Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jack Parsons: Occultist involved in early rocketry

wired.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 103 posts

Re: Jack Parsons: Occultist involved in early rocketry

#71

Post by bencollier49 »

crystaln wrote: post #64
violiner wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As one of those OTO tech people I was excited to see this here, but a little disappointed that there wasn't any description of what Thelema is about - basically (elevator speech explanation follows) a religion of discovering who you are and being that person. The references to hedonism and the 'darker side of magic' without the context that these are means of self discovery and acknowledging the darker side of existe…

Just looked briefly at Thelema. This appears to be yet another cult around a perfect, mystic founding document, like the Bible or Quran. Regardless of what that document contains, how can you justify originating your epistemology from a text in this way? This seems no different that any other religious ridiculousness.

It's worth looking into this in more detail. The Book of the Law is rather unusual in that its interpretation is left up to the individual. People also tend to miss the humour.

"The study of this Book is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading.

Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire.

Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence.

All questions of the Law are to be decided only by appeal to my writings, each for himself."

Thelema and Neo-Paganism in general tend towards postmodernism in their approach. They are generally extremely non-dogmatic and individualistic, and as such they attract scientific types, because they encourage exploration.

Re: Jack Parsons: Occultist involved in early rocketry

#72

Post by 6d0debc071 »

fit2rule wrote: post #53
6d0debc071 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isolation from the things you hate seems likely to be a highly desirable outcome for people who feel that way.

.. and so goes the big wheel. Wouldn't you rather just not hate, though?

Personally? No, my hatred has been of use to me in the past. I doubt I'd be where I am today if I'd not hated where I was.

And while !Me might have been okay with staying there, provided she didn't hate it, !Me would be far less the sort of person I want to be than I actually am. She'd lack many of my pleasures. The absence of hatred is not by itself the presence of joy.

Of course, hatred can also cripple you, rather than push you to grow: The unrewarded genius who consoles themselves that it's the world that's stupid in not respecting their genius, rather than themselves for not putting the effort in.

But that's a matter of context: honesty, self-knowledge, self-confidence, knowledge about the world. Simply because some hatreds are unproductive hardly renders the emotion itself malign, no more than joy is malign simply because some people find it in the destruction of others.

Re: Jack Parsons: Occultist involved in early rocketry

#73

Post by fit2rule »

6d0debc071 wrote: post #72
fit2rule wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

.. and so goes the big wheel. Wouldn't you rather just not hate, though?

Personally? No, my hatred has been of use to me in the past. I doubt I'd be where I am today if I'd not hated where I was. And while !Me might have been okay with staying there, provided she didn't hate it, !Me would be far less the sort of person I want to be than I actually am. She'd lack many of my pleasures. The absence of hatred is not by itself the presence of joy. Of course, hatred can also cripple you, rather…

Well, I've had my 5 minutes worth. ++good.

Re: Jack Parsons: Occultist involved in early rocketry

#74

Post by voidz »

bencollier49 wrote: post #71
crystaln wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just looked briefly at Thelema. This appears to be yet another cult around a perfect, mystic founding document, like the Bible or Quran. Regardless of what that document contains, how can you justify originating your epistemology from a text in this way? This seems no different that any other religious ridiculousness.

It's worth looking into this in more detail. The Book of the Law is rather unusual in that its interpretation is left up to the individual. People also tend to miss the humour. "The study of this Book is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading. Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire. Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by a…

I'm attracted to Discordianism and the Principia Discordia, and so I can relate. This book also contains humour and you will need to dive into your own sense of self and sense of reality to make anything of it. I don't know, maybe the overlap could be considered part of "a common mystic framework."

What I appreciate most is the fact that humour is at the center, especially with Discordianism. And this is what I enjoy: mysticism but without the serious undertone, and without the demand to enforce the views upon others.

And there is also "humour by proxy" when every so often you share these ideas with someone who follows "serious mysticism" and claims "you are following a satanic ideology!!!" fnord.

Re: Jack Parsons: Occultist involved in early rocketry

#76

Post by pavel_lishin »

keithpeter wrote: post #46

"Day science employs reasoning that meshes like gears… One admires its majestic arrangement like a da Vinci painting or a Bach fugue. One walks about it as in a French formal garden… Night science, on the other hand, wanders blindly. It hesitates, stumbles, falls back, sweats, wakes with a start. Doubting everything… It is a workshop of the possible… where thought proceeds along sensuous paths, tortuous streets, most…

Night Science sounds a lot like Cave Johnson in the Portal franchise.

"Just a heads up, we're gonna have a super conductor turned up full blast and pointed at you for the duration of this next test. I'll be honest, we're throwing science at the walls here to see what sticks. No idea what it'll do."

http://www.cavejohnsonhere.com/ "

Re: Jack Parsons: Occultist involved in early rocketry

#77

Post by chez17 »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #65
chez17 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You can complain about outside politics affecting science, but far too often, people like this will bring their politics into their science This seems incredibly one sided. By removing him, you've already brought politics into science. You're wrong, this isn't about politics in science, it's about "the right" politics or "the approved" politics in science. You have a point, but it's very defeatist. You're essentiall…

> This seems incredibly one sided. By removing him, you've already brought politics into science. You're wrong, this isn't about politics in science, it's about "the right" politics or "the approved" politics in science. Ideally people shouldn't be bringing any politics into science. But as sad as it is, sometimes you have to deal with politics to get your research sponsored, funded, and widely accepted. That's reali…

At what point does it become a self fulfilling prophecy? If we continue to cater to people who insist on demanding that research and funding go to the prettiest scientist or the on that has the best power point who is to blame when things like this happen? I think it's better to not be an enabler. Sure, it may be harder and more complicated, but to me it's the right thing to do. We're letting ignorance win when we have we shelter the ignorant.

Re: Jack Parsons: Occultist involved in early rocketry

#78

Post by bencollier49 »

voidz wrote: post #74
bencollier49 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worth looking into this in more detail. The Book of the Law is rather unusual in that its interpretation is left up to the individual. People also tend to miss the humour. "The study of this Book is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading. Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire. Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by a…

I'm attracted to Discordianism and the Principia Discordia, and so I can relate. This book also contains humour and you will need to dive into your own sense of self and sense of reality to make anything of it. I don't know, maybe the overlap could be considered part of "a common mystic framework." What I appreciate most is the fact that humour is at the center, especially with Discordianism. And this is what I enjoy…

"The men who are willing by this means to become the saviours of their country shall be called the Synagogue of Satan, so as to keep themselves from the friendship of the fools who mistake names for things." :-)

Re: Jack Parsons: Occultist involved in early rocketry

#79

Post by schoen »

wfn wrote: post #66
h1karu wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

in the software world powerful spell books are definitely real : http://www.lisperati.com/casting.html

You don't say! :) Try googling for "the wizard book." See first result. Marvel at the book's cover, http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book.html P.S. for a kinda-scientific treatment of "what if magic was real [and obeyed internally consistent laws]?", see ongoing scifi story http://qntm.org/ra

The TV Tropes folks have categorized this idea as "Magic A is Magic A":

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagicAIsMagicA

The description of Magic Engineering in Ra is worked out pretty entertainingly, with people setting up university departments, research programs, companies, etc., to apply magic to things like manufacturing and transportation.

Spoiler alert for Ra (no really, go read the story instead of this spoiler):

Va gur yngre puncgref vg'f funcvat hc gb ybbx yvxr gur ernfba gung "zntvp vf erny" vf abg gung vg'f n shaqnzragny cneg bs gur angher bs gur havirefr, ohg gung vg jnf vzcyrzragrq va gur cnfg ol uhzna orvatf sbyybjvat n grpuabybtvpny fvathynevgl, lrg gung gur crbcyr fghqlvat vg naq cenpgvpvat vg gbqnl qba'g xabj gung gung fvathynevgl unf unccrarq. (Gur choyvp jebatyl oryvrirf gung zntvp jnf nyjnlf n cneg bs angher.)

Gur rknpg ernfba gung gur trareny choyvp vf pbzcyrgryl hanjner gung gur fvathynevgl vf nyernql va gurve cnfg (be gung zntvp vf n uhzna perngvba!) vf fgvyy na rkpvgvat cbvag bs batbvat qvfchgr va gur fgbel, naq V'z dhvgr rkpvgrq gb svaq bhg gur nafjre.

Re: Jack Parsons: Occultist involved in early rocketry

#80

Post by trhway »

crystaln wrote: post #59
JoshTriplett wrote: post #22

There are two different forms of scientific history. The history of science as used for future scientific development lives in academic papers, journals, conferences, and similar; those are preserved as a record of historical development progress. That history is, when functioning correctly, blind to outside issues like this. On the other hand, there's scientific history as captured by news and popular culture, which…

By removing vibrant people and bizarre stories from scientific history you are doing science a disservice by deterring the smartest, creative people, many of whole are quirky, from the sterile, close-minded politicized world of science. The less white-washing the better. We need to know our heros were crazy just like us.

as a sidenote, the article's mentioning of sex orgies in Pasadena house of the rocket science founder brought by association the history of Christian religion - how the group of 14 open-minded in absolutely all respects hippies who got no taboo unbroken got white-washed into 13 saints and 1 god of an extremely conservative/close-minded religion.

The process is pretty universal, and modern science is like a religion in many respects.

Post reply on HN