Page 10 of 23 « First<89101112>Last »
Topic Options
#61748 - 11/24/11 01:46 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Nyte]
Interrogist Offline
member


Registered: 11/12/11
Posts: 162
 Originally Posted By: Nyte
Interrogist (ist) = One who is sighted, thus recognizes the deeper functions of reality, and can view the LHP, recognizes the opportunity to personally set out upon it. However, only the sight is addressed here.
Reads a lot like similar explanations of being a Satanist (ist).

Interrogistic (tic) = One who is acting on that sight, one who personally utilizes that opportunity.
I do believe Satanists are opportunistic as well. A Satanistic (istic) trait.

Interrogisma (ma) = Ones personal Interrogistic -methods- of action and manipulation of the external world, the Casual, to ones will. The hacking of realities software.
I can stay away from even using Satanism (ism (add an "a" for emphasis?)) for this one. That's called Black Magic, plain and simple.

Interrogismi (mi) = Ones personal Interrogistic -methods- of action and manipulation of the internal self, the Mindspace, to an organic state. The rebooting of the self, so as to uninstall unwanted (mundane) software.
And another form of Black Magic, usually a primary starting function when we leave whatever other belief system we've stepped away from and are learning to live without the trappings of "faiths". Usually when we start learning about Satanism (add an "i" if it makes you feel better).


Ok, so if you don't approve of my style that's fine, If you don't like me as a person that's fine, If you don't like what I have to say that's fine, then by all means challenge it, but twisting my terminology to fit your false accusations is petty. You have dishonestly twisted each term in a way that makes it an (ism) and implies that its dogma rather than a methodology. Ill correct you now.

Interrogist is the root word in question, and it represents the essence, cause, or core, of my interrogation of reality.

Stated as Interrogis'tic', it implies generally that the essence, cause, or core, is in Interrogating.

Stated as Interrogis'ma' it implies specifically that the action of that essence, cause, or core, is being directed (outward) and the (Ma) is representative of (Maya), so read a fucking book and get of my nuts until you know what the fuck you are talking about, lolz.

Stated as Interrogis'mi', it implies specifically that the essence, cause, or core, is being directed (inward) and the (Mi) is representative of ones self being a part of that aspect of (Maya) in which one sees intuitively that the distinction between the self and the Universe is a false dichotomy, so again, lolz...

So, nice of you to try to make (ism)s out of all my terms, but I didn't just pull this out of my ass. Everything in my terminology represents a (Method) and no (ism) is to be found therein. So please, mock me all you'd like, but at least know what it is that you are mocking. That will drastically strengthen your case in future post.

 Originally Posted By: Nyte
It's nothing new, just word salad to fill your own holes. Enjoy but know that the more explaining (Kollective? Really?? As if that makes any difference..) the more you are getting caught up in your own trappings and making yourself look plain ass silly. If that didn't matter to you, you wouldn't have continued to post 4, 5 and even 6 times a day just to get your point across. So it must matter to you. But "Have at it George."


Well thank you so very much for you approval, hey, I didn't receive a copy of the memo listing the appropriate (care) to (post per day) ratio for the 600c, could you fax me another? Id so like to fit in here \:\(

lolz...

 Originally Posted By: Nyte
To the Mods, why tolerate exactly what was supposed to be stopped with JK? It's now known that Interr...(whateverthehell) is here to "piss off the local Satanists" from posts he put on another forum? Does anyone really want another "snowflake" posting a bunch of bullshit? It would be one thing if it was actually something new, but it's not and that's very obvious.

I think it's about time to let him know he's in with Satanists, not the kind he's use to dealing with either.


I hate to burst your bubble hun, but I had a good long talk with the higher ups the very day I created my account, so while you might think is a big deal, in reality, its no (Breaking News) that I'm not here to sing Satanic Kumbaya. Please make your drama elsewhere, as I am truly not interested. But thanks for the comment.
_________________________
#~9O3913~&
%~1N9131~!
$~3A1319~$

Top
#61749 - 11/24/11 02:49 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Interrogist]
Octavian Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/30/11
Posts: 81
I still have an issue with this whole form/essence thing.

I can see people like to use it for Satanism, even though it just empties and robs Satanism of its richness in my view. Anyway...

I would like to get a clearer idea of the method itself at a more abstract level - is it dialectical in nature or does it function by an archeology or by a genealogy? Does it realise itself militarily or through types of organised action/violence? Or is it functioning at the level of the interrogation of thought? Is it praxis or not?

I would like to see this Interrogistic method taken out and to see it stretch its legs on real objects, at least theoretically.

How would the form/essence position be used to describe the functioning of government both permanent and legislative, the capitalist mode of production, the functioning of systems of control and regimentation such as the school, the family unit etc. How can an attack be made against the form/essence which will see its objectives met?

How would this method be used by real people to bring about real revolutionary change?

Yep, lots of questions, but I am a curious bugger.

Top
#61751 - 11/24/11 03:36 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Octavian]
Interrogist Offline
member


Registered: 11/12/11
Posts: 162
 Originally Posted By: Octavian
I would like to get a clearer idea of the method itself at a more abstract level - is it dialectical in nature or does it function by an archeology or by a genealogy?


Id say dialectic.

 Originally Posted By: Octavian
Does it realize itself militarily or through types of organized action/violence?


Yes indeed.

 Originally Posted By: Octavian
Or is it functioning at the level of the interrogation of thought? Is it praxis or not?


It is all of these, as ones thoughts inform their actions, just as ones thoughts might inform many persons actions.

 Originally Posted By: Octavian
How would the form/essence position be used to describe the functioning of government both permanent and legislative, the capitalist mode of production, the functioning of systems of control and regimentation such as the school, the family unit etc.


I cant say that I use form/essence to elaborate on those issues. Also, I don't think that Id refer to form/essence as being a position.

 Originally Posted By: Octavian
How can an attack be made against the form/essence which will see its objectives met?


That's not my goal. Any (thing) is both its essence and its form, and for the most part, can not be taken apart. Interrogistic Methodologies aim to remove nonsensical and unnecessary beliefs, customs, practices, and so on, from the individual, and society. The biggest misconception here is that I aim to divide essence from form, where as in reality, most of the forms Id through out, would be in the same trash can as their essence. So why is it that I resonate with individual who's forms I do not? ;\)

 Originally Posted By: Octavian
How would this method be used by real people to bring about real revolutionary change?


Well, its a bit more logical to say that the method would use the people Octavian, because on the over all scale, I feel its safe to say that more people will be subject to the method, than are wise to it. For those who are bound, the method likely will mold the interpretation of stimuly and alter the the individuals actions, and perhaps societal standards, in such a way that is benificial to myself. For those who become wise to it, such recognition will place them in the drivers seat, at which time the method becomes a tool for their personal use, and the individual might tweak that tool to ones own advantage, and also, likely my own advantage. Your thoughts inform your actions, and as thus, controling the actions of others is rooted in manipulating their thoughts. Its in my best interest, that others think as do I.

 Originally Posted By: Octavian
Yep, lots of questions, but I am a curious bugger.


Thats perfectly fine man, I enjoy your questions.


Edited by Interrogist (11/24/11 03:56 AM)
_________________________
#~9O3913~&
%~1N9131~!
$~3A1319~$

Top
#61755 - 11/24/11 06:55 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Interrogist]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3116
 Quote:
It is more often than not the case, that even when realizing that dividing line which separates methodology from philosophy, that the 'average' Satanist rejects what I call Interrogistic Methodology, on the grounds of what appears to be offence

That would be something you are imagining. As why most reject (or at least I do) your methodology is on the premise of not being very toughtfull. Your very definitions and philosophical grounds (for interrogistic thingie) are about the same level as the alchemical works I read from an aspiring occultist in its puberty (with the sole difference it is better written). I can see the use of ONA-lexion, yet there seems to be some experience missing.

 Quote:
Do I mean to offend them? Well, Yes I do, however, that offence is inadvertent, and not necessarily direct.

Perhaps this is the main issue why most reject your methodology. You start to offend and force onto others. That's behavior that is largely despised, even withing the SC.

 Quote:
What I have yet to express in any great depth, is the underlying purpose of Interrogisma, which would be the restoration of warrior man,

Ever experienced "the warrior (hu)man"? And are you sure what will be brought back? Ever thought about the "why" it dissappeared?

 Quote:
Thus I personally, and Kollectively, have set out to purge myself of as many of these unnecessary abstractions as possible, and also, accomplish as much in this causal reality. Along this path, I have aims to shatter that line between Interrogis'ma' and Interrogis'mi', and as I (develop as an individual), so too will my (environment become subject to that development) as much as is possible, according to my progress. Any standard that I have set for myself as being necessary for my personal development, I set also for others, that such development be made manifest in causal terms, far above and beyond my person, and far above and beyond causal terms. This is the difference between my Interrogistic Methodology, and the comfortable Satanism which fails at the point of being socially acceptable to the mundane.

It's nice to see you want to take action.. on the other hand most other people do so to and fail 99% of the time.
If you haven't done yet; search out for "sinister cloaking". A common practice amongst "true" Satanists. ONA-mss has a few nice articles about it.

 Quote:
The major critique this methodology invokes would be a proper understanding of the essence/form dichotomy, thus it has become necessary to elaborate on that Interrogistic function. While it is true that one can not function without the other, as one expresses the other, what happens, more often than not, is the adherent seeks the form, neglecting the essence, and adheres to the form, thus creating unnecessary dogma which ignores the underlying essence all together. In that instant, the essence is raped and impregnated will alien features having no similarities to the origin. When this happens, the form is nurtured, thus the essence withers. Is that the Left Hand Path? I think not. Interrogis'tic' Methodology is the process of philosophical filtration, by which all philosophy must be Interrogated, and logically dissected.

The essence a person adheres to philosophically is a causal manifestation of his own being. The form is the translation of the abstract causal manifestation by the use of tools he or she is familiar with. Essence can change a bit over time due to psychological growth/maturing of the brain, yet most will be steady chained. If you say that the essence can wither I'm more inclined to believe you don't really know the difference between form and essence.

 Quote:
It seems to me that this whole 'pool of mundanity' has stagnated in a whirlwind of false claims, and for what ever reason they assume that they speak for me. Well, they do not, and I will raise my voice above their own, and take every opportunity to damage their mundane systems as much as I am able. The better part of Satanist are not counter cultural and they can fucking blow me. I hope their children die slow and painful deaths, and soon. I am not a Satanist, I'm something more, I am Interrogist One, and I actually mean to back this up. So enjoy reading your TSB, you are not an adversary.

You can call some systems mundane, but do you know the weaknesses on which your form is based? Exactly, based on those same systems you have called mundane. There is no need to have a feeling of superiority untill you are actually standing in such a position (or have the necessary skills).
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#61759 - 11/24/11 09:17 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Dimitri]
thedeadidea Offline
member


Registered: 08/15/10
Posts: 209
Essence and form is a cop out to metaphysical jargon which is reminiscent of Aristotelian medieval philosophers and mystics. The only thing that really changes is that instead of the word form use the word accident. Hey presto we have it...

Unless of course it is an invention of a language community in specified jargon. In that case it would be more ineffectual communication on the part of the speaker. Of course I'd be willing to admit I'm wrong if squidgeybo wasn't a categorical feature of snarfwidget. But until someone proves that wrong I am not liable to change my mind.

Top
#61760 - 11/24/11 10:53 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: thedeadidea]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
"Of course I'd be willing to admit I'm wrong if squidgeybo wasn't a categorical feature of snarfwidget"

+O+ LMAO. well said. ...

I think Essence and Form mean something different to everyone. For me, Form denotes a belief in a [usually, artificially derived] or exterior outer-casing or shell; under/within (or some other transgressive motion of space) the appearance of that form is considered to be some other dimension/depth or occult secret to it - and naturally, the logic that if one can remove that form, they will find some other more pure more truthful secret kernal or core of true authenticity.

Maybe this belief is a natural by-product and fascination of the Faustian Will to Explore - [remembering that aspects of our logical processes were in fact shaped by such men who thought as Aristotle - and who was quite astute - its not a sin that such a notion or related notions of form/essence of various descriptions survive(d).].
The repeated experience that further/deeper/more exploration gives us more information/depth/revelations time and time again, all too easily promises that we will be able to extract an endless amount of information from any particular subject - especially since the world and its qualities are only ever servicably [i.e. well enough to keep most people happy] defined - but looking too closely at anything results in the implosion/explosion of the tools of analysis - which were Never meant for much of the hard work to which we employ them. Language is designed to abstract in order to limit - and from it we have created a fairly rigourous structure that enshrines the limitation of things. But it can only do so much - and trying to explain non-abstraction using it, is probably not much help to anyone. All we leave with are different or difference in our abstractions.

I don't think there is anything you can name that isn't an abstract and everything we do name becomes abstracted. Dualism is MUCH harder to escape - at least in the sense of it as Any division - resulting in an abstraction from the Source. Dualism can refer to moral dualism, (e.g. the conflict between good and evil), mind-body or mind-matter dualism (e.g. Cartesian Dualism) or physical dualism (e.g. the Chinese Yin and Yang). [wiki] but even a simple word like 'the' sets up invisible prepositions about time and space which automatically create a geometric fence that immediately excludes some of the total geometry available.

Whilst it is nice to have some understanding that we hopelessly project ourselves into everything, onto everything and are desperately limited in our ability to stop abstracting and take some pressure of ourselves to fit some notion of being an elevated or perfect sentient godform with no flaws, weaknesses and an intellectual immortal - we are flawed, we have so many weaknesses they define our strengths, [our specific size being one of them, which creates a particular perception of reality, time and space onto which we project our size of self and influence everything to be limited in dimension].

Whilst they can be troublesome and unsurpassed in influence for good or bad when people accept things at face value - We need abstracts and as someone else said above, we cannot get rid of them - at least not without committing intellectual suicide. Itself an abstract statement I or someone else could counter argue [abstract] by saying my own statement is an abstract that does not fully encapsulate all abstracts so as to leave non-abstraction in there somewhere.

It all gets very messy very quickly because of the inherent flaw in words to not be able to avoid singulating i.e. language is built on certain underlying foundations that make it impossible to complete it.

Writing about abstracts is like trying to explain Form without using them - it can't be done, we don't have the tools. We can think it to ourselves and lessen the distortion communication by word automatically inflicts - but even then we must abstract it to give it a context or punch a hole in the cloud. If it exists at all - people just have to intuit it - if indeed that is of any importance to them to do - and if that is not in itself one of my own abstracts, which I'm 50% certain it is.

I do believe that there are things beyond abstraction in this world, this world being them - and that there is a mix of the non-abstract essence of things [we only partially understand or have abstracted] and abstraction everywhere and all around us - and that abstractions are the embodiment or end product of the Will to Power and the means by which we have survived. And not.

We can touch them, see them, hear them, taste them - but there is no "unless we can name them, break them down into manageable chunks to process, use or communicate them" - because we do not know that alternate reality of non-abstraction [or do we?] - we have always processed, used and named abstractions to create everything from the black clay of matter including the means to debate it. The alternative cannot occur because we are abstractors - its how we survive and it is the very accepted foundation upon which all else is built - pull it out and no-one can understand you - because they need abstractions to do it. Even when they look at art, a voiceless piece of communique, they formulate a picture, opinion, idea of the art artist of perhaps wander aimelessly into thoughts of feeding their cat.

To formulate ideas, to think for ourselves, even to argue against abstraction - we abstract. We use words, concepts, rely on the valid abstractions of language so that others can understand we are cynical of abstracts - but in the end we can only fool ourselves that we have or can escape them. Maybe when we die.

Someone else said, when it comes to abstraction the more you talk, the more you abstract - and that's a fair comment - the more you try to insist on non-abstraction, the more you simply layer the field with landmines to blow holes in your own function and action [which is not always visible from the inside looking out because we wear blinkers and see through our own 23 syndrome [rose-tinted glasses] but visible from the outside - because naturally - we see ourselves through others.] And it's true - I get what you're trying to do, and say - but even here, trying to agree with you, the essence is hopelessly lost under a mountain of words that have been designed to cut out a particular shape and fend off the hopeless result of obscuring it by trying to somehow explain it.
Unfortunately, no matter what the appearance of the word - Interrogisma relies on the separation from ism's [which we must abstract to form the platform against which we will then tension the difference of isma] - but it's a brave step. If only we could change the foundation on which so much is built - we could indeed perhaps, change, the future way in which Forces are relayed without the messy dualistic snarls of language - But then it gets even trickier as there exists no method outside of abstraction we can use to speak to one another.

I think, that there is something of a danger in the act of denying what we are doing in the hope that it will go away if we just don't think about it; it won't - and it probably can't - and a lot of people seem to feel this futility or we wouldn't come up with so many 'new' words and neologisms for so many new forces, groups, individuals, actions, philosophies et al to describe or re-describe specific perceptions important to us to pick out of the air - and be happy enough using the stock-standard words most often used. Just as you have Interrogisma - I have Mvimaedivm. Or you have Niners, 3.0, Mundanes and so on.... all abstracts, so very useful to us and yet we treat them as a hopeless burden, as the bad guy, as impostors; if I were asked for the solution, I would say reform not revolution, people need to lower the bar, not raise it. We can't even reach the low rungs but we always stretch our hand out beyond reach. I'm sure it's not healthy.

Using language to explain abstraction or form is doomed as every word sets up its shadow and an adversary [2nd] communication -because unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, language is grounded in a singularity; no matter how many bulletpoints you make to try and cover something in air-tight impenetrable disclaimers to try and intercept potential challenges, misunderstandings [due to a sense of that 2nd dimension of communication to your work that is setting up an equal geometry in the shadowy negatives of everything you say - leaving the door wide open no matter how many nails you put in it because language, no matter how closed, definite or sure - by its very nature, invites/incites comment, additions, refutations, because it is always an unfinished work. it always misses something that someone else thought of - because we can't help but react to words and fulfil the need to correct, add, build, destroy, change, and otherwise comment. We have after all a vested interest in talking to someone as through them - we can see ourselves.

But yeah - in the end, a squidgeybo is a categorical feature of a snarfwidget no matter how you twist and tear it. You can't escape abstractions because the only way to do it, is to use abstractions. Yet the mere fact the text now treats this matter as an open shut case in one sense, leaves the door wide open for the clause that my comments are also abstractions, bringing us right back to square one.

In fact - when it comes to Form, despite being able to go some way with it as a Method - getting too deep made the whole fabric tear and it just ended up as a tangle of threads that confused me greatly.

Really - The best I could manage was this:

From C*R*U*X*

"Form can be likened to standing in a pitch black room with no idea of your surroundings.
Suddenly a voice informs you that there are deep pits in the floor you cannot see.
Such an announcement may have the effect of making one believe the statement to be true with the result that one moves much more slowly in the dark, perhaps getting down on hands and knees to crawl around for fear of falling.
But In the dark - You have no way of knowing if there are pits or not.
The Crux is this: Do you trust the voice?"




Edited by Khk (11/24/11 11:35 AM)
Edit Reason: colour.

Top
#61766 - 11/24/11 03:10 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Khk]
Interrogist Offline
member


Registered: 11/12/11
Posts: 162
First of all, Id like to thank you for your reply. I'm rather appreciative of the well thought out responses I receive, more so than the, (your just wrong) issues. This is indeed a case of battling abstractions, where the verity of abstraction is held in higher regard than the message the abstraction aimed to promote. And yes, I realize that to be a abstraction, in and of itself. Be that as it may. Some few of you can read between the lines it seems.

Its obvious that I have a few things to sort out, I'm man enough to admit that, however, as men go, I am driven by an insatiable desire to state my case, that everyone, if nothing else, knows what those things are, and not whatever (abstraction) they believe it to be.

 Originally Posted By: Khk
Unfortunately, no matter what the appearance of the word - Interrogisma relies on the separation from ism's [which we must abstract to form the platform against which we will then tension the difference of isma] - but it's a brave step. If only we could change the foundation on which so much is built - we could indeed perhaps, change, the future way in which Forces are relayed without the messy dualistic snarls of language - But then it gets even trickier as there exists no method outside of abstraction we can use to speak to one another.


Everyone who has attacked my terminology, has missed the mark on the (ism/isma) issue. You see, as I do indeed aim to forge a set of standards by which I might, if nothing else, -strive- to become free of (unnecessary) abstractions, I have in no way created an (isma) whatsoever. So if I am incorrect or ill informed, let the record show just exactly how.

***
Interrogist + Ma = Interrogisma

Where (Interrogist) = my current Interrogation of the western world, my background, and My current approach to reality.

And where (Ma) = Maya, thus representative of my attraction to, and preliminary knowledge of, seeing that the distinction between the self and the Universe is a false dichotomy, or abstraction.
***

Again, thanks for the comment, and I look forward to more, however snarled our language may be.
_________________________
#~9O3913~&
%~1N9131~!
$~3A1319~$

Top
#61767 - 11/24/11 03:17 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Khk]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Khk
I think Essence and Form mean something different to everyone. For me, Form denotes a belief in a [usually, artificially derived] or exterior outer-casing or shell; under/within (or some other transgressive motion of space) the appearance of that form is considered to be some other dimension/depth or occult secret to it - and naturally, the logic that if one can remove that form, they will find some other more pure more truthful secret kernal or core of true authenticity...


The moment we try to communicate certain insights we automatically start to obscure them by molding them into a means of communication. The insights themselves are at their purest when we experience them but we can't but add layers of smoke when trying to express these.

The only thing we can do to increase the odds for a successful transfer is simplify as much as possible and adapt to the context of those we try to communicate with. In communication it is essential to first understand those that you try to make something understand. If you restrict yourself solely to your own context, you're limiting yourself to monologues.

D.

Top
#61769 - 11/24/11 03:24 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
If you are going tap-dancing, don't wear flip flops.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#61775 - 11/24/11 08:10 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Dan_Dread]
thedeadidea Offline
member


Registered: 08/15/10
Posts: 209
@KhK

I understand we impute the meaning of the world to the point where to be a realist in the true sense one needs to realize the imputation of money, property, law etc etc to ideals like justice, hope, revulsion, love etc etc etc.

The thing of it is though I fall into Sartre's camp where existence precedes essence. Existence of course would be accident as well as substance (sinew, bone, DNA). This is how I might think of the world even in the sense of creation it exists in a prelingual apprehension of phenomenon before I think it consciously. The thing of it is I know enough of myself to know what exists only as an idea and that which does not.

If I was being honest, I looked at some of the 3.0. stuff and I think the essence vs form dichotomy is a quintessential part of their language community. More so then the jargon the idea of an organization that is trying to cater for the revolutionaries from activists to terrorists. The group then isn't necessarily going to have the anatomy of the revolution planned out.

The essence/form dichotomy allows them to assert a bond of fraternity that transcends any one specific members beliefs but rings eternal of why they associate REVOLUTION.

Further it allows the enemy the magian abstraction to exist as just that an abstraction. Because the tyranny of a class struggle has many fronts and many ways to be fought which give it 10-20 years and watch it become the new civil rights war. I think the guy might be onto something, it also makes for some good propaganda and rhetorical ploys. I get why in trying to account for all this not only advocate different schemes and skill sets the mantra is essence because it moves an expected pettiness one might incur.

Even if I don't understand it entirely I can grasp it enough so when people use the language I can use it.

Perhaps the essence of the essence so to speak is the sinister dialectic is many sinister voices to the cause of sinister change.


Edited by thedeadidea (11/24/11 08:14 PM)

Top
#61778 - 11/24/11 09:58 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: thedeadidea]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
@ thedeadidea - wherein I would say I see no need to try and change your mind. If Interrogist can enforce new standards and evolve perception through his method - I wish him the best of luck and will watch his experiment with interest and optimism; the essence of sinister dialectic is indeed many sinister voices [though others are free to agree]; and particularly important among those voices, I think, are those brave enough to try and escape the system presently used and to which we are traditionally accustomed by using strange, unsual or unheard of methodologies or ways of living - the more people trying to do it, the more chance of success - and for this David Myatt is to be applauded for setting in motion his individual will to bring together more individuals who formed a group whose group formed their own groups which became nexions which is slowly becoming a culture.
To try and escape is notoriously difficult, as everything pulls us back in - unless we can communicate non-abstractly we must us abstracts; but to be original is exceptionally more difficult - and in order to earth something that people are often ridculed or persecuted for in trying to state because it is new; the ego must be large and healthy to endure the slings and arrows. Here, being adamant about ones perception is the equivalent of pouring an undiluted chemical into a beaker - not mixing it with water. You need to express the form purely even if it turns out to be wrong to get the best out it. And it's necessary, even as it creates disturbance with its perhaps unjustified assertions [who can say?], for there to be a tension created by having an enemy or something to push against. No push - no power.
Hence Magian vs Sinister. Or Satanism vs Interrogisma [don't anyone get hung up on the relational implications of my use of 'vs' = you gotta simplify man]

The ego strives to be recognized as individual -unique- and as a result it does need something against which it can push itself off or springboard as a tension to what it is trying to compare - its the easiest and traditional way. So Interrogists reaction toward Satanism is just the process of using A to showcase B. We all do it - I'm doing it now, but that sort of 'function' or 'exercise' to which we put the mind often goes unnoticed and we react to the immediate form [which is accessible] without being able to see through Interrogists skull to the processes [which are not accessible] of thought that put it all together.

The need for social glue, binding shared ideology, and a commonality are all additional reasons for such a process, as you say - but does the bond never transcend an individuals beliefs - or do they just shut up, change them, alter them, to fit in approximately? There's no way to know.

The religion of ONA is a case in point; where its definition and definition of practice was expanded so widely that it 'legally' if accidentally, means anyone can do anything with it, that includes Venger, or Blackwood or me or you - because there is a loophole for anything. While we choose a voice to listen to as an authority and may or may not side with them as an authority on authenticity - none of us can sincerely question the motives of the other or the forms they take; as they may be part of a 'demonic' insight role, a learning curve, a more accurate representation of the acausal, a good example by bad example, or pioneers in the field. To say every individuals path is unique and then condemn certain paths is, well... We just can't know or judge others representation of ONA since it is a) unique to each person, b) an abstract in itself that has become a reality for many in a unique way c) a wild contradiction. If we accept that there is Form and essence we catch our nuts in the tractor wheels [first and last time] because we then imply that what we percieve from the Form may well be something else altogether - in which case, we can no longer determine anything from what we see or percieve including authenticity as they swim interchangeably. Which is which? How do you tell? And if there is a difference we are both abstracting and dualizing - committing a cardinal sin against our own philosophy.

But we DO judge. We MUST Judge. We ALWAYS Judge.

Does Satanism offer the right or position from which to judge others or doesn't it? - Those being judged would likely not give a fuck [in accordance with the archetype of the Heretic and Adversary]- and those doing the judging [require a tension in which to showcase B against A and a large healthy ego that thinks it is in the right]. Both Satanic elements if you ask me.

We're all on a path, and at a different stage of that path different forms and archetypes seize, fascinate and educate us. I guess it's as simple as that. I may not want to believe in or accept trains as a matter of principle - but they'll still run me the fuck over if I stand on the tracks.

I think a large part of the problem with working with Form and Abstraction is that we can't use the faculty of intellect - it is also composed on non-rational elements to which we have no access as they are unconscious. So trying to 'understand' just confuses us - our toolbox is too limited to reach the lowest rung and gets confused when we reach for the higher ones.

Anyway - these kinds of conversation do my head in.


Edited by Khk (11/24/11 10:11 PM)
Edit Reason: color

Top
#61780 - 11/24/11 11:19 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Khk]
thedeadidea Offline
member


Registered: 08/15/10
Posts: 209
@ KhK

You personally would probably need to do less to change my mind then any of the ONA expressions I have encountered. In that what I see lacking in terms of others you have defined yourself despite it being in a way I can't skim read. (It is like trying to skim read Kant)

You do so in an unapologetic manner have left the ONA and returned and I feel the Temple of THEM is probably the expression which incorporates the numinous way in the most tenable way. But that is just one man's opinion. I have no problem in judging the world or establishing what I feel is wisdom. If people want to try pass of Swiss cheese off as philosophy then it is what it is. But there is a point in discourse where a spade is clearly a spade to most of any who actually know what a spade is. Though to be fair to the man he has made it known to me and here there is an attempt by his philosophy to be manipulative and coercive how successful that is I am not sure.

I've seen the 3.0. phenomenon on S.I.N. first hand change peoples language and aim in describing themselves and the world. When I arrived I was something of a minority as no real satanist had any legitimate political investment or care it was in a sense to exist as an individual as it was and accept the world as it is. That shit has drastically changed in a way which I found profoundly amusing and enlightening. If the world is art then every fucker is an artist without knowing creating upon their canvas and pronouncing its worth. The economy of power defines the mainstay through whatever means of coercion and that is called Truth. I don't brgrudge people their painting but if they bring it to a public forum then in the shades of Oscar Wilde may the critic become the artist then too.

But if I could care to disagree with you once more form and abstraction are integrally linked to cognition and entirely foundational to your Weltanschauung so fit perfectly within a faculty of psychology. Where form and abstraction etc. lose their meaning most is in social transaction of that information. Language is designed to bring specific inferences if I ask for a cup you will probably not give me a spoon it kills other meanings or experiences by way of coercion a specific refrain or analogy.

The genius of the essence, acausal, esoteric, foundation, ideal call it what you will. Is that it appeals to this alienating property of language and through little reason can bind people if an accepted idea in a quintessential abyss. I also reject it being necessarily a problem as I find so many people that find it all to convenient this is the way of things.

Top
#61781 - 11/25/11 12:32 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Khk]
Apeynon Offline
stranger


Registered: 11/04/11
Posts: 40
Loc: In Your Bedroom Pillow
 Originally Posted By: Khk
The religion of ONA is a case in point; where its definition and definition of practice was expanded so widely that it 'legally' if accidentally, means anyone can do anything with it, that includes Venger, or Blackwood or me or you - because there is a loophole for anything.

I think you're mistaken here, because the ONA has particular 'core principles', a kulture and ethos, which you have to accept or be in tune with in order to be ONA.

Take a look at

http://antonlong.wordpress.com/2011/06/19/the-core-ona-traditions/

http://antonlong.wordpress.com/2011/11/20/beyond-the-rhetoric-the-famylie-the-kollective/

and you'll see why Blackwood, Venger, and others like them can't possibly be ONA. Culling? Rounwytha tradition? Opposition to magian abstractions? Doing sinister deeds for real?

Bottom line is - ONA praxis allows and encourages everything, but ONA kulture expresses, even defines, a type of person.

Top
#61785 - 11/25/11 02:07 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Khk]
Apeynon Offline
stranger


Registered: 11/04/11
Posts: 40
Loc: In Your Bedroom Pillow
 Originally Posted By: Khk
To say every individuals path is unique and then condemn certain paths is, well... We just can't know or judge others representation of ONA since it is a) unique to each person, b) an abstract in itself that has become a reality for many in a unique way c) a wild contradiction. If we accept that there is Form and essence we catch our nuts in the tractor wheels [first and last time] because we then imply that what we percieve from the Form may well be something else altogether - in which case, we can no longer determine anything from what we see or percieve including authenticity as they swim interchangeably. Which is which? How do you tell?

Apparently, you seem to have mis-judged the ONA here as well, so far as I can tell. Behind all the ONA talk about 'forms' and 'abstractions', and beyond its mythos, is a simple thing. The reality that individual empathy (esoteric empathy) combined with pathei-mathos provides. That is the core of the ONA, if you like - and in practice means that only by living exeatically, and by using or manipulating forms and abstractions and then transcending them, can a person discover reality and develop their own unique judgement and world-view.

For forms and abstractions are life-less, devoid of numinosity, while esoteric empathy and exeatic living ( which includes amoral experience) reconnect a person to the essence hidden by all such forms and abstractions. Such empathy and such living are individual because they (empathy, pathei-mathos) only live - exist - in a living human being of a certain type and can't be 'abstracted out' from the living of certain types of human being.

Which means that, like Anton Long has said over and over again in recent years, and that all the ONA is, is incitement to encourage and develop a specific type of human being. The type who is developing and using such empathy, such amoral praxis, such pathei-mathos, such exeatic living.

That's why the ONA is such people in their uniqueness, and thus a nexion 'to the acausal'.

Which in practice means that the 7FW, being a niner, a rounwytha, the 'dark arts' of the ONA like the 'star game' and even the ONA v1.0 rituals and stuff, are just means, techniques, 'forms', to encourage - to presence - in and exterior to the person what is sinisterly-numinous and hence what is real, what lives, beyond abstractions and 'forms'. Or, in ONA terms, they're means, techniques, to allow the individual to open and then be the unique nexion they already are by virtue of being human.

Which is why the ONA condemns other paths - beyond adversarial rhetoric of course!

Top
#61786 - 11/25/11 02:17 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Apeynon]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
+O+ No surprise there. What's the difference between Praxis and Kulture besides abstraction and division? Nothing. Those forms exist for political motivation, which they have aptly achieved - but don't mistake them for what they are. +O+
Top
Page 10 of 23 « First<89101112>Last »


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

Generated in 0.035 seconds of which 0.003 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.