Page 8 of 10 « First<678910>
Topic Options
#114187 - 08/28/17 07:50 AM Re: what brought you to satanism? [Re: Dan_Dread]
Dark Magician Offline
member


Registered: 04/24/14
Posts: 148
In a sense Dan - the described is constructed by the description.

There is no-thing outside of the text or discourse. There is only difference, repetition, eternal return and the dice throw.

Time and temporality precedes, undermines and explodes essence or substance - a "first principle" of my brand of Satanism.

Top
#114188 - 08/28/17 08:21 AM Re: what brought you to satanism? [Re: SIN3]
Dark Magician Offline
member


Registered: 04/24/14
Posts: 148
SIN3:

I shall leave you to your service. You do seem to enjoy it so.

Enjoy it???? Are you fucking mad?

I do not enjoy this at all. This is a fucking nightmare. I wish I had never gotten involved in any of this.

There is none of the usual assurance brought about by a belief in essence or substance, in teleology, in stability, in centre, in structure, in myth, in discourse. There's no-thing there for me.

In my world there is only the battle of magicians and their endless language games. If I'm damned lucky I can dwell in the beautiful clearing of particularity and difference for a while and get away from this endless GBM.

You know what go fuck yourself SIN3.

Top
#114190 - 08/28/17 09:19 AM Re: what brought you to satanism? [Re: Dark Magician]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7190
Loc: Virginia
 Originally Posted By: DM
Enjoy it???? Are you fucking mad?


 Quote:
You know what go fuck yourself SIN3.


I see. I'm not here to educate you, or provide you with comfort. In all your articulations on this forum you simply aren't. It could be the reason that you have such a hard on for my opinions. If they drive you mad or make you angry, then you may start looking within. Until such time you have that fortitude, I shall be your scapegoat.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#114201 - 08/29/17 04:31 AM Re: what brought you to satanism? [Re: SIN3]
Dark Magician Offline
member


Registered: 04/24/14
Posts: 148
My last post to you was frankly rude, as have a number of my other recent posts to users here. It was uncalled for.

I still don't understand how you can claim Satanism has an essence?

Even if you state that it is essentially antinomian praxis or walking the left hand path, before and prior to all naming, then surely you must define antinomian and the left hand in distinction to and against some Other named Nomiam or the right hand.

Antinomian or left hand is inextricably implicated in language games, culture, history, description etc. right from the start. And this is even before you have overloaded this type of praxis or doing with the signifier Satanism.

Top
#114202 - 08/29/17 08:41 AM Re: what brought you to satanism? [Re: Dark Magician]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3996
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Then your Satanism is an artificiality. When you strive to match your deeds with words, you are no different than the good people 'of the book'.

You see, I see it the opposite way. There are no meaningful words that do not describe existent phenomenon. We call those words that do not, 'fantasy'.
_________________________



Top
#114203 - 08/29/17 10:13 AM Re: what brought you to satanism? [Re: Dan_Dread]
when7iseleven Offline
member


Registered: 07/11/11
Posts: 240
Loc: High Peak, UK
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
There are no meaningful words that do not describe existent phenomenon. We call those words that do not, 'fantasy'.


Struggling to understand; it's the double negative or even the triple negative that's thrown me.
_________________________
Diamond life, lover boy, minimum waste, maximum joy

Top
#114204 - 08/29/17 10:33 AM Re: what brought you to satanism? [Re: Dark Magician]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7190
Loc: Virginia
 Originally Posted By: DM
I still don't understand how you can claim Satanism has an essence?


Try reading posts more than once. Think on them before responding.

Consider what references and vocabulary words 'do' rather than what they are.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#114206 - 08/29/17 12:01 PM Re: what brought you to satanism? [Re: SIN3]
entropicmomentum Offline
pledge


Registered: 08/07/12
Posts: 56
Loc: Texas
What brought you to Gravitism?

For me, there was this book prescribed to me by a YouTuber that explained the different methods for jumping and falling.

To become like The Great Gravitas one must pull in more mass. This will induce a state of Orbitation, wherein you can achieve a greater feeling of Gravity Wellness.

Only then, can you return to the great singularity.
_________________________
We're soaked to the bone in the blood of the innocent.

Top
#114208 - 08/29/17 12:14 PM Re: what brought you to satanism? [Re: when7iseleven]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3996
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
A double negative is when you apply more than one negative qualifier to the same subject in a sentence. Each negative is qualifying something different, the grammar is sound.

I have nothing better to do at the moment so I guess I can rephrase it more simply for you;

Phraseology that doesn't describe anything that actually exists is some bullshit.
_________________________



Top
#114212 - 08/29/17 10:56 PM Re: what brought you to satanism? [Re: Dan_Dread]
Dark Magician Offline
member


Registered: 04/24/14
Posts: 148
Dan Dread:

Then your Satanism is an artificiality. When you strive to match your deeds with words, you are no different than the good people 'of the book'.

You see, I see it the opposite way. There are no meaningful words that do not describe existent phenomenon. We call those words that do not, 'fantasy'.


‘There are no meaningful words that do not describe existent phenomena?’

Yes, yes indeed Dan – that is very true!

I have no access to the substance or essence of the phenomenon. All I have access to is the multiplicity of appearances and the differential relations between appearances, which describes the phenomenon. There is no in-itself or philosophical substance, which lies beneath the multiplicity of appearances and the differential relations within which these appearances are manifested to me.

The description constructs the described.

But moreover, my approach to the phenomenon is subject to my particular perspective, hence I am a supporter of perspectivism and hermeneutics generally.

And further, the phenomenon and the way I comport myself towards it is subject to temporality. The constant endless temporal flow undermines the timelessness of essence or substance as well.

For all these reasons I do not believe the phenomenon has an essence or a substance. This belief extends to my understanding of Satanism as well.

I’m not sure what you meant by: When you strive to match your deeds with you words, you are no different than the good people ‘of the book.’ Thank you for making the comment though.

Top
#114213 - 08/30/17 05:30 AM Re: what brought you to satanism? [Re: Dark Magician]
Dark Magician Offline
member


Registered: 04/24/14
Posts: 148
Yes, Dan is referring to words in his post. I don’t wish to avoid the reference to words.

I would like to enlarge the scope and refer to some thing called a signifier, which includes words within its frame.

A signifier, according to the traditional Saussurean definition is an acoustic/image i.e. a concrete phenomenon and the most basic element of meaning and hence culture.

A phenomenon, such as a signifier, acquires more specific meaning within a syntactical chain of differing elements i.e. differential relations subject to temporality.

The temporality and differential composition of the chain corrupts the purity of the meaning. Differing context produces differing meaning. The unfolding of the chain through time alters the meaning of the previous elements etc.

I think it goes without saying, but I will say it anyway: there is no necessary relation between a signifier and its phenomenal referent. There is not even a necessary relation between a signifier and the signified, which is purely mental. It is all cultural/historical.

In my view, essence, substance or presence within a phenomenon is a trick of language - its objectivity is a reification or fabrication brought about by an assumption that signifiers are stable, solid and contain a center. In my view it is a type of illusion. This diagnosis extends to language itself.

A signifier is a series of appearances or descriptions constituted by difference. Again the described is constructed by the description.

Again, this corruption extends into the meaning of Satan and Satanism at least as far as an essence or center goes.

Top
#114214 - 08/30/17 08:53 AM Re: what brought you to satanism? [Re: Dark Magician]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3996
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:
I’m not sure what you meant by: When you strive to match your deeds with you words, you are no different than the good people ‘of the book.’ Thank you for making the comment though


It's a horse cart thing, or even a lhp/rhp thing. You see, the 'people of the book'(one example) start with the written word and try to manifest that into reality. It's a top down approach where authority(ontological in this case I suppose) flows downwards from an authorative text, through it's handlers and down to the consumer. The words in that text do not necessarily reflect anything real, yet they are adopted as such. This is the cart pulling the horse.

Satanism, at least the meaningful stuff(a small percentage of what is claimed to be such), is a description of what is already existent. Nothing is being created, only observed. It is learned though doing, with the language used to describe it coming second, or sometimes not at all.

You are correct that given the scope of billions of years nothing is set, nothing has an essence. But at each individual moment in time, it does. Over the scope of lifetimes, of human history, of animal history, it does.

To me, striving to touch 'the real' is what it's all about, even while others construct and live in language game fantasy.
_________________________



Top
#114215 - 08/30/17 10:14 AM Re: what brought you to satanism? [Re: Dark Magician]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7190
Loc: Virginia
 Originally Posted By: DM
For all these reasons I do not believe the phenomenon has an essence or a substance. This belief extends to my understanding of Satanism as well.


Let me ask you this. Is being defiant an appearance? What about challenging information being taught and handed down through your family?

Is the description as important as the act of being defiant or challenging a self-positioned authority?

Say, your grandparents raised your own parents with the notion of the Tooth-fairy. What if your parents rejected this tradition deciding to raise you without notions of whimsy and superstition. Are they living up to a description or are acts being described?

These are more than just appearances, the 'essence' is in the deed.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#114223 - 08/30/17 08:04 PM Re: what brought you to satanism? [Re: Dark Magician]
Czereda Offline
senior member


Registered: 03/14/11
Posts: 2092
Loc: Poland
 Quote:
I have no access to the substance or essence of the phenomenon. All I have access to is the multiplicity of appearances and the differential relations between appearances, which describes the phenomenon. There is no in-itself or philosophical substance, which lies beneath the multiplicity of appearances and the differential relations within which these appearances are manifested to me.

The description constructs the described.


You're repeating this postructuralist shit as if it were a gospel while it's nothing else than pure mindfuck. You can go down the rabbit hole a thousand of times but to what end?

But hey, you've just made me recall those blissful times when I was a noob on my first year at the university. I forgot which course it was, literary criticism I think, but not sure of that. Suffice to say, we were discussing structuralism, then postructuralism and finally moved to deconstruction. So our teacher was standing there and giving a rant about the supposed tension between the signified and signifier, how unstable the dominance of the signified over the signifier is and how that order could easily be reversed. And I was sitting there, totally bewildered, and wondering what the fuck this guy is prattling about.

Then he was talking about nature/culture binary opposition and how it is generally thought that nature comes before culture. Let's reverse that order - he says - culture comes before nature.

Now that was the time when I couldn't stand this nonsense any longer and reacted like that frog in the picture:



I wasn't that rude but I said something like: But sir, how is that possible? You claim that culture precedes nature but what about the time when the humans were barely conscious and basically followed only their biological instincts? And what about the time when there were no humans?

He laughed and asked "You mean the time when the dinosaurs were roaming the Earth?" I don't remember the rest of his answer but it was a little bit in a joking manner. Still he thanked me for my bravery. \:\)

Coming back to the other side of the mirror... going down the rabbit hole may serve a purpose of challenging a fixed line of thinking. Generally, people accept many things as truth without even thinking about them till someone comes over and challenges it. Even if the challenge claim is bullshit, still it has served its purpose, it has made you think.

In a sense our language constructs the reality for us but if there was no language, would the reality stop existing? One may think the world revolves around one's consciousness but is that rabbit hole for real? Just because you feel you can't apprehend the essence or substance of the phenomena, does that mean that this substance doesn't exist?


Edited by Czereda (08/30/17 08:06 PM)
_________________________
Anna Czereda
Crazy Cat Lady

Top
#114225 - 09/01/17 03:47 AM Re: what brought you to satanism? [Re: Czereda]
Dark Magician Offline
member


Registered: 04/24/14
Posts: 148
I am fairly sure this is understood, but I thought I would state it explicitly at the start: I do not doubt the existence of the phenomenon – I can verify the existence or non-existence of the phenomenon empirically.

I simply do not believe in the essence, or the substance, or the in-itself of the phenomenon.

I am assuming you understand what I mean when I refer to essence, substance or the in-itself of the phenomenon?

Essence or substance is the absolute truth, underlying reality, or utterly fixed meaning of the phenomenon.

To determine the essence of the phenomenon is to determine the truth of the phenomenon universally and necessarily i.e. the essence is the truth of the phenomenon across all space and time, and it couldn’t possibly be otherwise.

Essence is hence outside of time as its constitution and validity does not change across time.

This is a fairly standard sort of definition of essence or substance in the philosophical tradition I think.

One needs to be careful when adopting a word like essence or substance and applying it to an action or series of actions. There is a problem when you appropriate a signifier like essence, which seems to fit so comfortably into the ontology of objects and use it to describe actions.

I thought I would unpack this a bit, as Dan and SIN have both referred to it. A sort of example to consider:

Someone or some group of people does something. They do A, B, C and D.

The actor/s and any audience all must agree on the meaning of what has taken place. There cannot be any deviation between the actor/s and any audience. Everybody must agree that A, B, C and D means such and such if they are to fix the meaning of the action essentially or substantially.

Moreover, any human being, at any time in the future, has to agree on the meaning of the action as well. There cannot be any deviation in the meaning, even a million years from now.

You can’t state that an action has an essence or a substance if there is any deviation or disagreement among the actor/s and the audience over the meaning of that action.

Does this make sense?

I believe each actor and each audience member is going to determine the meaning of an action from their own particular perspective, intention, desire, need, their own cultural background, value system, their own interpretative framework etc. etc.

I don’t think an action has an essence. It is an action A, B, C and D pure and simple, done for some reason or set of reasons and interpreted differently depending upon whatever relevant motivation is present at the time it is completed and/or interpreted.

Again, it seems to me that the actor/s and the audience are going to ascribe a meaning to that action based on something, such as intention, desire, learned values, perspective, interpretation etc.

A defiant action may actually be regarded as a sign of independence by someone else, or amusing by someone else, or relevant and useful by someone else, or boring and mundane by someone else etc.

Moreover, a child’s action may be interpreted by a parent as defiant at one point in time and then be looked upon as humorous, when discussed around the dinner table, at a family dinner 20 years later.

40 years later it may be regarded by a parent, on their death bed, with pride – my kid was always head-strong, independent and thought for themselves etc.

I would also add that the intention of the actor/s doesn’t really guarantee that an action acquires and maintains an essence or substance. I don’t think authorship gives one the privilege of defining the meaning of an action essentially or substantially.

To Anna, I like post-structuralism. It is the best critical tool ever placed in my hands. It is open to abuse and certainly parody though.

Top
Page 8 of 10 « First<678910>


Moderator:  SkaffenAmtiskaw, fakepropht, TV is God, Woland, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.027 seconds of which 0.005 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.