u/doom6rchist

I've been researching schools of philosophy and I think I realized I'm really a Neo-Aristotelian. Since my early 20s I've thought people were hardwired to value certain common things, like creative expression and meaningful relationships. I took a couple ethics classes in college, but that's about the extent of my formal philosophy education, so I've pieced this together from reading. I was never fully comfortable with the existentialists or Epicureans, even though I like them to an extent. In the past I would basically say I agreed with the existentialists that we find our own meaning, but that I think humans are hardwired to find meaning in certain common things, even though that's basically a rejection of the seeming existential assumption that we're blank slates, which we clearly are not. I've always appreciated the Epicurean recognition that humans need a sense of well-being to really flourish, but of course, even the way I said that belies the Aristotelian recognition that hedonic pleasures simply provide the nourishment for more meaningful fulfillment (eudaemonia). My discomfort with Epicureanism comes from the fact that while I think they did a pretty good job at laying out a pleasant life, it seems somewhat empty and disappointing, especially considering the internal drive I've always had to want to achieve things.

Politically, I'm economically progressive and socially libertarian. That combination isn't represented perfectly in American politics, but to be honest I've never really minded that, and I believe in doing what's actionable rather than ideal. Because of that I support the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, and groups like the Working Families Party. It seems much more actionable to be a progressive who's particularly for personal freedoms than the inverse. I bring this up because, being relatively new to Neo-Aristotelianism, I'm still getting comfortable with its political and social implications and presence. I know there are conservatives who promote Aristotelianism, but I've also heard there are Aristotelian progressives like Nussbaum and MacIntyre, and even Marx used Aristotelian assumptions about human nature as a foundation.

I've always had an appreciation for avant-garde art, and notably for noise in music. There are certain groups in popular music that found great beauty in noise, notably The Jesus and Mary Chain, Mizmor, The Gerogerigegege, and DNA, among others. However, I don't see this as a rejection of human nature. Rather, I think these artists find particularly novel beauty by breaking from conventionality. So, while they may throw out the rules of rock music, the realities of beauty in sound persist.

I'm posting all this because this is what's been stewing in my brain, and I wanted to get your perspectives.

I've been researching schools of philosophy and I think I realized I'm really a Neo-Aristotelian. Since my early 20s I've thought people were hardwired to value certain common things, like creative expression and meaningful relationships. I took a couple ethics classes in college, but that's about the extent of my formal philosophy education, so I've pieced this together from reading. I was never fully comfortable with the existentialists or Epicureans, even though I like them to an extent. In the past I would basically say I agreed with the existentialists that we find our own meaning, but that I think humans are hardwired to find meaning in certain common things, even though that's basically a rejection of the seeming existential assumption that we're blank slates, which we clearly are not. I've always appreciated the Epicurean recognition that humans need a sense of well-being to really flourish, but of course, even the way I said that belies the Aristotelian recognition that hedonic pleasures simply provide the nourishment for more meaningful fulfillment (eudaemonia). My discomfort with Epicureanism comes from the fact that while I think they did a pretty good job at laying out a pleasant life, it seems somewhat empty and disappointing, especially considering the internal drive I've always had to want to achieve things.

Politically, I'm economically progressive and socially libertarian. That combination isn't represented perfectly in American politics, but to be honest I've never really minded that, and I believe in doing what's actionable rather than ideal. Because of that I support the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, and groups like the Working Families Party. It seems much more actionable to be a progressive who's particularly for personal freedoms than the inverse. I bring this up because, being relatively new to Neo-Aristotelianism, I'm still getting comfortable with its political and social implications and presence. I know there are conservatives who promote Aristotelianism, but I've also heard there are Aristotelian progressives like Nussbaum, and even Marx used Aristotelian assumptions about human nature as a foundation.

I've always had an appreciation for avant-garde art, and notably for noise in music. There are certain groups in popular music that found great beauty in noise, notably The Jesus and Mary Chain, Mizmor, The Gerogerigegege, and DNA, among others. However, I don't see this as a rejection of human nature. Rather, I think these artists find particularly novel beauty by breaking from conventionality. So, while they may throw out the rules of rock music, the realities of beauty in sound persist.

I'm posting all this because this is what's been stewing in my brain, and I wanted to get your perspectives.

I've spent a decent amount of time in leftist spaces both IRL and online, and one thing I find very bothersome is the apparent preference for Soviet regimes over liberal democracies. Honestly, I'm disgusted by it. I recognize the US is drifting toward fascism, and that fascism is essentially what happens when capitalism fails - the powerful brutally beat down popular, democratic opposition that would challenge them. I oppose that. I'm probably a little to the left of social democracy, but am somewhere in the social democratic/libertarian socialist orbit. I'm for wide reaching social programs that lift people out of poverty and provide them the resources they need to lead fulfilling lives. I support real, progressive solutions, and am for workers owning the means of production, without being forced to be subservient to bosses and managers. Some Marxist-Leninist regimes had successful social programs, but all betrayed the goals of worker's control and personal freedom. I have friends who were small children when the Soviet Union was still around, and they remember the poverty they lived under.

The propaganda that the US and other capitalist countries promote against anything socialistic is a blatant campaign to program citizens against social programs and holding the ultra-wealthy accountable. However, that doesn't mean people should mindlessly defend authoritarian regimes that suppressed thought and expression. Yes, capitalism exploits the resources of other nations, it exploits workers at home and abroad, and it is the cause of wars for resources. However, if your goal is to actually improve people's lives, being an apologist for the Soviet Union or Maoist China isn't the way to do it. Those regimes lifted millions of people out of poverty, but they also oppressed them, economic inequality persisted, and millions were killed.

Social Democratic, Democratic Socialist, and Eco-Socialist ideologies should be vocally opposed to those regimes, as they are toward capitalism. They should oppose all systems of oppression, whether capitalist, fascist, or Leninist. And to be honest, I'd much rather live in the US than the Soviet Union at any point.

It seems like "dark metal" is becoming a key force in extreme metal. When I look up the term, it's basically defined as the fusion of extreme metal genres like black or death metal with gothic or doom metal, and I think that's basically accurate, but I also think it's become a much wider category than people usually recognize. I think there are a number of metal festivals that cater specifically to this style, like Prepare the Ground and Fire in the Mountains. Because this is really becoming a subculture, I also think it's shaping how many newer bands sound.

I think the description I gave underestimates the variety of genres the style pulls from, and I actually think the key genre in the style is probably sludge metal, along with modern, mostly atmospheric, black metal. It also incorporates punk subgenres like blackened crust and neocrust.

I think the most influential band in the entire scene is probably Neurosis, who are also obviously the band often credited with starting post-metal, and a lot of sludgy post-metal bands fit in the genre too. Converge is also an extremely influential band in that scene despite being one of the few metalcore bands that could be considered associated with it. His Hero is Gone is probably the most influential crust band in the scene. One band entirely outside of metal that has influenced a lot of these bands is the gothic country band Wovenhand.

The term "dark metal" was coined by Jürgen Bartsch of the band Bethlehem to describe their music. Bethlehem is typically considered a pioneering band of the DSBM subgenre, but he rejected that term because Bartsch specifically wanted Bethlehem's music to help people through issues like depression and trauma, which I think is telling about the style and subculture as a whole. These "dark metal" bands specifically use metal for emotional catharsis. The style is super authentic, which is particularly a dividing line within black metal - the bands within the dark metal subgenre are not theatrical, and are not typically interested in Satanism, though loss of faith and anti-religiosity are common themes. I suspect there isn't more crossover between dark metal and DSBM because the dark metal subculture I'm describing seems to be more of a North American trend, while DSBM tends to be mostly European.

Blackened Doom/Sludge bands like Thou and Mizmor are prominent. Though they're not as well-known as they should be, I actually think one of the best early examples of the sound is Deinonychus, the blackened doom project of former Bethlehem member Marco Kehren. There are also bands slightly outside the genres I've outlined that seem to fit as well, like the industrial metal band Author & Punisher.

The documentary A Wandering Path is mostly about what I'd consider dark metal bands. Profound Lore Records and Sacred Bones Records are two of the most significant labels for the style.

Do you know what I'm referring to? It seems like this style needs a name and it seems like dark metal fits, but I can see people arguing that dark metal refers to something else. If that's the case, what should this subculture be called? There's a clear style there.

It seems like "dark metal" is becoming a key force in extreme metal. When I look up the term, it's basically defined as the fusion of extreme metal genres like black or death metal with gothic or doom metal, and I think that's basically accurate, but I also think it's become a much wider category than people usually recognize. I think there are a number of metal festivals that cater specifically to this style, like Prepare the Ground and Fire in the Mountains. Because this is really becoming a subculture, I also think it's shaping how many newer bands sound.

I think the description I gave underestimates the variety of genres the style pulls from, and I actually think the key genre in the style is probably sludge metal, along with modern, mostly atmospheric, black metal. It also incorporates punk subgenres like blackened crust and neocrust.

I think the most influential band in the entire scene is probably Neurosis, who are also obviously the band often credited with starting post-metal, and a lot of sludgy post-metal bands fit in the genre too. Converge is also an extremely influential band in that scene despite being one of the few metalcore bands that could be considered associated with it. His Hero is Gone is probably the most influential crust band in the scene. One band entirely outside of metal that has influenced a lot of these bands is the gothic country band Wovenhand.

The term "dark metal" was coined by Jürgen Bartsch of the band Bethlehem to describe their music. Bethlehem is typically considered a pioneering band of the DSBM subgenre, but he rejected that term because Bartsch specifically wanted Bethlehem's music to help people through issues like depression and trauma, which I think is telling about the style and subculture as a whole. These "dark metal" bands specifically use metal for emotional catharsis. The style is super authentic, which is particularly a dividing line within black metal - the bands within the dark metal subgenre are not theatrical, and are not typically interested in Satanism, though loss of faith and anti-religiosity are common themes. I suspect there isn't more crossover between dark metal and DSBM because the dark metal subculture I'm describing seems to be more of a North American trend, while DSBM tends to be mostly European.

Blackened Doom/Sludge bands like Thou and Mizmor are prominent. Though they're not as well-known as they should be, I actually think one of the best early examples of the sound is Deinonychus, the blackened doom project of former Bethlehem member Marco Kehren. There are also bands slightly outside the genres I've outlined that seem to fit as well, like the industrial metal band Author & Punisher. Agalloch is another good example.

The documentary A Wandering Path is mostly about what I'd consider dark metal bands. Profound Lore Records and Sacred Bones Records are two of the most significant labels for the style.

Do you know what I'm referring to? It seems like this style needs a name and it seems like dark metal fits, but I can see people arguing that dark metal refers to something else. If that's the case, what should this subculture be called? There's a clear style there.

I want a strong psychedelic experience, and don't just want to feel high.

I don't like weed because I hate feeling too high and not being able to do anything, it's boring. I recently ate a lot of shroom chocolate - this was the high quality stuff, and I ate half the bar, like 4 or 5 pieces. I got the vivid colors and I felt good and giggly, but I didn't actually experience any substantial hallucinations beyond light and colors being intensified, and I mostly just felt high. It was a much more enjoyable high than weed because I felt good and wasn't just stoned, but it still isn't the experience I was really seeking, especially given the price.

The concept of psychedelics (and MDMA) creating new neural pathways is very appealing to me, and I'd like a meaningful psychedelic experience. I'm an atheist, but I've done zazen and studied philosophy and I really like transcendent, deep experiences through meditation and art.

So I'm wondering, what psychedelic should I seek out?

View Poll

I've seen 3 death metal shows in the past couple months.

Last night I saw Cryptopsy, Necrot, Spirit Adrift, and Blood Monolith. A few weeks ago I saw Behemoth, Deicide, Rotting Christ, and Immolation. A few weeks before that I saw Slaughter to Prevail, Whitechapel, and Attila (I know that's deathcore). I've seen lots of black metal before, but these are the first death metal shows I've been to. Here's what I thought.

In last night's show Necrot blew me away, they're the clear standout. I actually didn't know them very well before, but they had so much charisma, such great songs, they're as good as any band I've ever seen live. I'm definitely a fan now, but on their social media they call themselves "death metal punks," and that is more obvious live than on record, where they sound like OSDM. Live it was like seeing the best version of a band like Motörhead or Amebix possible. Cryptopsy were great. They didn't hit with quite as much energy as Necrot at first, but once they got going they were amazing and the set list was as good as you could've asked for. Matt McGachy is a very engaging frontman. Spirit Adrift is another band I didn't know that well, but as a doom metal fan they were a lot of fun, it was very retro hard rock. They definitely held their own. Blood Monolith are very talented musicians, but tbh the songs weren't quite as engaging as the other bands. They clearly have the musical chops, so I hope they keep refining their sound.

With the show before that one Behemoth was the standout. The music wasn't that tight or dense, but they were on point, extremely engaging, and theatrical. I've found some of their recent music cheesy, but those cheesy songs turn out to work as good crowd pleasers the audience could sing along to. Great live band. I was also very impressed with Deicide - I've heard people talk so much shit about them online, but live they were on point and Glen Benton is still an extremely powerful death metal vocalist with incredible range. Honestly, I think Deicide are an underrated band at this point. Immolation were also on point, very powerful and musically dense stuff. There were zero theatrics with them, they just launched into their set, hit extremely hard, and were done. Unfortunately I was a bit disappointed with Rotting Christ because I've been a fan of theirs the longest, I think I discovered them when I was 14. They were fine, but not nearly as heavy as the other bands, and there was a lot of silly posturing. It just didn't really hit.

At the deathcore show Whitechapel were the clear standout. Incredibly tight, great musicians, and strong songwriting. They were the reason I went and tbh my favorite albums of theirs are The Valley and Kin, and they didn't play any of that, but their straight deathcore stuff was really good. I didn't think much of Attila but they're one of my friend's favorite bands, and honestly I was pleasantly surprised. They're very competent musically. The singer is as goofy and obnoxious as you'd expect, but it was actually pretty funny and entertaining listening to him goof around while the band just went through a series of heavy breakdowns. Slaughter to Prevail were the weakest of the three, which was a bit funny because they went through so much effort trying to make Slaughter to Prevail seem epic. During Attila and Whitechapel the sound was actually fairly quiet, which I found unusual but nice. Then with Slaughter to Prevail they made everything twice as loud, which is a volume I'm used to at shows but it seemed a little funny they were obviously trying to emphasize them above the other bands. I don't mind Slaughter to Prevail's music, but live they leaned more into mediocre grooves and weren't nearly as tight as the other bands. The singer kept doing goofy motivational speeches, saying platitudes like "you can do anything you put your mind to" and "I love America." It struck me that he might've been pandering to dumb right wing podcast types, who seemed to make up a good chunk of the audience. The advantage of the deathcore audience was that there were a lot more women, but the downside is where the other shows had more nerdy types, this show had people who looked like cognitively impaired meth heads you'd see at an ICP concert. They were aggressive and rude. The best audience was at the Cryptopsy show, who were more reminiscent of the black metal or hardcore punk audiences I'm more used to - seemingly intelligent and introverted types. The Behemoth audience were nice too but a little nerdier, it almost felt like a metal comic-con or something.

I'm definitely going to prioritize going to more raw Necrot-style shows, that was the most fun, and tbh I like the people the most there. I think Whitechapel are a great band but this confirmed that I'm not really a deathcore person. Tbh a lot of deathcore lacked the interesting songwriting of the other shows. The thing it really reminded me of was EDM clubs, where it's really just about the drops or breakdowns, respectively. I think deathcore uses breakdowns the same way the simplest, shallowest EDM uses drops.

I've started working on an idea for a story with a new Council of Nine. Basically there's going to be a major global catastrophe that will decimate the world's mages. It makes the war between the Council of Nine and the Technocracy irrelevant since there are new, more pressing threats. The world will sort of be lightly post-apocalyptic - as far as sleepers are concerned, the world just went through major, devastating disasters that they don't really understand, but life is now returning to normal, despite mass casualties. Following the disasters, the Nephandi have gained a major foothold and their power and influence are growing to a level they've never experienced before. Their influence over sleepers is also growing via companies like Pentex, corrupt governments, and manipulative religious leaders.

The catastrophe affected different magical groups to different extents, wiping some out, while others carry on. The new council is as follows:
Dissonance Society - Time (these radical Ecstatics were able to mobilize as survivalists, weathering the catastrophe better than the rest of the Cult of Ecstasy)
Mo-Tzu Fa - Mind (these Li Hai were not hit as hard as the rest of the Akashic Brotherhood because of their deep integration with sleeper society and their focus on pragmatism)
Hollow Ones - Prime (because of their individualism they weathered the storm very well)
Psychopharmacopoeists - Life (their drugs and medications helped them and others survive, although other Progenitors were less fortunate)
Lifeweavers - Entropy (like others, their individuality helped them weather the storm, but other Verbena were more vulnerable)
Kahin - Forces (the Zaotar threw themselves into facing the catastrophe and ensuing conflicts, which basically wiped them out, but the Kahin survived because they're just as strong, they live in remote desert, they're more subtle/covert than other Taftâni)
Darwushim - Correspondence (the Ahl-i-Batin survived the catastrophe particularly well because of their discreet nature, and following it the Darwushim assumed a leadership role)
BioMechanics - Matter (they altered themselves with technology, which facilitated their survival, but they're the only part of the Iteration X doing particularly well)
Sons of Tengri - Spirit (their independent spirit and their location in remote rural Mongolia helped them evade the catastrophe better than other shamanic mages)

Note these explanations are all post-hoc - in reality these are just groups I like, that I'd like to use.

There's also a new antagonist. The Templar Knights and the Septarians of the Celestial Chorus are convinced that the catastrophe was God's judgment, so they come together to form an especially brutal new group that wants to wipe out other mage groups for provoking God's wrath. This group would be somewhere between a modern Cabal of Pure Thought, the Magisterium from His Dark Materials, and a survivalist militia.

What do you think?

"A cult is a system of psychological exploitation that rewires a person's identity through manipulation, isolation, coercion, and fear, until their thoughts, emotions, and behaviors serve the will of a controlling leader or ideology." - Mark Vicente

About a month ago I asked for opinions on Mark Vicente (u/markvicente) while also sharing the beginning of his new series on the cult of Bentinho Massaro. I've continued watching it and have explored his other videos, and I've found them really interesting and high quality. I recommend the series on Bentinho Massaro's destructive cult.

I titled that post "Bentinho Massaro exposé from a shady documentarian." I didn't feel calling him "shady" was quite what I wanted to say since it denigrated him more than I really wanted to, but a better word wasn't coming to mind and to be completely honest I didn't expect him to see it. Vicente's experience with NXIVM gives him a great degree of personal insight into cults. However, Vicente is best known for being the co-director of the documentary What the Bleep Do We Know, which I saw in theaters when I was 15. I thought it was a neat, interesting film, but I quickly became disillusioned with it when I learned more about its claims, the spiritual gurus it features, and how it's perceived in the scientific community (thanks, in part, to my physicist sister-in-law). The film misrepresents the observer effect and makes debunked claims about how consciousness shapes reality and matter.

From age 12 to 16 I was in an abusive, cultish "shaolin kung fu school" that was led by the charlatan Sin Kwang The. The school gaslit the students and the "master" of my particular branch was eventually exposed for raping a number of female students. While the school planted a seed of interest in Zen Buddhism, Taoism, and mindfulness, it also made me actively hostile toward "woo," and I resent the impact it had on my formative years. I now have a basically naturalist and materialist worldview, so I now have a distaste for What the Bleep Do We Know, and to be completely honest, I'm not completely sure what to think of Vicente.

That said the videos on Vicente's YouTube channel are extremely high quality and I definitely recommend anyone interested in cults dig through them, because he has a lot of great material on there. Nobody's perfect, and it's good to apply some critical thinking toward anything. In this video Vicente presents the above definition of a cult, which I found really interesting.