

    The question should - philosophically - be answered by cosmotheists by reference to the ethics of cosmotheism, but what are these ethics?
    Needle writes:

    It had been answered in reference to the ethics of Cosmotheism in
    "The Path", "On Living Things" and in "On Society" read as a unified
    Whole, and not taken piecemeal and out of context by the likes of
    David Myatt and Jews and by others that are equally as Malignantly
    Narcissistic. Read them all in their original context, as a Whole, and
    the "ethics" become quite clear.

    Quote Originally Posted by torlundy View Post
    You wrote:

    Myatt's main criticism, which you have brushed aside by
    argumentum ad hominem is that cosmotheism posits
    and relies upon an abstract perfection, with this ideal then
    being used, in a value-judging way, to judge the worth of
    individuals.
    Needle writes:

    Myatt's main criticism is a argumentum ad hominem
    because Dr. Pierce's Cosmotheism doesn't actually ever:
    "posit nor rely upon any abstract perfection with this
    ideal then being used, in a value-judging way, to judge
    the worth of individuals.", at all.

    That is why this "David Myatt" character should not be
    taken very seriously at all, and mostly because he only
    uses many such "straw-man" logical fallacies and in his
    own false arguements and own false criticisms of others.

    Quote Originally Posted by torlundy View Post
    You wrote:

    Since the ethics of the numinous way posit that what is good is the avoidance of suffering via empathy and honor, then such a value-
    judging of individuals based upon some mythical, non-existent
    "ideal" is immoral.
    Needle writes:

    It is clear that David Myatt is only a hypocrite and based upon his own
    ethics of the numinous way because there is nothing "honorable" about
    lying and bearing false witness against another, and his lacking empathy
    for others similarly and deliberately falsely misrepresented and slandered.

    There is no such "value-judging of individuals" based upon some mythical,
    or any non-existent "ideal" that is within Cosmotheism, and that is immoral.

    That is why this "David Myatt" character should not be
    taken very seriously at all, and mostly because he only
    uses many such "straw-man" logical fallacies and in his
    own false arguements and own false criticisms of others.


    Quote Originally Posted by torlundy View Post
    You wrote:

    Those are not books but rather essays which themselves
    are but a collection of stated and assumed propositions.
    Needle writes:

    They are essays, originally in booklet form,
    and are the "definitive collection" of stated
    propositions based solely upon rational faith
    in the Whole Truths of Reality of Dr. Pierce's
    Cosmotheism. There are no false assumptions.

    Quote Originally Posted by torlundy View Post
    You wrote:

    Where?
    There is no theory of ethics,
    as there is no theory of ontology.
    Needle writes:

    You were already told exactly, "where",
    http://www.cosmotheism.net
    and therein is implied both a modern
    theory of both ethics and ontology.

    Quote Originally Posted by torlundy View Post
    You wrote:

    As Myatt states, nowhere is it made clear just how the "perfection", and such things as the triumph of the higher man over the "lower man" will be achieved.
    Needle writes:

    Indeed, only because "perfection" is relative and
    the triumph of higher man over lower man is still
    in a flux and it may yet not even come to pass.

    Quote Originally Posted by torlundy View Post
    You wrote:

    I have snipped the rest of your argumentum ad hominem
    directed at Myatt.

    Needle writes:

    Right! LOL!

    If you were to be intellectually honest,
    you would have snipped the WHOLE of
    David Myatt's criticisms of Dr. Pierce or
    of his own Cosmotheism, but, I do know
    now that you are not.

    So be it.

    Best regards,
    Needle

    http://www.cosmotheism.net
    http://www.nationalvanguard.org
    http://www.cosmotheism.net

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Are You Critical of Your Own People?
    By Schmetterling in forum Questions About Germanics
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: Saturday, August 19th, 2017, 02:57 AM
  2. Cosmotheism and Odinism: are they compatible?
    By Siegfried in forum Comparative Religion
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: Wednesday, March 14th, 2007, 09:53 PM
  3. Cosmotheism: An Idea Whose Time Has Come
    By Needle in forum Comparative Religion
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: Wednesday, February 28th, 2007, 05:19 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •