Page 2 of 2 <12
Topic Options
#30372 - 10/08/09 03:46 PM Re: Yet Another ONA Thread! [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
It isn't my spin as much as it being an older spin, rather familiar to us, not?

 Quote:
Our deepest insights must--and should--appear as follies, and under certain circumstances as crimes, when they come unauthorizedly to the ears of those who are not disposed and predestined for them. The exoteric and the esoteric, as they were formerly distinguished by philosophers--among the Indians, as among the Greeks, Persians, and Mussulmans, in short, wherever people believed in gradations of rank and NOT in equality and equal rights--are not so much in contradistinction to one another in respect to the exoteric class, standing without, and viewing, estimating, measuring, and judging from the outside, and not from the inside; the more essential distinction is that the class in question views things from below upwards--while the esoteric class views things FROM ABOVE DOWNWARDS. There are heights of the soul from which tragedy itself no longer appears to operate tragically; and if all the woe in the world were taken together, who would dare to decide whether the sight of it would NECESSARILY seduce and constrain to sympathy, and thus to a doubling of the woe? . . . That which serves the higher class of men for nourishment or refreshment, must be almost poison to an entirely different and lower order of human beings. The virtues of the common man would perhaps mean vice and weakness in a philosopher; it might be possible for a highly developed man, supposing him to degenerate and go to ruin, to acquire qualities thereby alone, for the sake of which he would have to be honoured as a saint in the lower world into which he had sunk. There are books which have an inverse value for the soul and the health according as the inferior soul and the lower vitality, or the higher and more powerful, make use of them. In the former case they are dangerous, disturbing, unsettling books, in the latter case they are herald-calls which summon the bravest to THEIR bravery. Books for the general reader are always ill-smelling books, the odour of paltry people clings to them. Where the populace eat and drink, and even where they reverence, it is accustomed to stink. One should not go into churches if one wishes to breathe PURE air.


D.

Top
#30548 - 10/16/09 12:48 PM Language... [Re: Diavolo]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
For those who didn't realize the quotation was from "Beyond Good and Evil" I'll add a rather interesting analysis of the idea behind Nietzsche's writing upon language.

Part III: Nietzsche and Language: Some Observations

The War Between Poetry and Philosophy


You may recall how, in Book X of the Republic, Plato talks about the "ancient war between poetry and philosophy." What this seems to mean in the context of the argument is an ongoing antagonism between different uses of language, between language that seeks above all, denotative clarity­­ the language of exact definitions and precise logical relationships­­ and language whose major quality is its ambiguous emotional richness, between, that is, the language of geometry and the language of poetry (or, simply put, between Euclid and Homer).

Another way of characterizing this dichotomy is to describe it as the tension between a language appropriate to discovering the truth and one appropriate to creating it, between, that is, a language which sets itself up as an exact description of a given order (or as exact as is presently available) and a language which sets itself up as an ambiguous poetic vision of or an analogy to a natural or cosmic order.

Plato, in much of what we studied, seems clearly committed to a language of the former sort. Central to his course of studies which will produce guardian­ rulers is mathematics, which is based upon the most exact denotative language we know. Hence, the famous inscription over the door of the Academy: "Let no one enter here who has not studied geometry." And underlying Plato's remarkable suspicion of a great deal of poetry, and particularly of Homer, is this attitude to language: poetic language is suspect because, being based on metaphors (figurative comparisons or word pictures), it is a third remove from the truth. In addition, it speaks too strongly to the emotions and thus may unbalance the often tense equilibrium needed to keep the soul in a healthy state.

One needs to remember, however, that Plato's attitude to language is very ambiguous, because, in spite of his obvious endorsement of the language of philosophy and mathematics, in his own style he is often a poet, a creator of metaphor. In other words, there's a conflict between his strictures on metaphor and his adoption of so many metaphors (the central one of a dramatic dialogue is only the most obvious). Many of the most famous and influential passages from the Republic, for example, are not arguments but poetic images or fictional narratives: the Allegory of the Cave, the image of the Sun, the Myth of Er.

Plato, in fact, has always struck me as someone who was deeply suspicious about poetry and metaphor because he responded to it so strongly. Underlying his sometimes harsh treatment of Homer may be the imagination of someone who is all too responsive to it (conversely Aristotle's more lenient view of poetry may stem from the fact that he didn't really feel its effects so strongly). If we were inclined to adopt Nietzsche's interpretation of philosophy, we might be tempted to see in Plato's treatment of Homer and his stress on the dangers of poetic language his own "confession" of weakness. His work is, in part, an attempt to fight his own strong inclinations to prefer metaphoric language.

Geometry and Poetry

If we accept this characterization of the "ancient war" between two different uses of language, then we might want to ask ourselves why they cannot be reconciled. Why must there be a war? This has, in part, to do with the sorts of questions one wants to ask about the nature of things and about the sorts of answers which the enquiring mind requires. For traditionally there have been some important differences between the language of mathematics or geometry or a vocabulary that seeks to approximate the denotative clarity of these disciplines and the language of poetry. The central difference I would like to focus on is the matter of ambiguity.

The language of mathematics, and especially of Euclidean geometry, is characterized, above all, by denotative clarity: precise definitions, clear axioms, firm logical links between statements­­ all of which are designed to produce a rationally coherent structure which will compel agreement among those who take the time to work their way through the system. The intellectual and aesthetic pleasures of Euclid, I would maintain, arise, in large part, from this. And people who want this sort of clarity in their understanding of the world will naturally be drawn to define as acceptable questions and answers which frame themselves in a language which seeks this sort of clarity.

Poetical language, by contrast, is inherently ironic, ambiguous, elusive. As soon as I move from clear definition to metaphor, that is, to a comparison, or to a narrative which requires interpretation (like the Book of Exodus, for example, or the Iliad) then my statement requires interpretation, an understanding which cannot be quickly satisfied by an appeal to exact definitions and clear rules of logic. To reach a shared agreement about metaphor requires explanation and persuasion of a sort different from what is required to get people to accept the truths of Euclidean geometry.

For example, if I have trouble with the statement "The interior angles of a triangle add up to two right angles," I can find exact definitions of all the terms, I can review the step-by-step logical process that leads from self-evident first principles to this statement, and I then understand exactly what this means. I am rationally compelled to agree, provided I am not disturbed by the initial assumptions and the logical adequacy of the process. And I am in a position to explain the claim to someone else, so that he or she arrives at exactly the same understanding of the original statement about the sum of the interior angles (the compelling logic of this form of language is, of course, the point of the central section of Plato's Meno, Socrates's education of Meno's slave in the Pythagorean Theorem).

But a claim like "My love is like a red, red rose" is of a different order. I can check the dictionary definitions of all the words, but that by itself won't be enough. How do I deal with the comparison? I can go out and check whether my love has thorns on her legs or her hair falls off after a few days standing in water, but that's not going to offer much help, because obviously I am not meant to interpret this statement literally: a comparison, a metaphor is involved. An understanding of the statement requires that I interpret the comparison: What is the range of association summoned up by the metaphor which compares my beloved or my feelings for my beloved to a common flower?

And on this point, if we sit down to discuss the matter, we are likely to disagree or at least fail to reach exactly the same common rational understanding which we derived from our study of the first statement concerning the interior angles of the triangle. If we want to reach a shared agreement on the metaphor, then we are going to have to persuade each other, and even then our separate understandings may well not be congruent.

We have had direct experience of this in Liberal Studies. When we discussed Euclid, we had nothing to argue about. The discussions focused on whether or not everyone understood the logical steps involved, the definitions and axioms, and possible alternative logical methods. But no one offered seriously as an interpretative opinion that the interior angles of a triangle might add up to three right angles or one and a half right angles. If someone had claimed that, then we would have maintained that he or she had failed in some fundamental way to follow the steps in the proofs. By contrast, when we discussed, say, King Lear or the Tempest or Jane Eyre or Red and Black, we spent most of our time considering alternative interpretations of particular episodes, and we did not reach any precisely defined shared conclusion. Nor could we, if we spent the entire four semesters debating the issue.

It is no doubt a vast oversimplification to present the issue of language solely in terms of these two diametrically opposed ways, but for the sake of discussion it's a useful starting point. And we might go on to observe that, again to make a vast oversimplification, people tend to prefer one use of language over another: some like their verbal understandings of things clear, precise, logically sound, so that there is the possibility of a universally agreed upon meaning with minimum ambiguity, or as close as we can get to such a goal. Others prefer the ambiguity and emotional richness of metaphor, even though (or because) the price of such a language is an inherent irony, a multiplicity of meanings, the suggestion of no simple, shared, precise, final meaning.

The Language of Christianity: Interpretation as Power Base

The question of the language appropriate to a proper understanding of things is particularly important for a comprehension of the history of Christianity, too, because, as we all know, Christianity takes as its central text a book full of poetry, narrative, imagery. And faith in what this book "means" or what it "reveals" about the nature of the divinity is a central part of being a Christian. Many of the most urgent and contumacious disputes in the history of Christianity have arisen out of the metaphorical nature of this holy text: since metaphors and metaphorical narratives are inherently ambiguous, they need interpretation. And whose interpretations are decisive in any disagreement becomes a vital concern.

Controlling the text and maintaining the authority to determine interpretations of the holy text were always a central imperative of the medieval Catholic Church, which recognized very clearly and correctly that to give people (even parish priests) access to the Bible would result in interpretative anarchy. Hence, the Catholic Church's strict control of the book, its refusal to distribute it widely or to translate it into the common language of the people, and its insistence that the basis for popular sermons should be, not the Bible itself, but the clear and unambiguous official interpretations authorized by the Vatican.

The Church's suspicion of the anarchy that would follow upon any general access to the Bible revealed itself as correct once Luther's Reformation made the holy text generally available in translation. All of a sudden, the enforced interpretative consensus dissolved, and scores of competing sects arose, each claiming a correct version of the truth derived from an interpretation of the metaphorical constructions in the Bible. An extreme (but not altogether uncommon) example was the war between the followers of Zwingli and the followers of Muntzer, two Protestant leaders, over whether the communion wafer was the body of Christ or symbolized the body of Christ and over the interpretation of baptism. Many thousands died in the quarrel over these interpretative questions.

Said Zwingli to Muntzer,
"I'll have to be blunt, sir.
I don't like your version
Of total immersion.
And since God's on my side
And I'm on the dry side
You'd better swing over
To me and Jehovah."

Cried Muntzer "It's schism
Is infant baptism.
Since I've had a sign, sir
That God's will is mine, sir,
Let all men agree
With Jehovah and me
Or go to hell singly"
Said Muntzer to Zwingli.

And each drew his sword
On the side of the Lord.
(Phyllis McGinley)

Today such issues which involve killing others over the ontological status of a biscuit or bathwater may seem ridiculous, but the issue is not. An authority which derives from a poetical metaphorical text must rest, not on that text, but on a particular interpretation of it. And whoever is the spokesperson for the official interpretation has official power. Thus, from this point of view, one can interpret the religious wars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries as quarrelsome interpretation run amok.

The Enlightenment Call for Linguistic Clarity

Certainly, the conclusion of the religious wars brought with it a demand to clean up language, to be wary of metaphors and especially of writing that was highly metaphorical, and to place our verbal understanding of the world and ourselves on a more rationally clear basis in a language more appropriate to such a requirement.

It's no accident that the period following the religious wars (the mid-seventeenth century) marks the beginning of an interest in dictionaries (whose major goal is to promote accuracy of shared denoted meanings), a revival of interest in Euclidean geometry, a growing distrust of political and philosophical arguments based upon scripture, a rising criticism of extravagant rhetorical styles (like those of Shakespeare or John Donne or "enthusiastic" preachers), the beginning of a concerted attempt to understand moral and judicial questions mathematically, and a rising demand for a language as empty of ambiguous metaphor as possible.

We witness this in a number of writers, above all in Hobbes. As we discussed, Hobbes' major concern in Leviathan is to recommend practices which will minimize a return to the civil chaos of the religious wars and the English Civil War. And Hobbes is centrally concerned about language. Over half of Leviathan is concerned with religion, above all with the question of interpretation of scripture. For Hobbes is deeply suspicious of literary interpretation and has a clear preference for the language of geometry, the argumentative style of Euclid--not necessarily because that language provides a true description of the nature of the world (although many people claimed and still claim that it does) but rather because only that sort of deductive clarity--based on clear definitions and fundamental principles of deductive logic--can win wide agreement, can, that is, promote social harmony essential to political peace and "commodious living."

The reason for this preference in Hobbes seems clear enough. Metaphorical language breeds arguments over interpretations; such arguments breed civil quarrels; civil quarrels lead to a break down in public order and foster a return to a state of nature. A different language, one based on the precision of geometry, can foster agreement, because we all can share a common understanding if definitions are exact and the logic correct.

One of the attractions of the new science (although there was considerable argument about this) was that it offered an understanding of the world delivered in the most unambiguous way, in the language of mathematics rather than of scripture. Newton's equations, for those who could follow the mathematics, did not promote the sorts of arguments that arose from, say, the text about Ezekiel making the sun stand still or Moses parting the waters of the Red Sea or God's creating the world in a week. And what disagreements or ambiguities Newton's explanation did contain could be resolved, and were resolved, by a further application of the method he demonstrated (in the "normal science," as Kuhn calls it, which took place in the generations after Newton).

And throughout the nineteenth century, the rising success of the new science seemed to be delivering on the promise of an exact description of the world. And the application of this spirit of empirical observation and precise, unambiguous description to an understanding of history and morality, of the sort offered by Karl Marx, set up the hope of a triumph of the language of philosophy (as defined earlier) over the language of poetry (in spite of the objections of the Romantics).

It was an alluring vision, because it promised to lead, as Hannah Arendt points out, to the end of traditional political argument. Since we would all have a full and shared understanding of the way a just state really does work, we wouldn't need to argue about it (any more than we argue about the Pythagorean Theorem). Anyone could govern, since governing, traditionally the most challenging task in human affairs, would be simply a matter of applying known and agreed upon rules, something a technician could do. As Lenin observed, governing would be for cooks, because the truths of political life would be expressed in a language coherent to anyone, a language which did not require interpretation of any sort.

There was an enormously arrogant confidence or, if we think in terms of classical tragedy, of hubris about this, especially among some scientists and social scientists, who firmly believed that many of the most contentious moral, political, and scientific questions would soon be settled for all time. The future of physics, said A. A. Michelson in 1894, will consist of little more than "adding a few decimal places to results already known."

Nietzsche's Sense of Language: "Truth" as Metaphor

Nietzsche, as we have already seen, sets his sights firmly against such a confidence that language, any language, can provide an accurate description of the Truth. That was, in the nature of things, impossible, because language is inherently metaphorical, it is an invented fiction, with a history, a genealogy, a contingent character.

For Nietzsche, the belief that the sort of language developed by Euclid or the new science­­ with its emphasis on precision and logical clarity--is somehow "true to nature" is, like beliefs that any system is true, plainly erroneous. All language is essentially poetry, inherently metaphorical, inherently a fiction. Those who, like so many scientists, make claims that their descriptions of the world are true or even more accurate than alternative languages are simply ignorant of the metaphorical nature of all language.

In other words, for Nietzsche there is no privileged access to a final definitive version of life, the world, or anything else, and thus no privileged language for achieving such knowledge. Truth is, in Nietzsche's pregnant phrase, "a mobile army of metaphors," a historical succession of fictions, which does not, as Kant and Marx claimed, reveal any emerging higher truth, like progress or the march to a final utopia or a growing insight into how reality really works. In Nietzsche's view of language there is no final text available to us; there is only interpretation, or, more accurately, an unending series of freshly created interpretations, fresh metaphors.

Thus, as Rorty has observed, Nietzsche is announcing the end of the ancient war between poetry and philosophy by indicating that all we have in language is metaphor. We were mistaken in believing that the language of Euclid was anything other than one more fiction. It is not. Therefore, it has no special preeminence as the language most appropriate to a description of reality.

Since there is no privileged language and since accepting as true any inherited system of metaphor is limiting oneself to a herd existence, our central purpose is the construction of new metaphors, the assertion of new values in a language we have made ourselves. Hence, central to Nietzsche's vision of how the best human beings must live their lives is the insistence that individuals must create for themselves a new language, fresh metaphors, original self-descriptions. To escape the illusions of the past, to release the arrow in flight, these activities are linked to the creative ability to construct in one's life and language new metaphors.

Ian Johnston, lecture in Liberal Studies 401

D.

Top
#30558 - 10/17/09 03:26 AM Re: Language... [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
 Originally Posted By: MawhrinSkel

This also begs the question of whether all laws are inherently flawed in that they suffer from the same inherent linguistic heterogeneity as religious scripture. It *could* be argued that this is the reason we have continued to study literature and language; to uncover the multitude of possible interpretations of a given text and thereby remove any confusion (incidentally, this is what the authorities do with nefarious purposes in Orwell's 1984.)


Actually... one of the main purposes of the government implementing and purifying newspeak was not only to clarify its texts, but also to simplify the language as a means of control, whereby the communication of complex thought by the masses would be impossible, thereby severely handicapping anyone who might want to share their thoughts on revolution or liberty. Double plus ungood.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#30565 - 10/17/09 08:19 AM Re: Language... [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
If you read Beyond Good and Evil the first time, you think "What was he drinking while writing?" but when you realize Nietzsche's inherent duality, and of course his insights upon language, it make perfect sense he doesn't present his ideas in an Euclidean fashion. To Nietzsche there are two levels of understanding; that of the master and that of the slave, the overman and the herd, the esoteric and exoteric. His view upon morality is founded upon this and so is his view upon language.

The master is beyond the limitations of language and, as with everything, sees it as the tool it is. When communicating, he adapts his language to fulfill the role required. When communicating with the herd, language becomes clear, precise and instructive. The herd needs to be fed, almost as if you are programming a computer; a simple instructive language that triggers a preferred reaction. The herd does not require interpreting something, it just swallows. This is why propaganda is essentially very simple; a repetitive language that only applies a couple of principles and at no level is confusing or open to interpretation. Whether something is true or not is irrelevant when applying language as a tool. It is simply a matter of fulfilling a role.

Science, while communication with the general public, also presents its ideas in an Euclidean fashion. Simple and precise; this is the theory; this is how it works, no interpretation possible; a master communicating with the herd. When science communicates in its own circles, language becomes more esoteric. They start to use an own language which makes an outsider frown because the requirements to understand such a language become, in certain cases, almost too great to overcome. But this is an internal communication which does not open itself up to the masses. At some level it is nonsensical to the mass while making perfect sense amongst peers. You will see the same principles at all other levels. The bigger the group is you want to communicate with, the more simple your language will become. In politics, when addressing a nation, you simplify it down so everyone precisely understands what you are saying, almost degrading it to the level of propaganda. You are not demanding your audience to interpret something on their own; you are programming a computer to fulfill preferred tasks. Advertisement works identical; simple, effective and precise. Again, you are programming the herd.

Hitler, in "Mein Kampf" wrote some nice insights upon language and propaganda.

"The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses' attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision. ...

All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. But if, as in propaganda for sticking out a war, the aim is to influence a whole people, we must avoid excessive intellectual demands on our public, and too much caution cannot be extended in this direction.

The more modest its intellectual ballast, the more exclusively it takes into consideration the emotions of the masses, the more effective it will be. And this is the best proof of the soundness or unsoundness of a propaganda campaign, and not success pleasing a few scholars or young aesthetes.

The art of propaganda lies in understanding the emotional ideas of the great masses and finding, through a psychologically correct form, the way to the attention and thence to the heart of the broad masses. The fact that our bright boys do not understand this merely shows how mentally lazy and conceited they are.

Once understood how necessary it is for propaganda in be adjusted to the broad mass, the following rule results: It is a mistake to make propaganda many-sided, like scientific instruction, for instance.

The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan. As soon as you sacrifice this slogan and try to be many-sided, the effect will piddle away, for the crowd can neither digest nor retain the material offered. In this way the result is weakened and in the end entirely canceled out.

Thus we see that propaganda must follow a simple line and correspondingly the basic tactics must be psychologically sound. ..

What, for example, would we say about a poster that was supposed to advertise a new soap and that described other soaps as 'good'?

We would only shake our heads.

Exactly the same applies to political advertising.

The function of propaganda is, for example, not to weigh and ponder the rights of different people, but exclusively to emphasize the one right which it has set out to argue for. Its task is not to make an objective study of the truth, in so far as it favors the enemy, and then set it before the masses with academic fairness; its task is to serve our own right, always and unflinchingly.


The bible is a perfect example of different applications of language. Of course it is largely because at some point they collected different documents and created their holy book. The separate pieces were never meant to be a whole hence the heterogeneity of application. Again, whether it is true or not is irrelevant. Through the ages, the church simplified it down, trying to get rid of all interpretation and when not possible, applying its own interpretation upon the more esoteric parts. If it is confusing, do not come up with your own ideas about the meaning; here is what it is about or, just don't put too much importance in that, it is merely a poetic approach. Poetic in this case meaning, allowed to enjoy but don't think too much about it.
You will see the same tendency in most cultures. If there are sacred works that are esoteric, you will see that at some point top-down enforced homogeneity appears. We have a truth and this truth should also be your truth. Of course it is mostly cloaked as them educating you. The muslims, as an example, are so vehemently against interpretation that a Quran translated to another language will not be considered authentic, simply because, inevitably, all translation is interpretation.

Now, let's get back to the initial sentiment of this debate upon language and its different roles. We have to realize that when we demand an Euclidean communication, we are acting like the herd. "Master, tell me what this all means!" "Master tell me what to do!" Euclidean language inevitably kills all creativity even if it might be useful in a certain context. It is instructive and replicates information, moving it from the source to a new vessel. It creates parrots and does not stimulate them to come up with their own interpretation, to create their own truths. "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last."

As Satanists, or rather as masters in the Nietzschean context, we have to learn to differentiate the applications of language and see them as what they are. And we have to realize the importance of the esoteric because the esoteric builds from the inside while the exoteric simply fills. It is the difference in bringing us out or them in; them creating our reality or we creating it. As such, we have to realize the limitations. The Satanic Bible as an example is rather Euclidean. It is an instructive piece of work that leaves very little room for interpretation. "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last." Accepting it as such, inevitable, kills all creativity; it is a sterile work not equipped to bear children, barren soil. After forty years, it is rather evident; we only see replication and very little imagination. The most popular argument against this is that it is good as it is, it does not need an update or changes. Again: "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last."

What we have with ONA material is rather different. Those preferring an Euclidean communication, thus meaning being spoon-fed to them, are often repulsed by the writing. Those that see the exoteric form as the Truth fulfill their inevitable roles and then we have the esoteric side in which it communicates in its own language with peers. It is not a precise and clear communication where it simply transfers information from the source to a vessel. It communicates at a somewhat acausal level. It's not instructive as in feeding code to a computer as it stimulates the computer to write its own code and as such, the essence becomes fluid; soil fruitful enough to produce new life.

D.

Top
#30570 - 10/17/09 01:58 PM Re: Language... [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
 Originally Posted By: MawhrinSkel

I like everything you've said about liberating yourself from traditional values and living free, but I can't buy a philosophy that wants me to move into the forest, permanent-like, renounce civilisation as 'evil' and make contact with mystical creatures. What if I get a toothache? I want a dentist. What if I get appendicitis? I want a doctor. What if I feel thirsty? I want a corona with a slice of lime.

On that note, cheers!


I've never found Satanism to be restrictive... pretty much the opposite. It gives me the choices that nothing else ever has while still allowing me the ambition and the drive to be more that people ever thought I could be and enjoy the benefits of my labors. Decadence works.

Not very willing to give up any creature comforts to make any kind of statement myself, either. I spent my time living in tents in jungles and deserts and being the noble savage with weapon in hand. But I've found that there's a lot to be said for flying first class, living well and having access to things I want when I want them. Roughing it these days is being in a casino with a slow elevator.

Capitalism and Satanism work pretty well together.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#30571 - 10/17/09 02:40 PM Re: Language... [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
You seem to confuse my comment upon the sterility of the Satanic Bible and a thus rather barren soil to evolve anything upon with a general criticism on Satanism. My comment about the book and those that restrict themselves by upholding it as an Euclidean Truth does not go so far that I apply it upon Satanism in general or at Satanists in general, not even at what is considered as the group of 'modern' Satanists. If this somehow pushed some buttons, as I assume from your rather defensive reply, the real question is not if I am right in shattering an idol (of course I am) but why one would consider it an idol to begin with.

Iconoclastic.

Now about the ONA writing. You have to stop thinking old school. Concepts like leader, leadership, organizations and such are meaningless. Anton Long wrote many interesting things and I'd buy him a beer for that, but he's irrelevant. His agenda behind what he wrote is irrelevant too. What is relevant is not as much what he wrote (or still writes), or what exoteric form he uses, as what one gets out of it; their personal truth, or untruth if you like; it essentially makes no difference. And what one gets out of it is theirs and theirs alone, even if in some cases people might share similar sentiments. And it being your own untruth, you are free to do what it what you want. It is your interpretation; you mold it, reshape it and adjust it to your demands. You are not working with a piece of granite, it is clay that is totally at your disposal to reshape as you prefer. The fact that many that see something in ONA share the same sentiments on many levels, like upon society, does not imply that the documents instructed them as such, but that they are specific types of people that share a, how shall I say, spiritual similarity.

And they work from there. You do know that I am strongly in favor of imperialism in the West, fascism if you like that power word more, or an organic state as Evola called it. But at the same time I am maybe the most anti-authoritative person you know. I do not accept any authority but my own, laws are meaningless to me and as such, not restrictive if needed, but still I do actively promote imperialism. That seems hugely contradictive and it is and at the same time; it isn't. There is something like means to an end and an exoteric form is nothing but that, a means to an end. I deeply love certain parts of society and at the same time I truly dislike it enough to destroy it should I have the possibility.
It's all so confusing to most people because they are so used to a certain directness and presentation that is Euclidean. Everything has to be understandable to them, Action A should imply B.

I in the past talked about the three essential manners to address a problem. You either ignore it, you solve it or you contribute to it. I consider ignoring a problem as the least preferable option but the other two are equally valid if a problem grows beyond a critical point. In that you can address the problem by simultaneously trying to solve it and contributing to it. In doing so, you only need to switch roles or exoteric form.

In my previous reply I wrote about what certain writing does to the Euclidean, the Exoteric or the Esoteric. You need to learn to see truth and untruth, direction, approach, form as nothing but means to an end. An sich, they are trivial.

The rest of your criticism, if I would see it as such, about ONA I think I have addressed with this.

D.

Top
#30619 - 10/19/09 07:49 AM Re: Language... [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Again, my opinion, in this case, was limited to TSB itself, which isn't all too different from what it was ten years ago here, an opinion upon which I won't really go into detail in because it often tends to create a rather steamy stream or argumentation in which I see no real benefit at the time. Let's just say I never kept my copy on display and gave it to a white-light witch years ago for a multitude of reasons which amused me greatly at the time. Some of them still do. ;\)

About the cart and horse metaphor; may I point out that I am the horse, not the cart. As such, seldom something is lost.

I don't know where you got the impression I reject the ideological goals but I can assure you I did not. As a matter of fact, most of my thoughts arrived at similar conclusions before I encountered theirs. Still, those goals are not always what they are perceived as. Whether someone considers them sane, insane, wrong or right is of little matter.

The fact that I mentioned Long, or Myatt if you like, is irrelevant does not imply I do not respect them but that I don't see them as something to be idolized as is done with others.

It's a battle of memes; may the most sinister win.

D.


Edited by Diavolo (10/19/09 08:17 AM)
Edit Reason: added

Top
#105170 - 01/21/16 02:28 PM Re: Language and communication [Re: Woland]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
 Originally Posted By: WO
Firstly; why do most of you read a "return" to the tribal structure as a step backwards in evolution?
There seem to be a consensus that the embrace of a tribal structure equals reverting to the stone-age.


The word “return”, I suppose might do it. Insofar as things are or are not, there was never a ”return”. Tribalism always was and is. For some, I guess, the word “return” implies, like, some sort of epiphany that (as if) it ever went away.

Like – as if to say “streams north of the equator ought run toward the equator” - it's just what they do. Relax, mang – the game seeks nullity. All is as was.

 Originally Posted By: WO
The "sickness" of our culture is plain to see.
I'm a huge fan of “immunity through exposure”, myself. Why merely watch when you can feel the creepy crawly infection in its futile attempts to usurp? Eh? The, what they call, “madness” - just feels good if you do it right.


 Originally Posted By: WO
Democrazy is a runaway death-train indeed.
mmm hmmm \:\) “let”

 Originally Posted By: WO
I agree wholeheartedly with the statement that the Hellenistic, and later Judeo/Christian, mindset is where it all went wrong.
I blame it on a lack of ink or gradients. Fact is – if I beat your ass til bleeding profusely, you know what I'm gonna do straight after? Get some ice-packs, and buy you a beer. Why? Because you're human and I am too - and I've fought a fuck ton more murderous "things" than you... as a matter of happen-stance - my own soul, for starters.

See... what people oft forget... is that Satan – and I know him well – he does not like us one single fucking iota – for our weakness and our posturing. It is a harsh sensei and with reasons too plain. I'm sure, we've talked. This shit is not a game. He (IT) is not the enemy. He is the worthy adversary. HE (IT) hates US because of what it is that we DO to each other in the name of___ It disgusts “him”. He (IT) would never bow to the monstrosity that “we” are.

And why would it? Evolve. Or buy and die. One thing is for sure: all sentient minds have and will live to see the Apocalypse. What, exactly, this means is another story and shall be told another time. \:\)


Edited by antikarmatomic (01/21/16 02:37 PM)
Edit Reason: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZRJ1eUbboc /
_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
#105183 - 01/22/16 05:39 PM Re: Language and Communication? Tribalism? [Re: antikarmatomic]
Czereda Offline
senior member


Registered: 03/14/11
Posts: 1820
Loc: Poland
What the hell is this thread all about? Starts with tribalism, continues with some mambo jambo about semantics and ends with tribalism. WTF?

So it's an offspring of the "Yet Another ONA Thread" which is about the ONA, tribalism, crime, some WSA chicks, honor, mafia, Aquino and what not.

If I want to talk about the tribal societies where should I put it? Perhaps in that other thread for the sake of "ordnung."

Everyone is practicing necromancy here. Abracadabra!


Edited by Czereda (01/22/16 05:41 PM)
_________________________
Anna Czereda
O9A Meme Cat

Top
#105186 - 01/22/16 06:28 PM Re: Language and Communication? Tribalism? [Re: Czereda]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
Abrahadarbra. It's better that way. Freer somehow. bra straps, however, are... "iffy" to say the least.

don't worry... some actually know what it is that they are doing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltnspuQeqDE

*especially the whatnot.

Can I piss in your sink? pretty please. You can DOX me at will. \:\) I dare you sweety pants :* don't worry \:\) I see what they see, and what they think I think they see. It is fun for me. I do not know why. \:\/


Edited by antikarmatomic (01/22/16 06:32 PM)
Edit Reason: see what's happening
_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
Page 2 of 2 <12


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

Generated in 0.03 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 23 queries. Zlib compression disabled.