|
Post by I AM the Way on Jul 17, 2010 12:05:14 GMT -6
Ok, this is where all you guys should be discussing the blog talk radio debate between Jason King and Warlock Asylum.
If you missed it, catch it here: www.blogtalkradio.com/theooze
I don't have time to go into my thoughts right now, but rest assured, I'll post my commentary on the argument soon.
Awake!
Venger As'Nas Satanis Cult of Cthulhu High Priest
|
|
Kai'Sigth
Adeptus
Dreaming Herald of the Old Gods
Posts: 32
|
Post by Kai'Sigth on Jul 17, 2010 13:21:48 GMT -6
I actual managed to catch the debate (it's a wonder what good planning and a bit of determination can do) and I was very pleased by how well it went.
I believe both sides proposed a decent argument on the subject. I was thoroughly informed on certain points that I was previously uneducated in.
Mr. King provided a very articulate and well thought out argument that was very pleasurable and informative to listen to. His choice of words to express his ideas and his recollection of facts to support his standing was very well executed.
Mr. Asylum presented a different prose to his arguments and while I felt at times it could have been better organized (nothing against you Warlock Asylum, I happen to be a horrible debater when speech is involved, as I let my emotional centers cloud my judgement and confuse my thoughts) and I was presented with information and a "behind the scenes" view of Peter Levenda and his occultist affiliates which I enjoyed hearing about.
Overall if nothing else I was richly informed! However, I would have to cast my vote for Jason King due to his logical approach and the inclusions of stated facts to his argument. I felt he better argued his position on the matter of debate.
I'll definitely have to listen to it again just for clarity purposes.
Very enlightening experience and I was not only entertained but well informed by both the participants.
The Cult of Cthulhu Shall Never Die!
|
|
|
Post by rylehsambassador on Jul 17, 2010 20:21:16 GMT -6
Listening to the debate I found a new respect for both parties.The research done by both sides was quite informed and well put together.I did find the points by Mr.King more valid hence the reason for my call to cast my vote in his favor. Reading through the simon necronomicon or any necronomicon there is a inability within my reasoning to not see the influence of H.P. Lovecraft in any texts of that respect.I also appreciated the point that through any research there is no evidence of Cthulhu before lovecrafts original printing of the term.
The most evident valid points for me from Mr.King again start with the mention of the point that Cthulhu has never been mentioned previously before lovecrafts hand.Also the countings of words such as ia cthulhu azathoth and the dates and texts from which they stemmed.I found his research also impeccable
From Mr.warlocks respect I found the references to the Chaldaen Priests and the Djinn also the mentions of the tutulu from the thelemite texts.
In closing I found both arguements quite entertaning it was a great debate respectfully and diplomatically conducted by two people very serious about the dark craft.A debate from two interior members of this culture made it quite interesting to my ears.I did find the arguement by jason king better researched and presented a bit more provactively.I hope to see more debates in the future.Id appreciate some feedback on my comments.
|
|
Jason King
Adeptus
++Ninth of the Nine++ Apostate
Posts: 37
|
Post by Jason King on Jul 18, 2010 6:09:27 GMT -6
I was pleased with both the debate as a whole and also my personal contribution. Being the self-critical bastard that I am, I see a few things I could have done better. I should have typed out my parallels between the "Testimony of the Mad Arab" and Lovecraft's stories. That would have made for quicker delivery and I probably could have gotten to all three instead of just the first two. Also, speed of delivery is paramount when establishing parallels in the minds of the audience - this was undoubtedly my weakest moment.
Also, as Venger pointed out at the end, I should have given an uncontentious definition for the term "dependence," as this would have made a solid argument even more forceful. I hinted at it several times, but never stated it outright. Dependence = Thing A would not exist without Thing B.
Furthermore, I purposely chose not to offer a critique of the Sigils, seeing it as being off topic. But given Warlock Asylum's thrust, I probably should have done so - it would have knocked the last remaining leg off of the table.
Given all this, I feel that as debates go, it was open and shut. Warlock Asylum had many an interesting point, but in the end, none of them nullified the proposition. Though, I must say, I have gained a good deal of personal respect for the man in the process.
JK
|
|
|
Post by I AM the Way on Jul 18, 2010 10:42:41 GMT -6
Red suits you, JK.
Ok, now that I have a small block of time, here are some things that caused me to raise an eyebrow during yesterday's Ooze show.
When Warlock Asylum mentioned something about being an old school black magician... doesn't the Simonomicon focus on summoning or calling out to those entities working against the Great Old Ones? Seems as though the Simonomicon wants to play it both ways: a book about forbidden darkness yet focuses on petitioning the enemies of Dread Cthulhu and company. Perhaps I'm wrong though... clarification anyone?
When Jason King talked about the Ancient Ones breaking through he used the word hostile or hostility. Just wanted to ask, "hostile to whom?" While any kind of fundamental change or evolution or (re)birth is painful, I believe the A:O busting back into our reality is beneficial to mankind. But then again, that goes into my view of the world as a sort of prison. The A:O bring liberation in my view and as described in "The Call of Cthulhu".
Venus Satanas wrote something in The Ooze chatroom which is probably what many were also pondering based on Warlock Asylum's argument: could Lovecraft's Mythos and Sumerian/Babylonian mythology have come from the same source? If such is the case, the Simon Necronomicon would definitely have a different name, but could have had similar elements even if Lovecraft had never written anything. Far fetched, I know, but that's one theory.
Yes, the definition of dependent is a tricky area. I'm surprised WA didn't use that to his advantage better. Or perhaps he did and I just missed it. WA, comments?
"Dependence = Thing A would not exist without Thing B."
If you mean that the Simonomicon would look/read much different without H.P. Lovecraft's influence, then I agree and believe it to be an open or shut case. But would the Simonomicon still exist in a slightly alternate form without Lovecraft? I don't know if anyone can argue that definitively... However, I can tell you that I would be getting this, "So, Venger, what do you think of the Simon Necronomicon?" a lot less. Really? Every week? I am so getting tired of hearing that fucking question!
If anyone wants to help write a more authentic Necronomicon just to shut people up, I'm available.
The Cthulhu Cult shall never die!
Venger As'Nas Satanis Cult of Cthulhu High Priest
|
|
|
Post by darkf00l on Jul 18, 2010 12:57:50 GMT -6
First of all, FIRST POST ON THE CoC board ever!!!
With that out of the way, I would like to state that the debate between Jason King and Warlock was also the first debate I had ever participated in. Both in high school, and in college, I was never on a debate team, nor had I ever been involved in the voting process. That being stated, I really didn't know the proper criteria on which to base my vote upon.
In retrospect, I probably would have voted in favor of Jason King not necessarily because of his stance and/or position, but because he was the better debater - hands down. Jason King, on several occasions within the debate, pulled the rug out from under Warlock Asylum's arguments at almost every turn. The most notable instance in which this can be seen/heard was where Warlock discussed the CIA operative’s infiltration of the O.T.O. Jason's responded to these claims of infiltration and "secret books" within the O.T.O. simply by stating that 'the information was never verified.' Instead of combating the direct attack which Jason made on the credibility his sources, Warlock Asylum proceeded on with further "information".
Now although Jason King put up a better fight there was a major point that Warlock Asylum brought to my attention regarding The Simon Necronomicon. The Simon Necronomicon, as a magickal system, drew from a variety of Mythological and Magickal sources (such as Ancient Babylonian deities as well as Aleister Crowley & Kenneth Grant's work). Since the Simon Necronomicon is a melting pot of all of these systems, Warlock illustrated that the book is not SOLELY dependant on the Mythos of H.P. Lovecraft, and that it is tied in with other systems. He also went on to illustrate how the Gate Walking methods work, regardless of where the mythos originated from.
I myself would like to illustrate Warlock's point with this analogy:
Suppose one was to argue that Satanism is solely dependent upon the Mythos of Judeo-Christianity. We could argue in favor of this claim since the Hebrew word for Satan is Adversary. We could also argue against that same claim since many Satanic texts as well as Satanic perspectives arose from this old mythos. Thusly, Satanism is, to an extent, forever dependant upon Judeo-Christianity. However, as many of us would agree on this board, Satanism goes well beyond this old myth and in some other sects, incorporates other systems into it (again, using Aleister Crowley's work as an example within certain Satanic Circles).
Overall, I must say that both sides of the debate genuinely impressed me. I do believe, however, that in the end...Jason King was the stronger opponent.
|
|
|
Post by 10kdays on Jul 18, 2010 13:12:33 GMT -6
When Warlock Asylum mentioned something about being an old school black magician... doesn't the Simonomicon focus on summoning or calling out to those entities working against the Great Old Ones? Seems as though the Simonomicon wants to play it both ways: a book about forbidden darkness yet focuses on petitioning the enemies of Dread Cthulhu and company. Perhaps I'm wrong though... clarification anyone?
Venger As'Nas Satanis Cult of Cthulhu High Priest
As a matter of fact, you have it right, High Priest Satanis. In the BOOK OF FIFTY NAMES there is a sigil called "Sirsir" which is described as follows: "The Destroyer of TIAMAT, hated of the Ancient Ones, Master over the Serpent, Foe of KUTULU." Also, in the THE BOOK MAKLU OF THE BURNING OF EVIL SPIRITS there are a couple exorcisms and chants with ill intent towards the Old Ones, including one against Azathoth. Whne the stars are right!
|
|
|
Post by demonlove on Jul 18, 2010 13:20:30 GMT -6
High Priest Venger Satanis you have made some unique observations concerning Saturday's debate. I must state also that according to the Necronomicon Tradition, the book is actually in support of the Ancient Ones for it calls Crowley an "Ancient One" in the SN's introduction. The initiate of the system later comes to understand that the initiation process is leading him to the worship of the Ancient Ones in a way similar to an electrician first experimenting with low voltage and learning the principles of electricity and then moving on to working with high voltage. I think Venus is correct in her observations that Lovecraft was tapping into sources that were also influential in Ancient Mesopotamia. An example of this is evident by the word "kutulu." Kutulu in an ancient Chinese word that was use to describe general Kutluk, head of the Uyghur Empire, which encompassed parts of Arabia and China. A thousand years later Lovecraft writes about the Cult of Cthulhu having membership in Arabia and in China. So in some ways, for the studious person, the Simon Necronomicon shows some relation to the Cthulhu Mythos and ancient history. Mr. King presented some very interesting facts and was well organized. My only regret is not following my original outlne that pointed out how some of Lovecraft's ideas have appeared in ancient history. It was really a good debate and the CoC staff were excellent hosts. Will write more shortly. Stay blessed!
|
|
|
Post by lucofthelight on Jul 18, 2010 15:39:53 GMT -6
I listened to the debate between Jason King and Warlock Asylum last night completely unbiased. After listening to it, it is pretty clear to me that Jason King won hands down by keeping the debate on topic and sticking with the original argument. In this way, I think he won.
However, I was really impressed with Warlock Asylum's knowledge and calm poise throughout the debate. I think he presented some interesting points even though they may have been slightly off topic.
My respect has grown for both men.
Ia Ia Cthulhu Fhtagn!
|
|
|
Post by I AM the Way on Jul 18, 2010 17:17:39 GMT -6
A brilliant observation, Dark F00l; welcome to our discussion boards!
How dependent is Satanism upon Christianity or even Judeo-Christian mythology? And does this dependency, by whatever degree, constrict the entire Satanic paradigm? Most would probably agree that Satanism as we know it would be much different without Christianity to spawn it; however, can anyone guess if the Adversarial Current can evolve beyond its dependency, its reactionary roots? Yes, the mind reels at such an implication. Thoughts?
Just for fun (and gnosis), I'd like to openly suppose a related topic, but deeper into our own state of affairs... is the Cult of Cthulhu dependent upon the works of H.P. Lovecraft? Additionally, to what regard is our religion dependent upon Gurdjieff's teaching?
Zuun zazigor oola kshta,
Venger As'Nas Satanis Cult of Cthulhu High Priest
|
|
|
Post by ragnafa on Jul 18, 2010 17:38:01 GMT -6
I believe H.P lovecraft was a prophet to the Old ones just like yourself Master Satanis. But whether or not he even existed I believe there would have been someone else. And with that I believe that the Mythos go way far back before Lovecraft. It just so happens that Lovecraft was not afraid to come out with it. In history there were many cultures that believed in alien deities,and I'm sure you know that already. Thats my answer to that....Awake
|
|
|
Post by ragnafa on Jul 18, 2010 17:39:30 GMT -6
So I forgot to add that I don't believe that The Cult of Cthulhu is dependent on Mr.Lovecraft. It goes deeper than him.
|
|
|
Post by rylehsambassador on Jul 18, 2010 18:38:59 GMT -6
I would have to side with my brethren saying the cult goes much deeper then Cthulhu there have been references for quite a long time before that to gods similar in description if different in name and like was said someone would have ended up being the prophet for the old ones had it not been lovecraft. My question in retort is are any of you suprised it took as long as it did for the next promoter of the mythos to come into being. If it had not been for high priest Satanis how long would it have been before the idea of the old ones and the mythos in general was lost in memory? Personally ive been working on expanding and bettering myself as the basis for my magic for sometime before I knew about gurdijeffs teachings So I think alot of master satanis's ideas even if infulenced by gurdijeff would have appeared in some other form with or without him.
|
|
|
Post by demonlove on Jul 18, 2010 19:50:00 GMT -6
Overall I gained a great deal of respect for Mr. King and his perspective. I really was impressed by the hospitality of High Priest Venger Satanist and the Beast, the CoC. I must say too that the SN is a book of the Ancient Ones. In the Simon Necronomicon's introduction it describes Crowley as an Ancient One. GateWalkers know well that the initiatory structure of the tome is to lead the initiate into working with the Urilia text, in a similar manner to an electrician first working with low voltage energy and learning electrical law before working with high voltage. So the initiate prepares themself for the greater psychological changes by woking with the planetary ones first. My only regret that I have concerning the debate is not illustrating how much Lovecraft drew from ancient history. For example, the word "kutulu" is an ancient Chinese word for general Kutluk, who was a ruler of the Uyghur Empire. This empire spanned from Arabia to China. A thousand years later, Lovecraft writes that the Cult of Cthulhu's seat of autjority was in Arabia with immortals living in China. Coincidence? Or is it that the Simon Necronomicon connects the Cthulhu Mythos to actual events. Personally, I would like to have seen a debate series, but it was good to start with the topics we did. Stay Blessed! - Warlock Asylum
|
|
|
Post by Sarak G'hash on Jul 18, 2010 19:58:53 GMT -6
So I forgot to add that I don't believe that The Cult of Cthulhu is dependent on Mr.Lovecraft. It goes deeper than him. Agreed! Awake!
|
|
|
Post by rylehsambassador on Jul 18, 2010 20:04:28 GMT -6
And we thank you Mr.Asylum for taking the time to put on a debate for us to enjoy the personal thanks from myself and im sure from the rest of the CoC
Awake!
|
|
|
Post by Xor'Nefthrahm on Jul 20, 2010 9:00:29 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by thedeadidea on Aug 5, 2010 7:57:44 GMT -6
I would tip my hat to both Jason and Warlock for the debate and their extensive knowledge and research on the topic. The debate would go to Jason on the basis of a coherent argument with a more sound evidence set relating to the debate topic.
Honestly though I think the entire problem with the two words 'dependence' and 'mythos' stands as an entirely elaborate point of contention. Correct me if I am wrong but mythos is a one to one with mythology "stories we live our lives by" and dependence is thing A reliant on thing B Taking the historical or textual assessment you are probably more then right in saying its a closed case YES simonomicon is dependent on the HPL mythology. But I think this is easily obfuscated and battled by simply defining a different measure of the word dependence from the negative position.
In that any serious occultist is a practicing one... So the books intention is one of an interpretive framework making it an evolution or variation of the origional text. By simply paralleling what Crowley and the GD did with the Holy Guardian Angel or the historical evolution of Christianity or the inconsistencies of grimoires one can demonstrate many distinct mythological lexicons.
By then arguing this cultural assessment of mythology being independent strains AND something of a neopragmatic or post modern paradigm of literary theory (many reads possible, fuck authors and historical authority etc). One would arrive at a very different form of legitimate argumentation and one personally I think Warlock could have taken the debate with.
|
|
|
Post by A'Zodul F'eid on Aug 18, 2010 10:01:14 GMT -6
I like the High Priest's idea of an "Authentic" fake. Someone needs to do it. The Simon version is great in its own right but it's so short, and it's content isn't precisely what Lovecraft's writing lead me to expect. I'm open enough to consider that there could be a real Necronomicon out there somewhere, but I'd value a believable hoax enough that even if a real one later surfaced I wouldn't be too upset.
I wouldn't say the Mythos is dependent on Lovecraft, primarily because he was greatly influenced by a unspeakably large history of the archetype. Anyone who's studied Tiamat, ancient Persian gods, the Titans or the Celtic Mythology cycle can see that the idea of chaos gods, unspeakable monstrosities, or formless beings are far from original to Lovecraft. I have a great reverence toward him, but I'm under no illusions that those stories couldn't have been written, albeit inferiorally, by another human mind.
Even Satanism is not entirely dependent on the Jeudo-Christian faith, due to Satanism being more an adversarial religion than actually worship of a dark god. Regardless of how viewed, both the Adversary God and the idea of demon worship did exist before the first Jew or the first stone of Jerusalem.
Awake!
|
|