The Lucifer Principle- Book Discussion Thread

[GeeBee]

This thread is to promote, review, discuss Howard Bloom's masterpiece, "The Lucifer Principle". Several of us in the religion threads cannot stop recommending it. It will change the way you view the world politically, religiously, and socially. Consider this thread like a book club. If you haven't read it...get to your local bookstore or library and join us in what is sure to be a stimulating discussion. If you'd like a taste, also see Google:

http://books.google.com/books?id=YctWRSbQessC&dq=lucifer+principle+review&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=SMSFSpykOpnmlQfi8tjTCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#v=onepage&q=lucifer%20principle%20review&f=false

[Machu505]

You would make this.

[Animalhill]

For anyone interested in joining in what is no doubt going to be great discussions, but have no money to buy a book, it can be read in its entirety at : http://www.scribd.com/doc/5991670/Howard-Bloom-The-Lucifer-Principle

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

Whats the big deal about the parts about islam?

[GeeBee]

Whats the big deal about the parts about islam?

You'll have to be more specific.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

sorry. I'm reading reviews of the book and they keep bringing Islam up

From wikipedia:

Bloom later wrote[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lucifer_Principle#cite_note-5) that he and his publisher had been threatened by Islamic groups who objected to aspects of the book. He claimed that "Arab pressure groups asked ever so politely that The Lucifer Principle be withdrawn from print and that nothing that I write be published again. They offered to boycott my publisher's products — all of them — worldwide. And they backed their warning with a call for my punishment in seventeen Islamic countries." Bloom states that the Attorney for the Authors Guild (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild) wrote to his publishers, warning of an author boycott if the book was pulled from the shelves. The publishers asked Bloom to rewrite a chapter on Islamic violence, which led to the creation of 358 lines of footnotes attesting to the facts he presented within it.


and this review (http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=1263082)completely disinterests me in the book. (sorry i know i should not be judging the book without reading it but that review makes it sounds terrible)

[GeeBee]

sorry. I'm reading reviews of the book and they keep bringing Islam up

From wikipedia:


and this review (http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=1263082)completely disinterests me in the book. (sorry i know i should not be judging the book without reading it but that review makes it sounds terrible)

I only posted that review to present a good/not so good perspective of it. I was attempting to be impartial.

As far as the Islam thing, I don't remember reading anything inflammatory. And bear in mind...there are some Muslims that were thirsty for blood over a danish cartoon...

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

I only posted that review to present a good/not so good perspective of it. I was attempting to be impartial.

As far as the Islam thing, I don't remember reading anything inflammatory. And bear in mind...there are some Muslims that were thirsty for blood over a danish cartoon...

ya idk maybe i just need to read the whole thing haha

[Machu505]

Islamic countries always complain when someone uses facts to refute their claims. It should be expected.

[My Broken Fever]

I only posted that review to present a good/not so good perspective of it. I was attempting to be impartial.

As far as the Islam thing, I don't remember reading anything inflammatory. And bear in mind...there are some Muslims that were thirsty for blood over a danish cartoon...
I so wish that all the European papers would have printed that out of solidarity. We're such wimps. But that's another thing entirely. :-d

[Animalhill]

I think a thread rule should be not prejudging the book based on reviews. Had I read all the reviews for it, I may not have bought it. It was recommended to me by a great friend, and I think inherently this is a better reason to read a book (vs walking into it with preconceived notions from a few stuffy scholars).

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

ya ya i probably should not have read any of the reviews. that is my bad,

[GeeBee]

I think a thread rule should be not prejudging the book based on reviews. Had I read all the reviews for it, I may not have bought it. It was recommended to me by a great friend, and I think inherently this is a better reason to read a book (vs walking into it with preconceived notions from a few stuffy scholars).

I second this. Half of what makes this book so awesome is that it's rather unorthodox in its approach and doesn't pretend to be a textbook, which many critics try to treat it as.

Forget the reviews, and give it a read.

[Animalhill]

I second this. Half of what makes this book so awesome is that it's rather unorthodox in its approach and doesn't pretend to be a textbook, which many critics try to treat it as.

Forget the reviews, and give it a read.
Which is one of the reasons, obviously besides the theories presented, I loved this book.

[vodyanoj]

Woot. And there are plenty of free versions online; just googling for it will get you several hits.

[beamsofthesun]

I so wish that all the European papers would have printed that out of solidarity. We're such wimps. But that's another thing entirely. :-d
:rotfl:

[vodyanoj]

ya ya i probably should not have read any of the reviews. that is my bad,

Actually, I always only read 1-star reviews. They are either right-on or hilariously stupid.

[vodyanoj]

I so wish that all the European papers would have printed that out of solidarity. We're such wimps. But that's another thing entirely. :-d

And every blogger should have put up links to them, as well.

[vodyanoj]

He does, however, make some rather drastic (and IMHO, unfounded) claims about group selection.

[jawstheme]

Quit trying to push your views on me! Bible, I mean Lucifer Principle thumpers!

[GeeBee]

He does, however, make some rather drastic (and IMHO, unfounded) claims about group selection.

I think he simply tries to demonstrate correlation, but too many critics mistake that for arguments from "causation".

[EatItSucka]

I would rather worship someone who cares about himself than someone who wants me to get down on my knees and make me pay them 10% my cash :P

[GeeBee]

I would rather worship someone who cares about himself than someone who wants me to get down on my knees and make me pay them 10% my cash :P

Go to the god thread for this type of conversation.

[Animalhill]

Go to the god thread for this type of conversation.
Well should we break the seal and start the debate?

[perceptrons]

I would rather worship someone who cares about himself than someone who wants me to get down on my knees and make me pay them 10% my cash :P
Yeah Vivi!

[Tead42]

About to start reading the version online, wish me luck!

[GeeBee]

About to start reading the version online, wish me luck!

Good luck. Let us know what you find interesting/controversial/etc...keep this thread going!

[open mind]

i'll probably pick this book up on my next trip to the book store just to see what all these vocal ejaculations are all about.

[Animalhill]

About to start reading the version online, wish me luck!
Good luck- make sure to write down which page you left off on.
i'll probably pick this book up on my next trip to the book store just to see what all these vocal ejaculations are all about.
Do it! It really is a great read.

[open mind]

i liked the book for being so thought provoking but don't buy it all...kinda pressed for time so this will be brief.

at times i get the feeling that he's forcing together a version of events that his sources don't really back up. one example being the assertion that all native americans reveled in war and violence because the sioux ghost dancers (a group with members of a single tribe that wasn't traditional and only arose in response to the american invasion) did.

although it doesn't totally undercut his message i think it's odd that he spends a good part of the book telling us not to believe experts in things we can't see with our own eyes.....and then proceeds to explain how the world has been shaped by things we can't see.

when it comes to war and our essential attitudes towards it i don't think we're any less barbaric then anyone else.

human nature and group dynamics won't automattically change in space.

biology is powerful but we aren't slaves to it. as humans we're capable of overriding and/or consciously using it it to differing degrees.

[GeeBee]

i liked the book for being so thought provoking but don't buy it all...kinda pressed for time so this will be brief.

at times i get the feeling that he's forcing together a version of events that his sources don't really back up. one example being the assertion that all native americans reveled in war and violence because the sioux ghost dancers (a group with members of a single tribe that wasn't traditional and only arose in response to the american invasion) did.

although it doesn't totally undercut his message i think it's odd that he spends a good part of the book telling us not to believe experts in things we can't see with our own eyes.....and then proceeds to explain how the world has been shaped by things we can't see.

when it comes to war and our essential attitudes towards it i don't think we're any less barbaric then anyone else.

human nature and group dynamics won't automattically change in space.

biology is powerful but we aren't slaves to it. as humans we're capable of overriding and/or consciously using it it to differing degrees.

Fair assessment. I concur with a few of your statements. While I, too, don't necessarily buy the whole parcel, I think it's a great perspective and food for thought.