Caroline et al
AFAIK Manson didn't particularly identify with the 1960s Hippie thing -
he was a child of the 1950s -
you might have seen N Shrek's film "Charles Manson Superstar" for a
overlong but at times enlightnening interview with CM.
The thing about human sacrifice in magical religious cultures, is that
we often hear about it because of an internally generated critique of
its continuance
and the moment at which people decided it was unnecessary -
hence Francis Barrett's substitution of incense for blood sacrifice or
Crowley's famous interdiction that the "best blood is of the moon monthy".
The problem with extremists like CM is that they are ignorant of magick.
As to science - personally I'm not paranoid about discussion of science
but am really sceptical about
some of the narrow definitions that do the rounds -
for example the over reliance on Popper's imo, useless theories -
that were meant as a way of excluding social science from the academy.
I'm not sure it was ever a complete description of scientific activity -
but because of its ease of understanding - it gets trotted out . . .
When discussing the classical world and antique paganism - there is
still a tendency -
imo to see everything from the Greek perspective -
and not enough awareness of other
earlier naturalistic approaches such as sanskrit "shastra" tradition -
or just the observation of class characteristics which does not fit the
narrow Popper model.
In UK we just had a debate on Abortion lower limit, an issue in which
people often claim is just about science - but as Michael Portillo
said, is really about whether you agree or disagree with Abortion and
very little to do with "science".
BB/93
mogg
>
> I don't think The Beatles were sending *any* messages to Manson. I
> think regaridng Manson's idea of The Beatles being the Four Horsemen
> of the Apocalypse, I would only go so far as to say that it was a
> poetic image that might *seem* true-ish because of the way the 1960s
> were such experiemental and weird times. I think religious vision
> speaks in poetic terms, not necessarily real physical terms, although
> it might sometimes. And all this talk about Manson doesn't mean I
> approve of him, just that I don't necessarily think his visions were
> any more deluded than some other cults/cult leaders/full blown religions.
>
> I don't even think that Manson's use of murder is necessarily a
> symptom or result of his delusion. What about the Carthaginians, they
> performed child sacrifice, what about the Aztecs, they looked a bit of
> human sacrifice. The only reason they don't seem deluded is because
> they were powerful societes and human sacrifice was part of their
> regular religion. Manson was not powerful in broader society. I think
> *all* religious explanations and behaviours are "deluded" - not just
> ones that do terrible things. I also don't think religion (or
> spirituals practice) can determine "right' and "wrong" ultimately.
> Right and wrong for who, or what?
>
> From
>
> Caroline Tully.
>
> http://necropolisnow.blogspot.com/
>
>
|