Page 11 of 23 « First<910111213>Last »
Topic Options
#61787 - 11/25/11 02:32 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Khk]
Caladrius Offline
member


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 320
Loc: SoCal
 Originally Posted By: Khk
+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+


Praxis is a fancy way to say "Do." A living Culture is not as simplistic as a Do, or method of Do. A praxis is when a person takes coconut flesh and squeezes it for its coco milk to use in a Thai soup. The practice of squeezing milk from coconut is not equal to the Thai Culture. The practice is a very small part of that Culture. Even then, members of a Thai Culture will not always or ever observe that practice.

Most living cultures don't exist for political motives. In parts of the world where nations are occupied by a people with a living culture it is usually the other way around. The Culture manipulates the politics. I can only speak for Thai-Khmer-Chinese Culture.


Edited by Caladrius (11/25/11 02:33 AM)
_________________________
Chloe 352

Top
#61788 - 11/25/11 02:36 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Khk]
Apeynon Offline
stranger


Registered: 11/04/11
Posts: 40
Loc: In Your Bedroom Pillow
 Originally Posted By: Khk
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+

The difference is one lives in living, doing, human beings of a certain type while the others do not because they're 'abstractions', forms, whatever you want to call them.

To encourage such a living and such a type of human is the ONA, its kulture.

You seem to mistake the living organism - the living kulture - that is the ONA for something static, abstract, and lifeless. Which may be why you called it a 'religion'.

Rituals such as internal adept, and the Camlad rite of passing of the abyss, are just working, proven, occult techniques to develop esoteric empathy and acausal thinking; a certain type of individual knowing, a knowing of themselves and of life, reality. What lives is this knowing and the esoteric empathy so developed, which is unique to that individual, and which individual is a particular type.

Same with gangs and niners - it's their type of living which breeds a type of human being. One of a particular character with particular experiences. With a type of knowing.

The ONA is the kulture of such diverse but kindred living individuals, who've 'been there done that', and of those who are beginning to 'do that'.

Top
#61791 - 11/25/11 03:48 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Apeynon]
thedeadidea Offline
member


Registered: 08/15/10
Posts: 209
The ONA defeats itself in standards and operations I only read the material once back when it was various manuscripts and NAOS were the primary material that is so forgive me if the references are vague. But among the manuscripts I seem to remember a few things.

Say around Neophyte or beginning rank there was a clear request not to read the material ahead. In contrast there was the need of the satanist to be able to sell bottled water by the river.

Then in one of the adept rituals and throughout other grades completion of the work is the ONLY true initiation into the ONA. Which I think was a maintained tone throughout the entire manuscripts. Up to the point where you read a curious addition smuggled somewhere among the master initiation which mentions an equivalence might have been garnered through politics.

ONA now has legitimized more then one inherent form and as such now has multiple voices. But even in that one body of work the conllected manuscripts there was enough of a refrain for things to come and go the only thing throughout all of the material and groups seems to be a title of someone else's book. STFU and do something.



Edited by thedeadidea (11/25/11 04:41 AM)

Top
#61792 - 11/25/11 05:08 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: thedeadidea]
SkaffenAmtiskaw Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 06/24/09
Posts: 1318
Just a general comment, since I can't be bothered to scroll back through all eleven pages to find the specific comment, not at all meant as a response to the ONA philosophy outlined above (always refreshing, ladies and gentlemen, thank you!):

I see there is objection to the practice of making others qualify their Satanism and then criticizing it, calling it 'not tr00' or whatever. This is partly a straw man, partly a misunderstanding of a perfectly legitimate 'Praxis', if the Niners here will forgive my borrowing of the term.

We tear each others' ideas to bits to see if they hold any water. There. Everything is meant to be criticized, even us. Our ideas, everything. Tear it all up and see if it still works. To my eyes, this is part of Satanic Praxis.

There are many on this forum who tear through my ideas. This is a good thing. I learned years ago that when practicing martial arts, having an opponent willing to kick nine shades of shit out of you was good for you. An opponent unwilling to punch you too hard was pissing all over your efforts. I am thankful for the kicks I've had. This is not conforming to a label, or a dogma. It's taking what works and discarding the rest. Personally, I don't see the use in calling myself an Interrogist or whatever, but if it rocks your boat, have at it. Insisting that Satanism is stupid because of straw man arguments that were forged from ignorance of the tenets of Satanism just makes this all seem rather silly. Interrogist's point of view has some merit, sure, but so does much of the criticism. It's a made-up response to a made-up perception of Satanism or the Adversarial method. If you want to split hairs, that's fine, but it's basically what Mabon did, even if Interrogist's ideas make more sense.
_________________________
"I'd rather be right than consistent" - Winston Churchill

Top
#61796 - 11/25/11 06:55 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Apeynon]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
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.

+O+ No I agree with you there, but the whole explaination is itself an abstract, no? - to try and give some example or form I can grasp to get your underlying meaning in your belief that I misunderstand something? +O+

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.

+O+ I don't see the ultimate separation between any named thing and another named thing- and I'm referring to the names and the process of naming to describe something - Not the quintessence to which you are referring and with which I am familiar. +O+

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.

+O+ Yes - I agree - but trying to express them requires abstraction Any time we try to communicate our subjectivity objectively. You have to use abstracts so that people even know what to look for - or not look for- - there has to be 'handholds' such as the TOW and so on which is eventually discarded - and it is these that are abstracts - not the empathic self-known self-experience path itself - just any expression of it. I think some confusion has crept in due to my use of the word abstract synonymously with other un-namable processes of the ONA - but I assure you we're on the same page. +O+

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.

+O+ Yep. +O+

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 -

+O+ Yes - abstractions that help guide the way - I get this. +O+

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.

+O+ Yep. +O+

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

+O+ Sure man. No argument. +O+

Top
#61797 - 11/25/11 06:56 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
"Which may be why you called it a 'religion'. "

+O+ I forgot you didn't like it called a Religion. Organization then. +O+

Top
#61798 - 11/25/11 08:18 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: SkaffenAmtiskaw
Personally, I don't see the use in calling myself an Interrogist or whatever, but if it rocks your boat, have at it. Insisting that Satanism is stupid because of straw man arguments that were forged from ignorance of the tenets of Satanism just makes this all seem rather silly. Interrogist's point of view has some merit, sure, but so does much of the criticism. It's a made-up response to a made-up perception of Satanism or the Adversarial method. If you want to split hairs, that's fine, but it's basically what Mabon did, even if Interrogist's ideas make more sense.


Form is like the clothing one wears. It defines how well or badly one is perceived but says little about the one underneath. It is true many confuse their clothing with their identity but there are also those that know one has to dress for the occasion.

What I notice here is someone visiting a dinner party in their pajamas and consider all others silly for wearing a tuxedo, being completely oblivious to the fact those others might very well realize where they are and why they are wearing what they wear.

D.

Top
#61799 - 11/25/11 08:29 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 whole explaination is itself an abstract, no?

The explanation - any explanation - is not of itself an abstraction. Why not? Since abstraction, in the ONA, is defined as something based on causal linearity, and the illusion of causal opposites, and thus lacking in 'the sinister-numen' of the acausal, known via individual empathy and pathei-mathos and which is beyond words and language.

An explanation is an attempt, using words and language - or symbols, allegories - to describe what individual esoteric empathy and pathei-mathos discover.

A subtle difference, between explanation - using language and symbols - and abstraction with its division into opposites. The difference between describing causal knowing and describing acausal knowing, if you like.

Which just means your definition of abstraction differs from what I think is the ONA - or Anton Long's - definition of abstraction.

Now had you used a non-ONA word, a word other than abstraction, or defined how your 'abstraction' differed from the ONA/Myattian word, we might not seem to disagree.

 Originally Posted By: Khk
I don't see the ultimate separation between any named thing and another named thing- and I'm referring to the names and the process of naming to describe something - Not the quintessence to which you are referring

There is none, no separation - beyond 'the abyss'. That's the point, which has to be rediscovered by each person, and is the essence of the Camlad rite of the abyss and similar occult techniques.

Which just means, it seems to me, that we might be just arguing the same thing but with different terminology.

I think your criticism, such as it may be, would have been better were it expressed in a terminology of your own devising. Without, for example, reference to ONA-used words such as abstractions, forms.

 Originally Posted By: Khk
but trying to express them requires abstraction

No, it requires only explanation, or incitement, or mythos, or whatever - to inspire others to 'do', to use occult techniques, to experience for themselves and thus know for themselves, beyond all words and abstractions.

The ONA is only one type of explanation, incitement, mythos, or whatever - to doing. It's the individual doing that's important, and the ONA way of doing is adversarial, heretical, amoral, and so on.

Which just means, it seems to me - again - that we've talking the same talk but you've for some reason and momentarily can't see the ONA wood (the ONA essence) for the trees. Unless you're just being adversarial for the sake of establishing your own 'Them' type of explanation, incitement, mythos, or whatever \:\)

Top
#61800 - 11/25/11 08:52 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Apeynon]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
the whole explaination is itself an abstract, no?[/quote]
The explanation - any explanation - is not of itself an abstraction.

+O+ Yeah it is. +O+

Why not? Since abstraction, in the ONA, is defined as something based on causal linearity, and the illusion of causal opposites, and thus lacking in 'the sinister-numen' of the acausal, known via individual empathy and pathei-mathos and which is beyond words and language.

+O+ Well OK - you may not see it as abstraction within the ONA - but I do. +O+

An explanation is an attempt, using words and language - or symbols, allegories - to describe what individual esoteric empathy and pathei-mathos discover.

+O+ Lol - yeah, abstractions. +O+

A subtle difference, between explanation - using language and symbols - and abstraction with its division into opposites. The difference between describing causal knowing and describing acausal knowing, if you like.

+O+ yeah - I don't see how these aren't abstractly defined. +O+

Which just means your definition of abstraction differs from what I think is the ONA - or Anton Long's - definition of abstraction.

+O+ Well yeah - what do you expect? Lol. But an abstract is an abstract. +O+

Now had you used a non-ONA word, a word other than abstraction, or defined how your 'abstraction' differed from the ONA/Myattian word, we might not seem to disagree.

+O+ OK - but I don't care if we agree - I see ONA as using abstractions whether you do or not. +O+

 Originally Posted By: Khk
I don't see the ultimate separation between any named thing and another named thing- and I'm referring to the names and the process of naming to describe something - Not the quintessence to which you are referring


There is none, no separation - beyond 'the abyss'. That's the point, which has to be rediscovered by each person, and is the essence of the Camlad rite of the abyss and similar occult techniques.

+O+ So a dog is a cat after 'the abyss'? lol +O+

Which just means, it seems to me, that we might be just arguing the same thing but with different terminology.

+O+ Well yes probably! I wish we could discuss more interesting topics [to me] like Dark Gods or the Septenary Stars for once. +O+

I think your criticism, such as it may be, would have been better were it expressed in a terminology of your own devising. Without, for example, reference to ONA-used words such as abstractions, forms.

+O+ Lol. whatever man. +O+

 Originally Posted By: Khk
but trying to express them requires abstraction


No, it requires only explanation, or incitement, or mythos, or whatever -

+O+ Holy shit. Which I call abstractions. Whether you want to recognize them as such is up to you [clearly you don't] but that's how I see it. +O+

to inspire others to 'do', to use occult techniques, to experience for themselves and thus know for themselves, beyond all words and abstractions.

+O+ Yeah - "beyond all words and abstractions" being precisely my point. +O+

The ONA is only one type of explanation, incitement, mythos, or whatever - to doing. It's the individual doing that's important, and the ONA way of doing is adversarial, heretical, amoral, and so on.

+O+ Yeah which words are abstractions for an actual 'thing'. Why are we arguing in circles? +O+

Which just means, it seems to me - again - that we've talking the same talk but you've for some reason and momentarily can't see the ONA wood (the ONA essence) for the trees.

+O+ LOL. I feel the same about you. +O+

Unless you're just being adversarial for the sake of establishing your own 'Them' type of explanation, incitement, mythos, or whatever \:\)

+O+ Not really trying to be adversarial here man, wasn't even stating a case to you originally - you just seem to take issue with the idea of ONA using abstractions to influence, inform and affect people to live the Septenary Way. I don't see why. +O+

Top
#61801 - 11/25/11 09:25 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
+O+ I'm holding an object from a room in my house up to the computer screen. It seems quite real. *taps it on the desk*.

What is it? +O+

Top
#61802 - 11/25/11 09:39 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Khk]
thedeadidea Offline
member


Registered: 08/15/10
Posts: 209
Knock on wood that right there is PWNAGE...
Top
#61803 - 11/25/11 10:21 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Khk]
Apeynon Offline
stranger


Registered: 11/04/11
Posts: 40
Loc: In Your Bedroom Pillow
 Originally Posted By: Khk
Yeah it is (an abstraction)

You need to precisely define what you mean by abstraction. For it seems to be you're being way too simplistic, and don't get the distinction between causal and acausal.

In ONA terms, occult techniques and ways - such as esoteric chant or the star game or the rite of internal adept or the way (the life) of the rounwytha or the niner - are not abstractions.

They are nexions, that is a type of living representation, in the causal, of the acausal, of reality. That's the key. It's the difference between what is and what isn't a nexion, a presencing of acausal energy. To use other terms - what is and what isn't imbued with the sinister-numinous.

Such acausal representation are not even conventional causal forms - like a type of politics is a causal form. Such a causal form just represents something causal, which has a simple causality, a simple cause-effect, and which implies categories and opposites.

So the difference is that one, the nexion, only lives - exists - within, or is, a living sentient being; whereas the other one, the abstraction, the form, is said or assumed or believed to exist - or is said or assumed can be made to exist - exterior in something that isn't alive, that isn't a human being This something that isn't alive is, say, a law, a morality, or some State, or some 'five year plan', or some idealized 'race', or some political goal some political party is aiming to achieve.

Here's a simple explanation of the difference - for the ONA (and also Myatt's 'numinous way') law and justice are individual and can only live and be made real by the life and actions of living individuals of a certain type. These individuals are not 'abstractions' and neither are they trying to make some lifeless abstraction, such as some 'ideal justice', real (which trying to make abstractions real is impossible anyway, and the cause of dukkha and tyranny, but that's another story, or two). They just are what they are - human beings who have a certain nature, a certain character, a certain type of knowing. We might even say - who embody the satanic spirit in a wordless way.

The ONA in a very real sense is the recorded explanations, aural and written - and using words and symbols and mythos - of the experiences of those who have used, who live or who have lived, particular occult techniques and particular occult, sinister, satanic, ways in order to be, to experience, beyond both causal abstractions and a causal knowing.

Initially, the ONA was perhaps just the recorded explanations of Anton Long. Now, it includes those of others.

But if you want to call such acausal, living, representations - embodied only in living human beings - abstractions, that's your call. In ONA terms, they're definitely not abstractions.

If you want to call explanations of such acausal, living, representations - by those who've lived them or who embody them - abstractions, then that's also your call. But in ONA terms, they're definitely not abstractions.

If you don't see the need for such explanations, using words, symbols, mythos, you don't - but the ONA does, as a human means of getting some people to experience, to do, to act, for themselves. Such means, such types of communication, such types of incitement and inspiration, have their flaws, sure - but they're all we've currently got. Feel free to make some better ones \:\)

We could go on debating this, but personally I don't think we'd get anywhere.

Top
#61804 - 11/25/11 10:45 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Apeynon]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
 Originally Posted By: Khk
Yeah it is (an abstraction)


You need to precisely define what you mean by abstraction. For it seems to be you're being way too simplistic, and don't get the distinction between causal and acausal.

+O+ So what is the object? I can't define anything let alone precisely without using more abstraction. Sorry man. I'm limited in that way. +O+

In ONA terms, occult techniques and ways - such as esoteric chant or the star game or the rite of internal adept or the way (the life) of the rounwytha or the niner - are not abstractions.

+O+ No they're not - just the words used to denote them are. +O+

They are nexions, that is a type of living representation, in the causal, of the acausal, of reality. That's the key. It's the difference between what is and what isn't a nexion, a presencing of acausal energy. To use other terms - what is and what isn't imbued with the sinister-numinous.

+O+ Yeah those things are the essence, but the descriptions you use are necessary abstractions. +O+

Such acausal representation are not even conventional causal forms - like a type of politics is a causal form. Such a causal form just represents something causal, which has a simple causality, a simple cause-effect, and which implies categories and opposites.

+O+ I think they are - I think they are all causal forms by causal beings. I think the a-causal is also an abstraction. Not the actual a-causal mind you - just anything used to refer to it. +O+

So the difference is that one, the nexion, only lives - exists - within, or is, a living sentient being; whereas the other one, the abstraction, the form, is said or assumed or believed to exist - or is said or assumed can be made to exist - exterior in something that isn't alive, that isn't a human being This something that isn't alive is, say, a law, a morality, or some State, or some 'five year plan', or some idealized 'race', or some political goal some political party is aiming to achieve.

+O+ the word life is an abstraction for the force/state we know as life. Anything used to describe, name, apprehend, explain, grasp, indicate, conceptualize et al - is an abstraction we use to define a real force. The planets of the TOW are abstract symbols that denote particular associations - but they are just the doorway used to open understanding to the force the planets are used to approach. I don't see how what I'm saying is any different to what you are saying? +O+

Here's a simple explanation of the difference - for the ONA (and also Myatt's 'numinous way') law and justice are individual and can only live and be made real by the life and actions of living individuals of a certain type. These individuals are not 'abstractions' and neither are they trying to make some lifeless abstraction, such as some 'ideal justice', real (which trying to make abstractions real is impossible anyway, and the cause of dukkha and tyranny, but that's another story, or two). They just are what they are - human beings who have a certain nature, a certain character, a certain type of knowing. We might even say - who embody the satanic spirit in a wordless way.

+O+ Disagree. Sorry. I'm not arguing the validity of that statement - just that its composed of abstractions, words, ideas, and so on that do not exist in themselves for others who do not experience them directly until they are named. My object is quite real - but unless I give you an abstract - you can only guess what it is. +O+

The ONA in a very real sense is the recorded explanations, aural and written - and using words and symbols and mythos - of the experiences of those who have used, who live or who have lived, particular occult techniques and particular occult, sinister, satanic, ways in order to be, to experience, beyond both causal abstractions and a causal knowing.

+O+ Yep. +O+

Initially, the ONA was perhaps just the recorded explanations of Anton Long. Now, it includes those of others.

But if you want to call such acausal, living, representations - embodied only in living human beings - abstractions, that's your call.

+O+ Well yeah that's what I've been insisting all along man - and naturally you're free to disagree - but bingo - it's my call. My understanding of abstractions is different to yours - so y'know? But if you can tell me what the object is that I'm holding up to the screen - thus proving that you can perceive without an abstraction - I'll admit I was wrong. +O+

In ONA terms, they're definitely not abstractions.

+O+ OK. But I'm ONA and I say they are. +O+

If you want to call explanations of such acausal, living, representations - by those who've lived them or who embody them - abstractions, then that's also your call. But in ONA terms, they're definitely not abstractions.

+O+ Yeah I still think they are. +O+

If you don't see the need for such explanations, using words, symbols, mythos, you don't -

+O+ What? I do see the need for abstractions - how else can people get what the hell is otherwise invisible? +O+

but the ONA does, as a human means of getting some people to experience, to do, to act, for themselves. Such means, such types of communication, such types of incitement and inspiration, have their flaws, sure - but they're all we've currently got. Feel free to make some better ones \:\)

+O+ Well I'm working on your star game - because I believe it is genuinely the best and only approximation even close to perfecting a non-abstract language. It's sheer genius and I'm trying to make it come to life because it is truly extraordinary. And I'm not criticizing the ONA for having flaws - I'm saying the system of words and communication has immutable problems that only dig themselves deeper the more they try to un-dig themselves when it comes to abstraction. +O+

We could go on debating this, but personally I don't think we'd get anywhere.

+O+ No? Is it important to get somewhere? For you to agree or me to agree? Personally I'd have nothing to talk to anyone about if there wasn't conflict - who wants to talk to someone who agrees with them all the time? Not me. It sucks, smacks of sycophancy - and is just weird... We don't have to agree - but you could humour me and tell me what the object I'm holding is. Or you could patiently continue chatting with me in the hopes our dialectic finds a break-through either for one of us or for the others maybe? +O+

Top
#61805 - 11/25/11 11:00 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Bottom line is - ONA praxis allows and encourages everything, but ONA kulture expresses, even defines, a type of person.

+O+ Hey I missed that - then Venger and Blackwood are quite possibly practicing the praxis and have not been accepted into the kulture for failing to live up to some standards set by the kulture. Fair? +O+

Top
#61806 - 11/25/11 11:09 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
" which you have to accept or be in tune with in order to be ONA."

+O+ How's that not a religion again? You know what I reckon Satan'd say to someone that said you gotta be A to be X? He'd tell ya to fuck off. +O+


Edited by Khk (11/25/11 11:10 AM)

Top
Page 11 of 23 « First<910111213>Last »


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

Generated in 0.034 seconds of which 0.004 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.