Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory

www.beingjewish.com

Does Judaism Believe in Satan?

(This article should be read after my article Why Did G-d Create the World?)

The Christians don't understand how an angel of G-d can try to seduce people to disobey G-d, so they came to the unsupported conclusion that Satan must have rebelled against G-d.
This is completely contrary to everything Judaism believes. We reject that interpretation entirely.
What, then, does Judaism teach about Satan?
Did you ever see the movie Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory? (It's one of the few examples of where a story from a book was changed for the screen without ruining the experience.) The story is about a very famous chocolate factory, called Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory, that produces the world's greatest chocolates, candies -- confectionery in general. No one ever enters the factory, and no one ever leaves.
Mr. Wonka, the owner, runs a contest. The winners of the contest will be allowed to enter and tour the factory together. However, they will have to sign a contract and follow the rules. One of the rules is: no eating of any products inside the factory without express permission.
Afterwards, when they leave, they will go home with a lifetime supply of chocolate.That is, *IF* they follow the rules.
Five children win. They are of course all excited; TV stations and reporters interview them, and the whole world is excited with them. Now they just wait until the day they are to enter the factory and see the great wonders that no one else has ever been allowed to see.
Before the big day comes, each of the winners of the contest is secretly visited by a man named Arthur Slugworth, President of Slugworth Chocolates, Incorporated. Mr. Slugworth shows them a lot of cash, and tells them they will get all that money and more, if only they steal out of the factory a candy called an Everlasting Gobstopper. See, it hasn't been mass produced or marketed yet, and Wonka's competition wants to get an advance sample of this product so he can get it out first, and ruin Wonka.
The day comes, and all the kids are allowed into the factory with one adult relative. They see the most amazing sights, and eat the most amazing (and impossible to actually exist in real life) foods. One of the things Wonka gives each of the kids is an Everlasting Gobstopper, on the condition that they never show it to anyone else.
During the tour of the factory, four of the kids break the rules by taking stuff they should not have taken, and they all suffer the consequences. One gets all swollen up and blue from some gum she should not have taken, and they have to take her away and squeeze her until she gets skinny again. One of the kids jumps into a pool of chocolate and is sucked up into the pipes. And so on. They are all saved in the end, so don't worry, but they must leave the factory without the lifetime supply of chocolate, because they broke the rules.
Charlie, the main character, also breaks the rules. He drinks some Fizzy drink he was not supposed to take, but no one seems to know, so he doesn't say anything. He doesn't get hurt in the process, so he survives until the end of the tour.
At the end of the tour, Charlie Bucket and his grandfather are the only ones left. Mr. Wonka says good bye to them, and tells them to leave. Upset, Charlie asks him for the lifetime supply of chocolate. But Mr. Wonka has somehow found out that Charlie drank the Fizzy drink, and therefore broke the rules. Charlie will not be getting a lifetime supply of chocolate either.
Wonka yells at him for drinking the Fuzzy drink, and Charlie feels bad. But his grandfather is angry, and he tells Charlie that they'll give Mr. Slugworth an Everlasting Gobstopper.
They are about to leave, when Charlie realizes that no matter how he feels, stealing and breaking rules is bad. So he goes to Mr. Wonka's desk and returns the Gobstopper to him.
Wonka sees that, and jumps up in delight! He tells Charlie that he has won! Charlie has no idea of what he's talking about. It seems that Wonka was looking to retire, and so he set up the contest to find an honest child he could train as his successor.
Then Wonka calls in Wilkinson, his aide. And Wilkinson is Slugworth! Slugworth was sent out to each of the children to test them! To see how they would respond. Anyone who either ate food he wasn't supposed to eat or brought a Gobstopper to Slugworth was dishonest, and would not become the successor. (Okay, the parable is not exact, but I think you get my point.) Notice, also, that Wonka himself gave each of the children a Gobstopper. So he himself set up the choice, and then gave them the opportunity to break the rule, using Wilkinsin to offer the temptation.
Christians take Slugworth at face value: a reprehensible competitor who will stop at nothing to undo Wonka. And that's how they view Satan.
Jews do not see it that way, and we never have. Just as Slugworth is really Wilkinson doing what Wonka asked him to do, Satan is also not working for himself.
The Hebrew word "Satan" means "Hinderer." To hinder someone means to hold him back, to try to prevent him from doing something. G-d created the Hinderer to give us work to do in this world (see my article Why did G-d Create the World?). Satan is here to make things difficult for us, so we can overcome our evil temptations, and PASS the test. That is the purpose of Satan. Satan is an angel whose purpose has been determined by G-d.
Temptation is there to try and deter us. It gives us the ability to do the wrong thing. More importantly, it gives us the ability to look at evil and refuse to do it. By presenting us with the opportunity to do evil, it gives us the ability to choose between good and evil.
The ability to choose between good and evil is what gives us free will. (See my article On the Nature of Free Will.
So, in order for us to work for the good that Hashem wants to give us, the good of the World to Come, we need something to deter us. That is the ability to do evil. Satan is our Evil Inclination (Yetzer Hara). The Evil Inclination tries to prevent us from doing good, because Hashem has commanded the Evil Inclination to do that. Why? To give us free will.
Each of us every day fights with Satan. We all have temptations, throughout the day. But we, as the Children of Israel, have the power to overcome even angels, if we work at it. Therefore, the Talmud says that men are greater than angels, for we can fight with an angel (Satan) and win.
Satan is not, as the Christians think, a rebellious angel. How impossible! The angels are spiritual and holy, without any physical or unholy presence, and the presence of Hashem's holiness permeates them entirely. Angels, unlike humans, are therefore constantly and fully aware of Hashem's Presence everywhere. Could you stay dry in the ocean? An angel could not stop being holy, and can do no wrong. There is holiness everywhere in Creation, everywhere in the universe, and angels are made of the same thing. An angel could not stop serving G-d even if he tried.
Furthermore, humans have Satan to tempt us. Angels have no Satan to tempt them. Who would be Satan's Satan? An ultra-Satan?
The truth is that Satan has a job to do, just like every other angel. And angels have no free will. They do as Hashem commands them.
A man once came to a great Rabbi, very troubled. He said to the Rabbi, "Please pray to Hashem to take away my Evil Inclination. I do so many sins, and I want to stop sinning!"
The Rabbi answered, "Then what would be your purpose in this world, if you had no Evil Inclination? Your purpose in life is to overcome your personal Evil Inclination. That is what you were created for! Hashem has enough angels in heaven. He doesn't need one more. He created you human, so that you could improve yourself."
Humans can improve themselves, and that is their purpose in this world. Angels, however, cannot improve themselves. That's not their purpose. Angels are therefore said to be "standing." They cannot become better, and they cannot rise any higher than they are. They are, so to speak, standing.
Isaiah, when describing a Heavenly scene, says "Seraphim were standing around Him...." (Isaiah 6:2). (Seraphim are a type of angel.) Spiritually, angels are stuck at whatever level Hashem created them.
Humans are different. Humans can rise by improving themselves. For that reason, we are described as "walkers." Therefore the Prophet Zachariah told the High Priest, "This is what Hashem, L-rd of Hosts says: if you walk in My ways, and if you observe My safeguards, you and your sons after you will be the High Priests, and you and your sons will thus guard my Holy Temple, and I will make you walkers among these who are standing" (Zachariah 3:7).
In other words, Hashem was promising the High Priest that he and his children will be High Priests, and also will merit reward in the Afterlife, in the World of Souls, where righteous people go after death.
The Prophet Zachariah was saying that in the Next World they will be walkers among the standers, which means humans among angels.
So the angels are referred to as perpetually standing, but we are movers. Our purpose is to keep on moving, to keep on improving ourselves, and to keep on rising.
And how do we do it? By constant battle with the Evil Inclination.
So now we have to revise our understanding of Satan. Satan is not a fallen angel. Satan is merely an angel with a dirty job. Satan does not have a rival kingdom. Satan is not in competition with G-d, and Satan does not want followers or worshipers. He's not even happy when people obey him and sin.
Satan is the angel who tempts us, and the angel who prosecutes us in Heaven. He is also the Angel of Death. The angel who tries to make us sin is the same angel who accuses us in the Heavenly Court, and the same angel who carries out the death sentence.
So, no, Satan does not wear a red suit, or carry a trident. Nor does he wear a business suit. Satan is a force of evil in the world that we must resist. Satan most often appears as a desire within you. Of course, there is no shortage of things in the world to tempt us to sin.
And Satan has many "helpers," many of whom don't even know they are helping him. A shady-looking character in the street walks over to you and offers to sell you some stolen property, for example. He's not Satan. He's someone who has not resisted Satan, and has decided to do evil. He's now trying to tempt you to sin, but not because he wants you to sin per se. He personally has something to gain from your sinning.
Whenever a human being tries to tempt another person to sin, it's because he himself feels he can gain something from it. It may be simply that he doesn't want to sin alone. Or maybe he needs your help. Or maybe he just gets emotional satisfaction out of seeing you go against what you believe (in which case he is a very sick person, but unfortunately not unusual). There could be any number of motivations.
Likewise, the snake in the Garden of Eden was not Satan either, though confused Christians think it was. The snake had his own motivations, which I will not go into now. He was what the Torah calls a "Seducer," someone who, for whatever reason, tries to get other people to sin.
How does one recognize Satan? For that we need to live a Torah life. This means a host of things that work together. To mention a few: Torah study, spending quality and quantity time among Observant Jewish people, learning from Rabbis and other religiously developed Jewish people, periodic introspection, and actual self-development by means of performing the Mitzvos. It is difficult (if at all possible) to cite any of these as being more important than any of the others.
None of us are capable of destroying Satan. What we are expected and commanded to do is to gain the upper hand over our personal Satans. And Hashem helps us do this, constantly. The Talmud says that the Evil Inclination constantly attempts to destroy us spiritually, and Hashem constantly helps us and gives us the means with which to overcome our Evil Inclinations.
When this world comes to an end, and the Next World begins, the Day of Judgment will take place. After that, Satan's work will be done. There will no longer be sin, and there will no longer be death. All judgment will have been passed and performed. There will no longer be any need for a Tempting Angel, an Angel of Death, or a Prosecuting Angel. Satan will cease to exist. It will not be a sad day at all.
Nor will it be unfair treatment of Satan. It will be like turning off a machine. Angels are not like humans, with human emotions and desires. They exist merely to follow Hashem's instructions, for the greater glory of Hashem.
That's the reason we exist too -- to follow Hashem's instructions for the greater glory of Hashem. So Satan was created to struggle against us, and we were put into this world to struggle against Satan.
But that was not the purpose of our being created. When the struggle is over we will begin to receive the reward for having struggled. We will be brought in to the Next World, and the struggle will end.
That's when the good times will begin.
Read more about this in my article, "Is the World in a Conflict Between Good and Evil?"
If you're a Christian, and/or you're here looking for Scriptural arguments and polemics, take a look at this article: "Who Is Satan?" by Rabbi Tovia Singer.

Faustian Society

http://www.transparencynow.com/faustian.htm

Trancparency

Faustian Society


When we examine the characteristics of contemporary societies that have been described in previous pages, we find that much of it comes down to a few essential ideas. These societies are part of a new civilization and a new period in history, which can be referred to as Faustian (with apologies to Spengler) because of its quest for power.

At its core, this new Faustian age and civilization believes in the self and the self's right and ability to control the conditions of its own existence. It exalts reason, but it is practical or "instrumental" reason, which is seen as a tool that humanity can use to manipulate the world.

Faustian society includes at least four elements that define the individual's changing relationship to the world of limitation:

* It uses science and technology to overcome the limits of the physical world.

* It brings together high technology and art to create simulations that can be used as substitutes for what can't be extracted from the physical world. The most important of these simulations are imitation realities, which provide people with experiences not available in the rest of life.

* It adheres to an aesthetic philosophy, which sees the acting out of fantasies that express our fears and desires, as a form of art, entertainment and liberation.

* It views matter, life, culture and mind as deceptive appearances, which makes them simulations or something similar to simulations.

In addition, Faustian societies are characterized by the pervasive use of deceptive simulations to manipulate large numbers of people.

Put in terms that were first referred to on an earlier page, Faustian society is using the powers of rationality and the ego - of logic, science and technology -- to build a perfect world that answers to our desires. The goal is to create a new kind of person: a sovereign self, in control of its environment, including its own biology and mind.

In order to achieve this goal, it is trying to make the world as transparent as possible, so everything can be seen and understood. It wants to hold all existence up to an x-ray, because what is known can be controlled. This effort to bring about transparency and control, or knowledge and power, in the service of real human needs and boundless human desires, summarizes much of what Faustian society is about.

We can see intimations of the world as Faustian society would re-create it in today's simulated and automated environments and in some of the images of life conveyed by television and movies. These are early efforts to build and portray perfect worlds and perfect selves in which nothing is left to chance.

But we can also see in some of these same simulations, portrayals of the dangers that Faustian society poses to our relation to the world of limitation, including the danger that we might lose interest in "reality"; devalue it; undermine it, or lose the ability to distinguish reality from illusion.

Faustian society is already the dominant force in the contemporary world. Its power centers are the high-technology urban areas of America, particularly in the Northeast and West Coast, and the urban centers of Western Europe and Japan. The world's business, scientific and cultural "elites," many of whom live in these regions, are its creators, administrators and exemplars. They have enormous power to shape its culture, in the near-term. When seen from a broader perspective, they begin to look like the vehicles of humanity's desire to bring about a perfect world, as they produce forms of technology and representation that answer to their audience's needs and desires.

But many groups and regions haven't made the transition to this new kind of society; others are in opposition to it. In particular, what remains of the world's religious traditionalists, have been engaged in a reaction against many (although not all) of these changes. Despite their considerable differences with each other, all view the world as the work of a creator, who imposed not only material conditions on existence, but a moral code that limits thought and action, and subordinates creature to creator. All see themselves as defending religion, traditional culture and morality against the secularism, the moral and cultural relativism, and the philosophy of the self, fantasy, pleasure, transgression and cultural experimentation of Faustian society.

The creations of popular entertainment have foreseen the emergence of Faustian societies. They routinely portray humanity gaining power over both the material world and worlds of illusion. And they frequently examine the potential for good and evil in these new powers.

The movie Matinee, for example, which is about Key West during the Cuban missile crisis, portrays all the elements described above: the effort to use technology in the quest for power; the bringing together of art and technology to create advanced simulations that allow audiences to act out fantasies in which they overcome dangers; the use of simulations to deceive; and the social constructionist effort to expose culture and ideology as illusions that are used to manipulate and mystify people. The movie's creators put all this in because they are tapping in to the issues and anxieties of the age.

Some of these works of popular culture, especially science fiction, also provide information about the kind of ethic that can help us live in this new kind of society. Much of their message comes down to this: the new Faustian societies provide a great many opportunities. But they also create dead ends and traps that are disguised as forms of progress. If we want to use technology correctly, and not be destroyed by it, our wisdom will have to keep up with our power. This theme is particularly evident in the original Star Trek, which repeatedly warns that there is a danger in trying to find shortcuts to power or trying to achieve false paradise.

A similar philosophy can be teased out of Freudian theory. Using psychoanalytic ideas, we can see that, in addition to the limits of the physical world, there is another set of limits we have to confront, namely the limits of our own personalities: our narcissism, primitive emotions and lack of ethical development. These are the most important obstacles we have to overcome, if we want to appropriately use these new technologies.

There are two philosophies, in particular, that emerged out of psychoanalytic theory, that we can use to construct a coherent philosophy for a new age. One comes out of the work of the utopian philosopher Herbert Marcuse, who asked how the new power and affluence made possible by technology would be used. As Marcuse saw it, it could be used to satisfy true or false needs, making possible exploitation and escape, or a breakthrough into a new kind of society, based on the right to live fully.

But Marcuse's ideas of what it means to live fully are somewhat limited. They can be enlarged by the ideas of the humanistic psychologist Abraham Maslow, who believed that we can develop into our true selves, which are inherently ethical, psychologically healthy and constructive. Like Marcuse, Maslow believed we can judge society by the degree to which it helps us grow in this direction.

If you put the ideas of Freud, Maslow and Marcuse together, they lead to the conclusion that the true self has existed throughout history, and it has been "waiting" to be released from the prison created by our primitive psychodynamics, distorted cultures and oppressive social conditions. This true self isn't an entity inside the mind, that is hidden by the mask of a false self. It is the full person we become when these numerous interferences are eliminated. It is willing to speak, hear and seek the truth about itself and society, without fleeing into the regressive symptoms offered by personal neurosis and popular culture. It is assertive, not aggressive; focused on living fully rather than on shoring up constantly-collapsing psychological defenses; it is able to love and work, and take pleasure and responsibility. It affirms life and compassion over hate and revenge.

When people experience this state of higher functioning, to one degree or another, in their better moments or, in some instances, throughout much of their lives, we see in them an essential characteristic: they don't only feel good, about themselves and life, they also spontaneously do good. They have an inherent, aesthetic revulsion to anything that would do physical or symbolic violence to themselves or others.

To the extent we are our true selves, we have a deep revulsion to the culture of manipulation, and everything in us tells us not to become one of its practitioners. And we see the regressive radicalism offered by much of popular culture as a lure. All those forbidden fantasies are forms of regression that lead us away from our true selves.

Like language, the potential to become our selves is inherent in us, but it has to be evoked by culture, to come to even partial realization. It is always there, as a part of our makeup, mixed in with, and limited by, other elements of personality and culture.

Contrary to what some postmodernists claim, this self isn't a collection of roles or a story under constant revision, although, as we have seen, personality and culture do contain a significant degree of disguise. Instead, it is a single entity, with capacities when it comes to language, thinking, emotion, psychodynamics, morality and personal fulfillment that are individual instances of a universal human nature. Since we all partake of this human nature, we all share the same capacities for good and ill, health and neurosis, no matter what "roles" we play or how technology expands our powers.

With this in mind, we can now ask a set of questions that represent one of the essential issues of our age: which aspect of the self will be evoked by the cultures and societies of the 21st century, with their artificial environments, pervasive computers, technologies of power and virtual realities? Which desires will be served by our new abilities: our primitive urges or our aspirations for true fulfillment? Will these powers serve the goal of freedom or will our ability to overcome many of the limits of the world allow us to turn the world itself into a vast arena for acting out the limitations of personality?

Seen in this light, the issue of the age (and every age) is whether we will we use our powers to encourage the development of true or false selves, and seek after a true or false idea of a better world. These are the issues that are being acted out in all the spectacles of art and technology described in the book. In Disney; in advertisements; in the mind-numbing simulation-work of politicians, and in innumerable other creations of culture, we see a quest after misleading images of the perfect self, and of false paradise. Other works, such as apparently modest comedies like Groundhog Day and Uncle Buck, about people who overcome fear and anger and some of their false desires, to become something they already were, are efforts to get at the truth of the self.

We can build strong and healthy people without deep and profound knowledge of the truths of personality, society and culture, of course. But the insight of modernism and Western civilization, that truth liberates, is still essential. It tells us that we have the ability to see through the psychodynamics that partly govern everyone, and discover that many (not all) of the limits of life are, in fact, our own invention; they are defenses we create in response to deeply buried fears of real and imagined dangers from childhood, which are not-so-seamlessly woven into personality. And we have the capacity to discover in the environment of technology, art and simulation that makes up contemporary culture, the story of our selves and society, which we are constantly writing in disguised form. A great many of these creations -- individual movies, for example, or theme parks -- are like monads: if we could make them entirely transparent, we would discover that each one contains a large part of the entire story.

If the reader will forgive a final hyperbole, mostly stolen from Northrop Frye's discussion of James Joyce (with Hegel looming somewhere ominously in the background): only after humanity has seen through the illusions of the self and society can it wake up from the dream of history and recognize its own role as the dreamer. Then society and culture appear as objectified and alienated parts of ourselves. The new self that has the potential to be born from this exercise in clarity can consciously create a society and culture that expresses the fullness of life, rather than the yearning for, and flight from, itself.

We can begin this effort at self-knowledge by recognizing that we are ascending a ladder of invention and discovery that has always been there, waiting to be climbed. This ladder of progress is built in to the universe. It is an element of the world, of which we are only a part.

The ladder has two arms. One is made up of our growing power to use science and technology to control the physical world. The other is made up our ability to grow as people. We will need both if we want to make our great ascent.

The Age of Simulation

Rites of Autonomy: An Examination of the Rituals of the Church of Satan

This is an excellent, well informed and objective overview:
Rites of Autonomy: An Examination of the Rituals of the Church of Satan By 
Cimminnee Holt 
This work examines the rituals of the Church of Satan from an academic perspective using ritual and performance theories.

http://cosmodromium.blogspot.de/

Der freie Wille

Im Zweifel gegen das Gehirn

www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/wissenschaft

Zum normalen Geschäft von Gerichten gehört es, Strafen für schuldhafte Taten auszusprechen. Die Annahme dabei ist, dass der Mensch die Fähigkeit und Möglichkeit zu rechtmässigem Verhalten besitzt. Aus diesem Grund bestimmt das Gesetz, dass beim Fehlen dieser Fähigkeiten die Strafbarkeit entfällt. Schuldig in allgemeinster strafrechtlicher Bedeutung heisst also: nicht schuldunfähig. Das macht es zur Routine von Verteidigern, Schuldminderungen auszuhandeln. Dazu ist natürlich oft die Expertise von Forensikern gefragt. Und in diesem Sinne stützt sich das Recht auf die Wissenschaft, mehr noch, muss sich die Rechtsprechung offenhalten für neue wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse. Zum Beispiel der Neurobiologie.

Zyste im Hirn

Aufschlussreich ist der Fall «Spider Cystkopf» aus den USA der frühen 1990er Jahre. Herbert Weinstein, ein pensionierter New Yorker, erwürgte im Streit seine Ehefrau und stiess sie aus ihrer gemeinsamen Wohnung im 13. Stock, um einen Selbstmord vorzutäuschen. Weinstein wurde angeklagt wegen Mordes.

Aber die Neurologen entdeckten in der Hautschicht, die das Gehirn spinnwebartig einhüllt, ein flüssigkeitsgefülltes Säckchen, eine sogenannte subarachnoidale Zyste (die Fachliteratur verlieh Weinstein deshalb das Pseudonym «Spider Cystkopf»). Ihr Befund: Wegen des Drucks der Zyste und des daraus resultierenden Ungleichgewichts im Stoffwechsel im linken Stirnhirn – Sitz des Kontrollzentrums für Handlungen – sei Weinstein zur Tatzeit nicht fähig gewesen, zwischen richtigem und falschem Handeln zu unterscheiden. Die Verteidigung plädierte auf verminderte Schuldfähigkeit wegen Beeinträchtigung des «moralischen» Vermögens. Weinstein wurde für schuldig befunden, nicht wegen vorsätzlichen Mordes, sondern «bloss» wegen Totschlags. Gehirn sei Dank, möchte man fast sagen.

Der Fall wirft ein Licht auf das Verhältnis zwischen Recht und Wissenschaft. Seit einiger Zeit schon macht sich eine Allianz aus Wissenschaftern und Philosophen stark für eine «Neuro-Justiz», dafür also, überhaupt die Strafe abzuschaffen und durch eine Neurologisierung der aus dem sozialen Rahmen Gefallenen zu ersetzen.

Heimlicher Herr im Haus

In Deutschland tritt vor allem der Hirnforscher Gerhard Roth in regelmässigen Abständen mit provokanten Thesen an die Öffentlichkeit, deren eine lautet: Unsere Schuldvorstellungen sind angesichts der neuen Erkenntnisse der Neurowissenschaften veraltet, sie sind immer noch geprägt vom Gedanken des freien Willens: einer Illusion. Denn nicht das Ich, sondern das Hirn ist heimlicher Herr im Haus. Deshalb sollte das zentrale Motiv nicht mehr Überwachen und Strafen sein, sondern Überwachen und Therapieren. Diese «Verhirnung» von Recht und Strafe baut auf die einfache Logik: Wenn nicht ich es war, der die Tat beging, sondern mein Gehirn mich dazu veranlasste, dann muss man nicht mich, die Person, zur Rechenschaft ziehen und zur Einsicht bringen, sondern mein Gehirn korrigieren oder reparieren. Die Logik ist zwar brüchig, aber sie klingt plausibel. Gefährlich plausibel sogar.

Im Zeitalter fortgeschrittener Technisierung und Verwissenschaftlichung unserer Lebensformen können wir – und hier hat Roth gewiss Recht – nicht auf neurophysiologische Ergebnisse und Einsichten verzichten, zumal nicht auf Forschungen über die Verursacherrolle des Gehirns im kriminellen Verhalten, selbst wenn sich das notorische «Verbrecher-Hirn» (wie auch das «Verbrecher-Gen») als Illusion herausstellen dürfte. Und in dieser Hinsicht kommt dem Fall Spider Cystkopf die Bedeutung eines Präzedens zu.

In den USA ist ein Öffnen der Schleusen für eine Gerichtspraxis zu beobachten, in der das Urteil des Hirnforschers vermehrt in das Urteil des Richters hineinredet. Der amerikanische Rechtswissenschafter Stephen Morse spricht bereits von einem «Gehirn-Überbeanspruch-Syndrom» in einschlägigen Kreisen. Störungen im Stirnhirn scheinen sich sogar zu so etwas wie einem «forensischen Renner» zu entwickeln, indem nun Rechtsanwälte erst einmal das Mandantenhirn auf Schäden überprüfen lassen. Man kann sich leicht ausmalen, dass in (gar nicht so ferner) Zukunft ein Angeklagter sich zunächst einer Reihe neurologischer Schuldfähigkeitstests unterzieht, bevor er überhaupt vor den Richter tritt.

Dazu kommt eine zweite Konsequenz: Neue Neurotechniken können nicht nur entlastend, sondern auch belastend eingesetzt werden. Wer sich z. B. eines Ladendiebstahls schuldig gemacht hat und sich nun nach einem neurologischen «Gefährlichkeitstest» als riskante und therapiebedürftige Person entpuppt, müsste demnach vielleicht zu zehn Jahren Therapie verurteilt werden. Das würde aber schliesslich – wie der Frankfurter Strafrechtler Klaus Günther kürzlich ausführte – die Frage nach Schuld und Strafe durch die Frage nach Gefährlichkeit und Sicherheit ersetzen. Seiner Ansicht nach muss die staatliche Reaktion auf eine Straftat stets im Verhältnis zur Schuld stehen. Das Schuldprinzip setzt der Prävention Grenzen. Denn es basiert auf einem konkreten Sachverhalt – der Straftat –, nicht auf Mutmassungen über den Straftäter als Sicherheitsrisiko.

Gedankenlesen

Dahinter verbirgt sich eine dritte, fundamentalere Konsequenz: eine «neuro-zentrische» Revolution des Menschenbildes sozusagen. Die modernen bildgebenden Techniken entwickeln sich rasch. Ob sie uns in eine Epoche des «Gedankenlesens» führen werden, sei dahingestellt. Jedenfalls beobachten die Forscher bereits auf neuronaler Ebene eine emsige Vorbereitung, wenn ich etwas tun will. Das zeigten die bekannten und vieldiskutierten Experimente von Benjamin Libet in den 1970er und 1980er Jahren. Im Gehirn baut sich ein sogenanntes elektrophysiologisches Bereitschaftspotenzial auf, ca. eine halbe Sekunde vor meinem bewussten Entschluss, den Finger zu bewegen. Heisst das, dass die Weichen auf neuronaler Ebene schon gestellt sind, bevor ich mich aus freiem Willen entscheide, wie dies einige Neurobiologen behaupten?

Das ist natürlich sehr laxer Sprachgebrauch, ganz abgesehen davon, dass «freier Wille» kein neurologischer Fachterminus ist. Denn was heisst: «Das Gehirn entscheidet»? Man entdeckt ja auf neuronaler Ebene nur physiologische Aktivitäten, und Entscheide sind nicht nur physiologische Aktivitäten. Was sind sie dann?

Das ist der Streitpunkt. Naturwissenschaftliche Hardliner setzen bewusste Entscheide – generell geistige Akte – mit neurobiologischen Vorgängen gleich. Andere dagegen sehen in bewussten Entscheiden ein wesentliches Indiz für die Nichtreduzierbarkeit des Geistigen auf Physiologisches – Restbestände des Menschlichen also. In diesen Streit möchte ich hier nicht direkt eingreifen, sondern lediglich auf eine notwendige Unterscheidung aufmerksam machen.

Wir alle sind Personen-mit-Gehirnen. Und das bedeutet, dass wir normalerweise die Wahl haben, das, was wir tun, in zwei Einstellungen zu beschreiben und zu erklären. Ich nenne sie das Genre der Ich-Geschichten und das Genre der Gehirn-Geschichten. Reden wir von Entscheiden, dann reden wir im Genre der Ich-Geschichten, wir reden über eine Person. Natürlich geht etwas vor in meinem Gehirn, wenn ich mich zu einer Tat entscheide, und dazu hat der Neurobiologe eine entsprechende Gehirn-Geschichte auf Lager.

So weit, so trivial. Zumindest so weit, als man mit der Gehirn-Geschichte nicht den Anspruch erhebt, zu erzählen, was «in Wirklichkeit» vorgeht. In der Tat aber tun das Neurobiologen, die behaupten, mit der Hirnaktivität sei das eigentlich «Reale» entdeckt, das mein Verhalten determiniere und in mir die «Illusion» erzeuge, zu entscheiden. Sie reduzieren mich, die Person-mit-Gehirn, auf Gehirnzustände. Das ist ziemlich unbekömmlich, denn schliesslich bin ich es, der entscheidet.

Mir kommt diese Diskussion immer so vor, als würden wir – ich und der Neurobiologe – die Welt aus der Sicht zweier gegeneinander abgeschlossener Drehtürabteile interpretieren. Rede ich von mir, redet der andere vom Gehirn, und vice versa. Wir reden vom Gleichen, und trotzdem scheint der, der gerade redet, notwendigerweise das Thema zu wechseln.

Ich bin mein Gehirn

Die prinzipielle Herausforderung der Neurobiologie liegt darin, dass sie moralisches Handeln in letzter Konsequenz als «blosses» Verhalten einer gehirngesteuerten organischen Maschine betrachten möchte, sozusagen in der Aussenperspektive der Natur (und ihrer «Determinismen»). Als Nervensache. In dieser Perspektive bin ich mein Gehirn (das sagt im Übrigen der deutsche Neurologe Wolfgang Singer wörtlich von sich selber). Und dadurch wird Moral zu einem «blossen» Gehirn-, letztlich also zu einem Naturereignis, und gutes oder schlechtes Handeln zum Glücksfall bzw. Unfall.

Letztlich dreht sich alles um die Frage: Warum hast du das getan? Und zweifellos ist es oft nicht leicht, zu entscheiden, ob jemand das, was er tat, tun wollte oder tun musste. An einer Straftat können viele physiologische Prozesse beteiligt sein, über die wir keine Kontrolle haben: Zysten im Gehirn, hormonelle Störungen, entartete Zellen. In diesen physiologischen Vorgängen treffen wir auf Ursachen, nicht auf Schuld. Es ist selbstverständlich nicht Aufgabe des Neurologen, Schuld festzustellen. Das ist Sache des Richters. Er befasst sich mit einer zu verantwortenden Tat, der Neurologe mit einem determinierten Ereignis.

Wie kann man aber determiniert sein durch das Gehirn und dennoch Verantwortung tragen für das, was man tut? Die Frage suggeriert einen Konflikt, der dramatischer aussieht, als er ist. Der Kühlschrank z. B. funktioniert auf der Basis der Physik. Insofern sind die Vorgänge in ihm physikalisch determiniert. Analog dazu arbeitet unser Gehirn auf der Basis der Neurophysiologie, sind also Vorgänge in ihm physiologisch determiniert. Und wie der Zustand des Kühlschranks bestimmt, was man bei welcher Temperatur herausholen kann, so bestimmt der Zustand des Gehirns quasi unseren Verhaltens-Output. Aber wir können diesen Zustand ständig verändern, etwa dadurch, dass wir neue Erfahrungen machen, oder dadurch, dass wir mit unserem Verhalten bei unseren Mitmenschen anstossen. Wir ordnen so gewissermassen den Kühlschrank immer wieder um oder füllen ihn mit Neuem. Und das heisst: Wir übernehmen Verantwortung für seinen Inhalt.

Das tun wir als Personen, mit Biografien, sozialen Verstrickungen, Moralvorstellungen, Vorlieben, Abneigungen, Neurosen, Defekten. Gewiss sind wir bereit, die Handlung einer Person unter pathologischen Bedingungen anders zu beurteilen als unter Normalbedingungen. Und insofern trifft sie womöglich weniger bis keine Schuld. Aber wie sehr wir auch ihre Tat dadurch entlasten, dass wir sie auf biologische Ursachen zurückführen, so ist der Mörder Weinstein kein neuronaler Mechanismus, sondern eine Person mit Absichten, Charakter, Geschichte. Genau deshalb schaut ihm der Richter ins Gesicht und nicht ins Gehirn.

Kühlschrank wird gefüllt

Dabei sollte er auch bleiben. Wir alle lernen von früher Kindheit auf soziales, moralisches, rechtmässiges Verhalten. Wir tun dies, indem wir als Heranwachsende gewisse Haltungen und Handlungen aus unserem sozialen und kulturellen Umfeld – Belohnen und Strafen, Lob und Tadel – auf uns selber anzuwenden beginnen. Dadurch machen wir uns unseren Körper zu eigen, werden wir zu personalen Körpern. Und in diesem Lernprozess wird zumal unser Gehirn modelliert (wird der Kühlschrank gefüllt).

So gesehen, können wir vorsichtig metaphorisch sagen: Die Normen, die wir lernen, schreiben sich ins Gehirn ein. Entsprechend kann die Missachtung von Normen etwas zu tun haben mit Fehlfunktionen des Gehirns. Warum und in welchem Mass unser Verhalten durch Pathologien eingeschränkt wird, ist Sache der neurowissenschaftlichen Forschung.

Wir sind auf ihre Erkenntnisse umso mehr angewiesen, als das Strafrecht von einer recht vagen allgemeinen Minimalvorstellung «rationalen» menschlichen Verhaltens ausgeht. Und es erscheint sogar wünschenswert, auf neurobiologischer Basis ein zeitgemässes strafrechtliches Konzept von Schuld und Verantwortlichkeit auszuarbeiten, das sich z. B. vom Vergeltungsgedanken distanziert. Aber selbst wenn nun der Neurobiologe zu jeder Straftat eine kausale Geschichte erzählen könnte, so ist eine Ursache keine Entschuldigung für Normverletzungen.

Da steckt des Pudels Kern: Gehirne unterliegen Naturgesetzen, Personen unterziehen sich – mit wie viel Einsicht und freiem Willen auch immer – Menschengesetzen. Und deshalb wollen wir Normverletzungen sanktioniert sehen. Weil – wie Jan Philipp Reemtsma kürzlich im «Merkur» schreibt – «Strafe unser kultureller Ausdruck dafür (ist), dass eine Norm gültig ist und dass im Falle ihrer Verletzung das Fortbestehen ihrer Gültigkeit demonstriert wird».

Wie sehr wir auch weiterhin darüber debattieren mögen, ob und inwieweit Strafen nützen, so machen sich in unserem Festhalten am Schuldbegriff nicht einfach Relikte aus einer früheren Entwicklungsstufe, sondern mindestens zwei durchaus rationale Motive geltend: der Wille zum Fortbestehen menschengemachter Gesetze und die Absage an einen obstinaten Neurologenblick, der in uns «bloss» gehirngesteuerte organische Maschinen sehen möchte. Recht und Moral basieren auf Menschengesetzen, auch wenn sie durch Naturgesetze korrigiert und revidiert werden können. Das ist die Grundidee aufgeklärter, moderner Rechtsprechung. Gewiss sind Denken, Urteilen und Wollen in einer komplexen organischen Maschine verkörpert. Aber der Umstand, dass wir solche Maschinen sind, ist keine Generalamnestie für unser Tun. Denn wir sind zugleich Maschinen, die Verantwortung übernehmen können für das, was sie tun.

Neuer Zauber

Die wissenschaftlichen Modernisierer von Moral und Recht bringen gern das Argument vor, die Neurobiologie würde die «Alltagspsychologie» mit ihren veralteten Vorstellungen über freien Willen und Verantwortung überwinden, wie einst die Psychologie die Theologie mit ihren Vorstellungen über Satan als Ursache des Bösen. Daran ist sicher so viel stichhaltig, als dass der Erkenntnisfortschritt oft tief verwurzelte Intuitionen in Zweifel zieht.

Aber ein unreflektierter Naturalismus macht die Rechnung ohne die Dialektik der Aufklärung. Der Missionseifer manch eines wissenschaftlichen Entzauberers auf neurobiologischer Ebene entpuppt sich nicht selten als neuer Zauber, der nur den heimlichen Willen zur Deutungsmacht kaschiert. Denn darum geht es letztlich in den gegenwärtigen Kulturkämpfen zwischen Wissenschaft und Moral, Wissenschaft und Recht, Wissenschaft und Religion. Dass uns die Wissenschaft die Illu- sion eines freien Willens und damit die Verantwortlichkeit auszutreiben sucht, gehört ohnedies zum Abc ihrer Fortschrittsrhetorik.

Die jüngere Geschichte sollte uns eigentlich klüger werden lassen über solche Vortäuschungen von Modernität. Auf ähnlich unfreundliche Weise suchten schon Behavioristen wie etwa Borrough F. Skinner in der Mitte des letzten Jahrhunderts, uns als eigenständige, aktiv handelnde, entscheidende, zurechnungsfähige Wesen aus dem Weltbild zu tilgen («Jenseits von Freiheit und Würde» hiess eines seiner kontroversen Bücher). Dann erklärten Zoologen wie Edward Wilson oder Richard Dawkins, die Gene hielten unser Verhalten an einer (immerhin langen) Leine. Nun bastelt ein fundamentalistischer Stosstrupp von Neurobiologen weiter an dieser Anthropologie der selbstverschuldeten Unmündigkeit, diesem Menschenbild ohne menschliches Subjekt.

Zweifellos wird uns die Hirnforschung der Zukunft noch viel über die neurobiologische Basis des menschlichen Geistes, also auch der Moral lehren. Aber selbst wenn wir in Zukunft statt von Schuld nun von Ungleichgewicht im Stirnhirn sprechen würden, hätten wir die Rede über Personen und ihre Verantwortung auch prinzipiell nicht ersetzt durch die Rede über Netzwerke von Milliarden emsiger Neuronen. Das ist nicht Wissenschaft, sondern Pop-Science: Windmacherei mittels Wissenschaft. Die vollmundige Behauptung, die Neurobiologie habe den «Beweis» erbracht, dass unser Handeln vollständig durch unser Gehirn determiniert sei, läuft im Übrigen auffallend windschief am «Manifest» aus dem Jahre 2004 vorbei. Darin hatten führende deutsche Neurobiologen geschrieben, man verstünde noch nicht einmal in Ansätzen, wie das Gehirn arbeitet.

Woraus ich mir, bei allem Respekt für die Fortschritte der Neurowissenschaften, eine kleine Moral zu ziehen erlaube: Es gilt, wenn vom Hirn die Rede ist, nicht den Kopf zu verlieren – und mit ihm den ganzen Rest.

Und zweifellos ist es

oft nicht leicht, zu

entscheiden, ob jemand das, was er tat, tun wollte oder tun musste.

Die jüngere Geschichte sollte uns eigentlich

klüger werden lassen über Vortäuschungen von Modernität.

Der Autor

Der Berner Eduard Kaeser hat theoretische Physik studiert und in Philosophie promoviert. Neben diversen Lehrtätigkeiten schreibt er regelmässig Essays in Zeitungen, Zeitschriften und Sammelbänden. Im Januar 2007 ist er mit dem Essay-Preis der Berner Zeitung «Bund» und des Literaturhauses Basel ausgezeichnet worden. Im Herbst erscheint im Passagen-Verlag Wien seine Essaysammlung «Der Körper im Zeitalter seiner Entbehrlichkeit – eine Anthropologie unter Geräten». (pim.)

Faustische Suchbewegung

http://www.jungefreiheit.de/Single-News-Display.525+M535cade6907.0.html

Kritik der Globalökonomie: Was uns vor intellektueller Zahnlosigkeit bewahrt
Faustische Suchbewegung

Vor wenigen Tagen konnte man eine kleine Schar beobachten, die angeregt das Weserbergland durchstreifte. Man schlenderte die Höhenzüge entlang, durchmaß mit Blicken die weit sich hinziehende Landschaft und versammelte sich zu Gespräch und Debatte.
Eine alte Dame hält plötzlich inne und spricht nachdenklich über Heidegger, der engagierte Anthroposoph erläutert Steiners Modell vom dreigliedrigen Sozialorganismus, vorneweg strebt der rüstige Greis, er streut ironische Lichter und macht vieldeutige Anmerkungen zur Lage Rußlands; schließlich verblüfft die literarische Lebensreise des Althippies von Charles Bukowski zu Céline. Neben mir geht ein genialischer Junge, dessen sprühender Idealismus exotisch wirkt bei einem Angehörigen der Hip-Hop-Generation. Als sei der sagenhafte "deutsche Jüngling" zurückgekehrt, entrollt er leidenschaftlich das Weltbild von Ludwig Klages. Wir sprechen von Stefan George, vom "geheimen Deutschland" und der "kosmischen Runde".
Die Rede ist von den Teilnehmern der 10. Synergon-Sommerakademie, die fünf Tage lang, vom 23. bis 28. August, auf einem ländlichen Gutshof tagte. Der Studienzirkel, dessen europäisches Zentrum in Brüssel, dessen deutscher Kristallisationspunkt im Kreis um den Dresdener Verlag Zeitenwende und das Esoterikmagazin Hagal liegen, tagt abwechselnd in den verschiedenen europäischen Regionen. Diese platonische Akademie unserer Zeit ist nicht ortsgebunden, sondern ebenso beheimatet unter provenzalischen Bauern wie zwischen den Kunstdenkmälern Umbriens. Sokratischer Kopf des Unternehmens: der Brüsseler Robert Steuckers, der als intellektueller Trapezkünstler moderierend und übersetzend diese mehrsprachigen Tagungen überhaupt erst ermöglicht.
Deren Horizont umfaßte in diesem Sommer 16 Vorträge von 11 Experten aus Deutschland und Frankreich mit einer thematischen Streuung von der aktuellen weltpolitischen Lage bis zur Symbolkunde. Eingebettet waren alle Referate in umfangreiche Diskussionen im Plenum; sie wurden dann in zahlreichen Privatgesprächen fortgeführt bis in die späte Nacht. Angesichts der Funktionalisierung von Wissen in der Informationsgesellschaft kann solch eine gemeinschaftliche Besinnung für die größtmögliche Freiheit gelten, die es heute überhaupt gibt. Völlig zweckfrei konnte sich der Geist hier ungehindert entfalten, weit hinaus über den interdisziplinären Spielraum des akademischen Betriebs. Trotz divergierender Themen besaß man Spannkraft genug, jedes Detail energisch festzuhalten, um ebenso leidenschaftlich zu fahnden nach dem verlorenen Ganzen. Diese faustische Suchbewegung erwies sich als die eigentliche Triebkraft der Tagung.
Nachdem die Linke gleichgeschaltet ist und ihre vormaligen Symbolfiguren zu "Systemstützen" wurden, geht die Ideologiekritik zur Rechten über. Dieser obliegt es nun, den seifigen Politsprech der neototalitären "Metasprache" der Demokratie mit ihren neuen Götzen und Fetischen kritisch zu sondieren und hinter den obszönen "Sakralisierungen" von Globalität, Markt, Moral etc. den tristen Funktionalismus der Macht aufzuweisen.
Dazu gehört die Dekonstruktion von Segensformeln des westlichen Heilswissens, wie sie in der Herrlichkeit individueller Freiheit oder dem gnadenbringenden Universalismus der USA täglich um uns weben und schweben. Deren Schlüsselrolle darf nicht nur als politischer Unilateralismus und kulturökonomischer Imperialismus interpretiert, sondern muß auch philosophisch erfaßt werden. Entgegen der fortgeschrittenen "Depression" Europas (Neujahr) sind nämlich Amerikas Optimismus und säkular-mythische Phantasie ungebrochen. Die "einzige aktuelle primitive Gesellschaft" erkennt hier Jean Baudrillard: "Die idyllische Überzeugung der Amerikaner, der Nabel der Welt, Weltmacht und absolutes Modell zugleich zu sein, ist nicht ganz falsch. Sie gründet sich ... auf die seltsame Behauptung, die reine Utopie zu verkörpern." Mit größter "Naivität hat sich diese Gesellschaft auf die Idee versteift, die Verwirklichung all dessen zu sein, wovon andere immer geträumt haben: von Gerechtigkeit, Überfluß, Recht, Reichtum und Freiheit; sie weiß es, sie glaubt es, und zuletzt glauben es alle anderen auch."
Auch der Individualismus als liberales Dogma ist heute eine Ubiquität. In Frage stellt ihn allerdings die Einsicht, daß sich "Freiheit" qua Autonomisierung modern in Systemen, nicht über die Person vollzieht. Diese wird, gerade umgekehrt, depotenziert zum disponiblen Sozialatom. Als leere Subjektivität mag sie sich aufblähen. Abgelöst von Natur, Geschichte und Transzendenz muß sie die, für den Widerstand in der Gegenwart notwendige Tiefenstruktur entbehren. Damit sind zwei Leitmotive genannt, die den Tagungsverlauf perspektivisch durchstrukturierten.
Nach grundsätzlichen Überlegungen Martin Baluses' ("Das vielfältige Selbst des Menschen") gab Robert Steuckers in Referaten zur kulturellen Münchner Frühmoderne und Berliner Zwischenkriegszeit historische Anwendungen. Als Beispiele von ideologischem Nonkonformismus konnten das Satiremagazin Simplicissimus (1896-1944) und der deutsch-russische Dialog zur Geopolitik gelten. Die rote Bulldogge des Simplicissimus symbolisiert für Steuckers das Modell einer Kunst als Waffe und den "wahren Sinn der Metapolitik".
Anders die Kultur der französischen Moralisten des grand siècle, die den Hintergrund bildeten für zwei Beiträge zur Postmoderne. Der kroatische Politologe Tomislav Sunic zeigte Schopenhauers Epistemologie als Wurzel postmodernen Denkens auf, dessen Pessimismus und Perspektivismus im "normativen Notstand" besonders gut der Wahlpariser Emile Cioran (1911-1995) verkörpert hat.
Einem Hauptthema Mircia Eliades widmete sich Markus Fernbach ("Das Wesen der Mitte - Kaisertum und Königtum in der Tradition"), besonders dem metaphysischen Aspekt nach. Vor dem leuchtenden Hintergrund platonischer Urbilder nehmen sich heutige Monarchisten mit ihrem Konstitutionalismus allerdings naiv aus, im tieferen Sinn unfähig, dem waste land der "schrecklichen, kaiserlosen Zeit" substantiell etwas entgegenzustellen. Wichtig in Fernbachs Erörterung: der anthropologische Hinweis auf das initiatische Projekt einer Selbst-Zentrierung als persönliche Lebensaufgabe. Dies beschäftigt auch Oliver Ritter, der erst kürzlich eine Monographie über Männlichkeit in initiatischer Sicht im Verlag Zeitenwende vorgelegt hat. Auf der Tagung philosophierte er am Leitfaden der Metaphysik-, und Technikkritik Heideggers tiefgründig über "Die Magie des Wortes und der Sprache". Von einer Theorie der Weltgründung durch Sprache aus, arbeitete er gegenüber dem semantischen Aspekt des Wortes dessen Lautgestalt als lebensspendenden Ursprung, als heilige Schwingung heraus, was Leopold Zieglers Grabinschrift treffend ausdrückt: "Ich habe gehorcht."
Sven Henklers Beitrag zur Spiritualität des Kriegers in West und Ost rückte auch die verzerrte Vorstellung vom "Djihad" zurecht. Wörtlich heißt das: "Anstrengung", wobei nur der "kleine Krieg" den militärischen Kampf, der "heilige, große" indes die asketische Anstrengung gegen das niedere Ich meint.
Politkritisch dagegen fiel die Perspektive Hermann Jungs auf den subkontinentalen Islam aus. Sein Vortrag über die indischen Massenmedien kam zu dem verblüffenden Befund einer, gegenüber der hinduistischen Mehrheitsbevölkerung feindlichen Intellektuellenposition.
Daß solche Konstellationen auch von außen induziert sein können, wurde in den scharfsinnigen Beiträgen von Philippe Banoy klar, deren erster sich mit psychologischer Kriegsführung, Manipulation etc. befaßte und einige Mittel der Subversion analysierte, die als komplexe Realitätsfaktoren im Hinblick auf den eigenen Standort diskussionsweise auch Heiterkeit auslösten. Daran schloß sich sein Porträt des klassischen Strategen und Kriegstheoretikers Antoine Jomini (1779-1869) an, des französischen Clausewitz, und dessen Hauptwerks: "Abriß der Kriegskunst" (1838). Historisch weitblickend dabei Jominis Analyse der napoleonischen Ära. Er begreift sie als Abschied von der Vergangenheit, als Paradigmenwechsel, der dem Adel als Kriegerkaste ein Ende setzt und die Kriegsführung professionalisiert, industrialisiert und totalisiert, sich damit als Keim des Ersten Weltkrieges entpuppt.
Den totalitären Charakter der modernen Diktaturen bekamen auch "Hitlers rechte Gegner" zu spüren. So der Titel einer zeitgeschichtlichen Studie von JF-Autor Claus-M. Wolfschlag (1995). Sein Referat nun stellte den im Herbst ebenfalls im Verlag Zeitenwende erscheinenden neuen Interview-Band: "Augenzeugen der Opposition. Gespräche mit Hitlers rechten Gegnern" vor, eine lebendige Dokumentation als Supplement zur systematischen Untersuchung.
Kritik der heutigen Globalökonomie erwies sich als konstitutives Motiv aller Beiträge. Ein Vorläufer, zumal Gegner der klassischen Dogmen war John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946), der von Frédéric Valentin präsentiert wurde, einer guten Synergon-Tradition folgend, die jedes Jahr einen Klassiker der Ökonomie aufarbeitet. Besonders hellsichtig erscheinen seine Kritik an Versailles (1919) und in Bretton Woods (1945), wo die USA seine Beschränkungswünsche ablehnten und sich mit dem Prinzip der totalen Freiheit für Kapitalbewegungen durchsetzten. Valentin gehörte auch das letzte Wort mit einem Vortrag über Entwicklungen der heutigen Weltökonomie (Ausbreitung der informellen Sphäre und mafioser Strukturen, Bedeutungszuwachs der Diaspora).
Robert Steuckers, fern aller Betulichkeiten, ist ein begnadeter Vollblutintellektueller, wuchtig und zupackend im Denken, das bei ihm gleichsam als körperlicher Vorgang von ursprünglicher Vitalität erscheint. Sein kreativer Imperativ, "aggressiv und pfiffig statt muffig", artikuliert den anarchischen Impuls aller Nonkonformisten seit 200 Jahren.
Zeitschrift "Simplicissimus" (1908): "Mag der Wind von rechts blasen oder von links, für meine Mühle weht er immer günstig"
Weitere Informationen im Internet: www.verlag-zeitenwende.de .

Devil’s Advocate

Courtesy of Penthouse Magazine, coverage of the Church of Satan by adult mags is always amusing because they place primary emphasis on the sexual elements of the CoS to the exclusion of other features equally interesting. While Satanists are invariably open-minded regarding fetishes and sexual proclivities, the CoS is not a "sex club." I'm monomaniacal by nature, for example; the idea of having more than one partner is enough to short-circuit my brain. I tend to throw all of my sexual-obsession onto one poor woman at a time. Woe to the lightweight that can't handle it! 

All that aside, this was a really good article including interviews with a lot of people I have tremendous respect for and consider my friends. Nice work Penthouse!

JDS

http://cosmodromium.blogspot.de/

______________________________________________________

Devil’s AdvocateSeptember 14th, 2009 By Penthouse Magazine
Tags: Features
A look inside the real Church of Satan—where sin is a sacrament and all manner of sexual activity is sanctified.By Bob Johnson
Illustration by Coop

Naked nuns, a feast of wine and meats, and a giant, cockshaped water dispenser set the stage as black-clad celebrants begin a litany canonizing rogues, debauchers, whore mongers, and straight-up libertines. This is how the world’s most notorious religion parties. Deep within the cold, damp caves of West Wycombe, England, the Church of Satan gathered on April 30, 2008 (Walpurgisnacht, a pagan holiday) in an invitation only conclave to honor the church’s inspirational forebearers—members of the seventeenth-century Hellfire Club, a secret society devoted to the goddess Venus, the pleasures of the flesh, and, some say, Satan himself.

Decked out in finery from top hats to flowing gowns, the church members appeared to be dressed up for the opera rather than a Satanic ritual designed to evoke the spirits of Sir
Francis Dashwood, the Hellfire Club’s founder, and his brotherhood of black-hearted devils, which included the fourth Earl of Sandwich and, allegedly, Benjamin Franklin. But once inside the actual caves of the original Hellfire orgies, a ritual and lavish feast virtually stopped time as the guests were transported back to a place where the sins of the flesh were embraced as sacraments.

Religious gatherings that are steeped in history and elaborate prep aration, with handmade ritual accessories and music designed to stimulate the congregants, may conjure thoughts of the Catholic Church’s High Masses more than Satanists. But misconceptions abound about the Church of Satan, founded by Anton Szandor LaVey in 1966. More than 40 years later, today’s real Church of Satan is alive and well across the entire world. After LaVey’s death in 1997, his longtime companion Magistra Blanche Barton, High Priest ess and mother of his only son, Satan Xerxes Carnacki LaVey, led the church until 2001, when the church’s current leader, High Priest and Magus Peter H. Gilmore, was appointed.

He lives in a cozy Manhat tan railroad apartment, void of any outside light as the only win dows are blocked by a ceremonial Satanic altar. It’s a bit eerie, hung with some original Gilmore artwork and full of rare books, ritual items, state-of-the-art computer gear, and archival Church of Satan materials, but not as foreboding as one would expect. It’s also heavily stocked with Godzilla collectibles and features an ever-present big, black Chow dog named Bella.

The setting fits the dashing, avuncular devil, who is extremely articulate and to the point when it comes to preaching the gospel of Satan and the history of his church. But let’s get one thing straight: Members of founder LaVey’s Church of Satan do not believe in or worship an anthropomorphic devil or evil demons. In fact, they don’t embrace anything spiritual at all. The religion is based on earthly pleasure and Darwinian survival of the fittest. Gilmore makes it clear that the criticism of the church, especially the ideas most people have about modern Satanism —which may have come from notorious criminal cases of murder or sexual abuse—are totally unfounded, insulting, and often contrary to the truth. Even numerous FBI reports debunk rumors of criminal Satanic activity. Gilmore says the “S” word automatically petrifies people who, in most cases, are ignorant about Satanism. The truth is, members of the church span the world and are successful artists, musicians, entrepreneurs, sculptors, writers, law enforcement professionals, and even PTA members.

But many Satanists aren’t that squeaky clean. In The Satanic Scriptures (Scapegoat Publishing), a long-awaited follow-up book to LaVey’s The Satanic Bible, Gilmore lays out the marching orders for Satanism in the twenty-first century. Along with its core doctrines of social stratification, survival of the fittest, and exercising the power of one’s will (with magic), sex and all of its temptations play a major role in the church, to the delight of its members and prospective initiates. But Gilmore refutes that most people become members because of sexual freedom, viewing their religion’s stance on sex simply as a natural part of their makeup. He maintains that Satanists take “sex in stride” as naturally as eating or being creative. Of course, voluptuous nude women acting as altars during ceremonies is a benefit not found in any other organized religion.

“Satanism is based on human nature, affirming the inborn character of the carnal types of humans,” Gilmore says. “Prior to the founding of the Church of Satan, there was no form of religion that ad dressed this portion of our species. Carnal people have no need to seek acceptance from some higher power, whether it be a deity or a dictator. We aren’t spiritual at all, and see all mysticism as childish superstition. We who embrace our fleshly nature revel in the joys of the body and the mind. Fine food, exemplary sex, excellent literature, exciting music—we are gourmets in the buffet that is life. We don’t deny ourselves pleasures, but we also don’t overdo them. The primary point is to indulge in what pleases us, but not to allow such pursuits to become compulsions that control us. Satanists are not addicts, are not sex maniacs, are not gluttons—we find balance in healthful pursuit of all that we enjoy. It is all about getting the most out of our lives. Carnal people don’t just pursue happiness—they have it.”

It appears that a good deal of this Satanic happiness stems from a conscious denial of feeling guilt about pleasure, and a sense of worldly confidence. Members of the church identify themselves as “the alien elite,” a congregation with no physical church and virtually no binding rules except to please yourself and not harm anyone else (unless they harm you). It has survived the past four decades because of this belief and exemplary actions of its leaders, who are, frankly, smart. They aren’t “occultniks,” but rather achievers in the world. To become a member, a person must at the very least show that he or she grasps the philosophy and is sane. And no one gets promoted in the hierarchy of the church (the ascending ranks are warlock/witch, priest/priestess, magister/magistra, and maga/magus) unless they prove that they’ve accomplished something worthwhile in their chosen field. Being an artist is okay, being able to sell your work is better, and being a household name should be the goal. There’s no room for an egalitarian “everyone’s equal” mental i ty in this church. Some people are just okay, while others are superior, Satanists believe. It’s tough but real, and the members like it that way.

This no-bullshit, no-poseur posture is what sets real Satanists apart from myriad other occult groups and individuals who follow the “left-hand path.” Their magic and rituals are often selfdesigned to strengthen their will and are practical means to becoming superior human beings. By embracing the “S” word, they frighten most people, but when you dig deep, they walk the walk and aren’t that scary at all. The church may be made up primarily of upstanding citizens, but what often initially seduces prospective members is that it’s the only church on the planet that recognizes and celebrates man’s carnal nature and indulgence as the true reason for existence, openly defying what’s seen as the hypocrisy of other organized faiths.

A high-ranking Satanic couple, Magister Robert Lang and Magistra Dee, embrace this carnality. They live in a large house in rural Canada that’s topped with a witch weather vane and features a below-ground ritual chamber whose flagstone floor is soon to be fitted with a giant four foot Germanic rune, a power symbol that stimulates Lang’s penchant for the BDSM fetishes he enjoys. He’s the de facto Church of Satan Beau Brummell, often dres sed to the nines 1940s style, a re fined look that’s popular with many members. He had his first ECI—Erotic Crystallization Inertia, an epiphany during which one first discovers a fetish —from erotic bondage photos in, yes, Penthouse magazine.

The couple is open and guilt-free regarding sexuality, and it’s obvious that they think about it a lot. “Where [German sexologist] Dr. Iwan Bloch defined sexology from a literary, medical, and scholarly aspect, the Church of Satan brought those thoughts to life,” says Magistra Dee. “We not only deem it okay to have sexual fetishes, but see them as a natural part of the human animal. We understand that suppressing these aspects of ourselves can be more damaging than accepting them and putting them into play in a safe, healthy environment.”

High Priest Gilmore’s take on fetishes is that they help to elevate lovemaking beyond just simple “vanilla” encounters. He says, “Common are shoe and foot fetishes, but other forms of clothing can be the focal point, as can bodily or other smells, foods, certain erotic toys, or really just about anything that one could make a part of sex play. Naturally, Satanism embraces the discovery of our fetishes and their use toward enhancing eroticism. They are what make us unique individuals, and our philoso phy is always based on individual individualist thinking, whether it be in the kitchen, ritual chamber, or bedroom.”

When asked if ritual plays into their sexual habits, Dee explains that ritual brings a practical awareness to a need or problem: “Let’s say Robert has not been as sexually attentive as I would prefer. I set aside time to perform a sexual-need ritual involving meditation on the situation, masturbation…and a set conclusion of how I want the problem resolved. When the ritual is over, I have made myself intently aware, thought of solutions, and created a positive outlook instead of drudging around bitching about it. Needless to say, the nights will get hotter than expected—even in the dead of winter!”

Sex, fetishes, and Satanism have commingled since the church’s founding. Lang points out that while most people and movements in the sixties and seventies were simply knocking on the doors for the free love of heterosexuals, the Church of Satan was kicking down the doors and breaking new boundaries in sexual acceptance and religious toler ance on all levels. “We were the first organizational church to accept homo sexual men and women into our priesthood,” Lang says. “We were per forming gay marriages long before the hoopla of today. We were congratulating folks for their fetishes internationally and in public view rather than condemning these people. We broke down the barriers for a whole host of alternative religions to crawl out from under the thumbscrews of Christianity. We opened the flood gates to a new era where people could shake off those shackles of Puritanism.”

And any Puritan would surely be turning over in his grave if he knew of this Satanic couple nestled in a tastefully done Addams Family–like mansion in a traditional rural English village with thatched cottages, apple orchards, and church bells. Priest Steven and Priestess Fifi Roberts label themselves “happy, fearless sinners with healthy sexual appetites, with a preference for dark aesthetics and a deep interest in magic.” Naturally, Satanism was their only choice when it came to religion. “Before we met, we were both nonspiritual pragmatists who just hadn’t dis covered that the title ‘Satanist’ de fined our viewpoint perfectly,” says Steven. “We certainly couldn’t relate to any of the mainstream religions that say, ‘Be ignorant, penniless, celibate, and guilty, and you’ll be rewarded when you are dead.’ The so-called New Age alternatives are similarly dreadful: superstitious balderdash that both hypnotizes ugly, hairy, mediocre women into believing that they are ‘goddesses’ and further emasculates the type of ineffectual, unemployable, feeble-minded men who couldn’t get laid in the first place.”

The lusty couple (he is a professional movie-music composer and she is a talented artist, both drop dead gorgeous) met at a full moon party—a Witch’s Sabbath. During the feasting and drinking, Steven gave Fifi an “innocent” foot massage that led to a night of passion. Eight months later they were married. “I am convinced that feet are a woman’s most important erogenous zone. All the women I know love having their feet massaged,” Steven says. Fifi agrees and says with a wink that the couple is happily monogamous.

Bryan Moore and Heather Saenz, a San Diego couple with careers in toy design and the medical field, are staunchly family-oriented and active in the local PTA. They would be the central characters in an “American Satanist” movie, were it ever created. The stunning brunette and her dapper man, typically dressed in a 1940s-style bespoke suit and wide brimmed fedora, don’t broadcast their guiltless lifestyle. While they don’t normally invite fellow Satanists into their sex lives out of respect for individual relationships, they are open to third members—young women impressed with their Satanic standing and intrigued by its dark, fetishistic world. And any would-be initiate would not be disappointed. Moore says they both perform rituals and use scenarios and fetishes that range from the sensual to downright rough, “enjoying their sexual potential to the fullest.”

Moore says, “While we both feel that our personal sexuality is not defined by Satanism, Satanism can indeed enhance it. And we happily oblige those young women whenever possible. Very rarely do we maintain relationships with them afterward, as emotions can become volatile, and they have a habit of falling in love with one of us.”

Coupled or not, sex and Satanism still share the same bed. Stephanie Crabe, a Manhattan designer and photographer, would be pegged as more of a sexy retro chick on the streets of New York than a hard-core Satanic witch. Disarming as this Satanic priestess’s vintage appearance may be, her diabolic wiles can’t be underestimated.

Crabe is articulate about pragmatic Satanic sexual philosophy, noting that it’s the only dogma that doesn’t espouse “a bunch of higher-power nonsense and fairy-tale concepts about God.” As she puts it, “More and more people understand that most of what is depicted about Satanism by the media and other religious groups is BS. People are seeing that the very obvious trappings of the philosophy are for fun and that underneath it is something extremely powerful that holds water and totally makes sense.” This New Yorker openly uses her “magical powers” of seduction to get what she wants: “If I’m perfumed and appealing, I can expect some doors to be held open, some packages carried out to my car, and some bar tabs paid in full! It makes me sad to think of how so many women screwed up some of the good things about being a woman during the sixties and seventies.”

In October 2007, Crabe published her first book of photographs, Motel Bizarre! (Scapegoat Publishing), a series depicting sexy and unusual situations that take place in anonymous motel rooms. “I see these motel rooms as very Satanic little ritual chambers where people go just to enact whatever (often sloppy) instincts or desires they have. I cele brate the sleazy, sexy, and weird in my book; it’s full of odd characters, humor, and thrills!” Crabe explains.

Having an affinity for a particular time and place, no matter how odd or out of date, and creating this environment is also a Satanic basic that can disturb secular civilians. Crabe accomplishes this “time travel” through her photography and appearance, as does her man, Magister Christopher Mealie. To see the couple together, you’d think you stepped into a Raymond Chandler private-eye novel. Mealie, also an author, created a retro-pinup-photography book entitled SexCats (Goliath Books), chock-full of stark, amateurish nudes. He says he finds the cross between glamour, sensuality, and tragedy in his pictures a reflection of an integral part of Satanism.

Crabe and Mealie aren’t the only church members to use Satanic sexual energy to achieve more than personal pleasure. Because members are so aligned with the power of sex, they have no qualms about using it to build their careers, consciously wielding it as the catalyst for success in the business world. This fits their emphasis on real-world achievement. And taking the devil’s name provides a rock-star marketing hook that allows a number of its members to earn a damn(ed) good living.

One of the flock’s better-known professionals, a fine artist, illustrator, and photographer known simply as “Coop,” is famous for his signature devil-girl illustrations and paintings. Coop is a prime example of one of the church’s elite who has successfully taken the LaVey ethos to the max, marrying carnality to his creations. His volup tuous, iconic devil girl (who some believe was inspired by his beautiful, business-savvy wife, Ruth) graces numerous products, from T-shirts to hot-rod paraphernalia, and is the cornerstone of a highly successful cottage industry (CoopStuff.com). “Ruth fits the bill. I think I conjured her up with the art instead of the other way around,” Coop says.

Coop grew up in Oklahoma in the shadow of Oral Roberts University, and doesn’t flaunt the fact that he’s a Satanist. Nor does he deny it. He says that he feels he never consciously chose Satanism, but that Satanism chose him after he visited LaVey at his infamous San Francisco Black House, which has been leveled and replaced since LaVey’s death. He says LaVey helped him crystallize his thoughts, especially his creativity.

The church philosophy has also helped him understand the power of ritual. Although some members perform formal rituals—the kind with altars, candles, gongs, and sometimes nude celebrants—Coop’s idea of ritual, although in line with Satanic thought, runs counter to what most think of as magic. “All of my creative acts have become ritualized over the years—magic is all about the creation of something from nothing, and that is a pretty good description of making art, too,” Coop says. “I have a dedicated ritual space: my studio. I have many specific steps and routines that I use to create, and at the end of the process, I have conjured up a piece of art from mundane materials like canvas and paint.”

Nowadays, Coop is conjuring up art from far less mundane objects—fleshand-blood women, including local porn-star pals Kimberly Kane, Ashley Blue, and plus-size star April Flores. “Most of my models are friends of mine. The fact that they work in porn is just another part of their lives. I do find that I feel more comfortable working with models who do porn. They are usually much more professional and easier to deal with than ‘regular’ models, and rarely object to whatever strange thing I might ask them to do in a photograph. After all, I’m pretty tame, compared to their day jobs.”

In true Satanic fashion, Ruth accepts Coop’s fascination with naked women. A self-professed shoe diva with a fetish for expensive high heels, she also indulges in rubber clothing and some bondage gear. She says that expressing oneself sexually is just one more facet of freedom: “Everyone considers Satanists to be sex maniacs, because we’re all about indulging fantasies and living lives where we answer only to ourselves, but the truth is, we only do what everyone should. If it’s interesting to me, I’m going to try it at least once.”

Sex in business also sells for Lex Frost, a Texas-based church magister and one of the organization’s first Internet entrepreneurs. A member of the church since he was 16, he’s run his businesses—including an online store for Satanic products, Satanic social-networking sites, and a candle company— for nearly ten years.

Frost agrees that the mix of Satanism and sex makes a powerful selling tool, saying, “I like to sponsor goth and burlesque shows and BDSM extravaganzas in which semi-nude performers act out horror-movie antics with a decidedly sexy twist.” Frost also took advantage of the bucks in blasphemy by shooting the “Zombie Lovers Last Supper,” in which he portrayed the Satanic equivalent of Da Vinci’s famous painting. According to Frost, the taboo shoot inspired some of the models to leave together and play after hours.

Satanic capitalism also thrives in, of all places, Fort Wayne, Indiana, commonly referred to as the country’s “City of Churches.” The city is home to Warlock Eric Vernor, aka Corvis Nocturnum, who could be considered a true Satanic renaissance man. The author of Embracing the Darkness: Understanding Dark Subcultures is also an artist, occult-shop proprietor, website owner, and publisher. He was guest speaker at a Purdue University Fort Wayne seminar on world religions. After a front-page article in the Living section of the Journal Gazette newspaper “outed” him and his pagan/activist wife Starr, they became local celebrities, often questioned about Satanism and asked to sign books on the streets.

They consider themselves polyamorous, having had other sexual partners in the underground community, and are active in the BDSM scene. But because they embrace the Satanic elitist attitude, they say they are very picky about who joins them. Like San Diego couple Moore and Saenz, Vernor says that it would be excellent to add to their family another female who is a sub missive and a Satanist, but admits, “It’s hard to get all of that in one person.”

Hard to find, yes, but it’s likely Vernor will find another female, as Satanism has attracted people for 40 years and will continue to attract the sexually curious. As Magister Mealie points out, “Satanists see the world as a carnival, with all of the glitz, showmanship, cons, lust, and earthy tawdriness found on the lot. Up front, there may be a tantalizing beauty mesmerizing the rubes, but in back there’s a geek committing the lowest acts just for a cheap bottle.” And that lust and earthy tawdriness, along with ritual, nude altars, and sex ual permissiveness, will always be a powerful temptation, just as the devil intended. It’s what makes the Church of Satan the most carnal religion on earth.

http://penthousemagazine.com/features/devils-advocate/