New Book By Simon Options

I just wanted everyone to know there is a new book coming out by our old friend Simon. Yes the same author of the Necronomicon.

The title of the new book which is Dead Names : The Dark History of the Necronomicon has been out for awhile and it is still not released as of yet BUT they have finally released a picture of the book and a quick overview.

Here is the picture of the new book:

(IMG:http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v235/Frater_Nero/newbook.jpg)

and here is the Book Description:


The most feared, fascinating, and dangerous book in the history of humankind . . . Necronomicon

An ancient Arabic text -- a powerful book of spells that could, in the wrong hands, create unimaginable and irreversible devastation -- the Necronomicon featured prominently in the stories of legendary horror writer H.P. Lovecraft. For many generations, few believed it to be anything other than pure fiction.

But in 1972, a young man who, for his own protection, must be known simply as "Simon," stumbled upon an old, handwritten manuscript that ultimately proved to be an authentic edition of the unholy work.

Dead Names is the startling true account of the dark and violent history of this most fearsome of books: from its Middle Eastern origins to its reemergence centuries later; its role in pivotal events of the twentieth century, from the JFK assassination to the Son of Sam murders; and the terrible fates that befell those who helped bring the Necronomicon out of the shadows and into the light of day.

@ Bym: I'll be cool.

@ Danharms:

Ok, I will have to keep this short. This is not my job, so I have to limit the amount of time I put into this.

First off I would like to apologise for the harshness of my words. My anger was triggered by a miscommunication (I hope!) which you have cleared up now. I still disagree strongly with you and consider what you are proposing to do to be wrong - but had I known yesterday what you have clarified today I would not had attacked you personally the way I did.

Ok, I will make a quick comment to some of the things you write about.

"I can understand where NoxLux is coming from on this. I don't want it to look like there's going to be some quid pro quo or backroom deal that I'm trying to initiate. At the same time, there is a serious discrepancy here, and I'm not handing Simon his talking points.

Here's what I propose. If any readers like to know what sort of arguments I'd accept as legitimate - and if you can promise me you'll keep them to yourself and not repost or forward them - PM me, and I'll send them to you.

Fair enough?"

I will say pass to this offer. Simply because I do not think Simon owes you any kind of explanation - so what kind of arguments you would/will accept as legitimate is irrelevant from my point of view.

"There is certainly more than one reason why a person can use a pseudonym. Simon has given his choice from among them in Dead Names. Using a pseudonym does not necessarily exempt one from guruhood, and using one's real name does not compel one to adopt the position, so the argument is arguably flawed. Nonetheless, the real problem here is that the premise on which Simon’s argument is based is unsound, which renders that discussion moot."

This is what I consider to be a main flaw in your reasoning: that if an author gives a reason for using a pseudonym and that reason proves wrong (according to you) then it is ok for you to expose him.

"Thanks for making the aesthetic-moral link explicit. I’d agree with the principle that aesthetics carries a moral worth to it, and I’m happy to apply them to the Necronomicon when considered as a work of art.

Nonetheless, the question then becomes whether an aesthetic perspective can be the only or the overriding principle, especially with regard to works that are supposed to have non-aesthetic worth as well. Dead Names, in fact, could be seen as an entire justification for the book's worth in a historical as well as an aesthetic sense. I’d say these measures of worth exist alongside each other – you can be right aesthetically, but wrong on the others."

I will offer a point of view which has zero weight in todays society, but which I think will become quite weighty as the occult currents grow stronger in the world - namely that occult works work very much on the same principles as art, by pulling different semantic symbolic strings and hence shifting the realities of the viewer. Today the main difference is that only a small elite has access to the codes of the art world and the occult world respectively however the art world view is considered high status and written about in the prestigous papers whereas the occult world view is almost underground. To a great extent I would claim that loads of occult works have art status - except since the art people do not have access to the occult codes they have no means of recognizing that. One point is of course that occult works deserve exactly the same status art does. Full stop.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that you are correct in your belief that the Necronomicon is indeed a forgery made up by Simon and possibly some other people. Occultly speaking this would place his Nec in the tradition of almost every older occult work, since they were almost all pseudoepigraphica. In the art sphere forgery has also been a brilliant part of immensely increasing the value of some works, consider: Carlos Castaneda, Ossian. Now, if this is indeed the case, then Simon is obviously a genious. Perhaps a minor genious since occult works do not recieve the recognition they deserve - but still.

And NO, my best argument doesn't fall by the wayside because Simon never told you his identity. Of course he didn't, and I never claimed so. I claimed that you wrote to him under his identity and he answered, hence confirming your assumption regarding his identity.

This is something you clearly stated here:
http://danharms.wordpress.com/2006/06/14/d...-dead-dog-bias/

That was poor wording on my part. I wrote this person under his non-Simon identity, and he responded in kind. I'm sorry if I gave you the wrong impression, and I've corrected the entry.

Ok, so that miscommunication was the source of some (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sport_boxing.gif) - Good that it is cleared up.

Just to make sure I understand you correctly, you wrote Clark Kent and Clark Kent wrote back, signing his letters with Clark Kent, while you believe that Clark Kent is Superman. Is this a correct understanding?

If you feel I am misrepresenting other’s arguments, here or elsewhere, please let me - and everyone else - know. When emotions run high, it’s easy to get lost and post things that are incorrect. That’s why it’s important to work through these things in a logical manner, and leave oneself open to critique.

Regarding my accusation about misrepresenting it stemmed from the above miscommunication, and one other thing which is also of the past now, and which I presently think was a result of english being my third language.

My commendations for remaining calm and thorough under fire. :-)

Plenty of people would say I'm already committing an ethical breach by not telling everyone who Simon was a long time ago.

Saying it doesn't make them right.

I’ve yet to hear anyone say that my evidence is flawed, or that my reasoning, even if in “set phrases”, is incorrect. What I need are counterarguments that critique those, or that state that there’s a higher-level principle that trumps them.

Ok, I no longer consider what you wrote to have been "set phrases" - I am back to my previous view where I see you yet again as someone basically honest but with whoom I disagree strongly.

The problem I percieve with your line of reasoning here is that it presents an impossible dilemma to anyone arguing with you. If I appeal to a higher level principle which trumps the arguments you have presented you would not percieve it as such since you live inside your own hierarchy of values.

You see, to me, as a writer, planning to publish some work under pseudonym, the mere idea that someone would consider publishing my real name ... well, it doesn't even need any arguments it is wrong. It is a breach into someone elses integrity. It is meddling inside someone elses business where one has no business and is not aware of the consequences or reasons. And demanding to know such reasons under the threat of exposure is wrong.

As per Byms instructions above I will not count the ways specificly in which I consider such behavior wrong.

One higher level principle out of many is that one should respect other peoples decisions regarding how they wish to live their lives. But arguing about such principles is sort of pointless, again, since this is what I consider a higher level principle, while if you considered this a principle of the high level it is you wouldn't be contemplating publishing Simons identity in the first place.

Instead of that, I'm getting disagreement based on what Simon could or should say, instead of what he actually did say.

Well, I don't think any of my arguments make assumptions about Simon or what he could or should say.

My knowledge of Simon’s life, as I’ve stated, is limited. I can honestly say that, based on what I see of it, I see no reason for him – on non-aesthetic grounds, I’ll clarify – to maintain a pseudonym. Nonetheless, I’m willing to admit factors might be at play of which I know nothing.

Fair enough that you remain open to persuasion. Though personally I fail to see any justification for why you assume the right to demand to be convinced or else you will act against the stated interests of Simon.

/Noxlux