Page 3 of 23 <12345>Last »
Topic Options
#61522 - 11/17/11 04:41 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Interrogist]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Interrogist
So it would seem that form is useful as a tool, so long as it fits the social environment. Id agree with that, and also add that the environment is prone to change. One should be able to morph with it, that the job be done, as if to say that the same job is not always going to be needed, and another form must be utilized. So why not simply do away with the form, and keep the tools, so to speak?


Form is just the context in which you share some ideas or views. The problem is that you can't not use a form because you talk with people in a manner which makes it easy for them to understand. Your form depends upon the culture or subculture you are interacting with.

If you interact with satanists, it's easiest to use a satanic context, simply because that's the standard context they're using. The same message would require a different form when interacting with Muslims, or Christians... etc.

This is all that form is; an adaptation towards the specific worldview of those you are communicating with. You use that one not because it is cool, or whatever else, but because it serves the purpose best.

This is why form is important and what many don't understand and why they get lost in form while forgetting why the form is actually used.

D.


Top
#61524 - 11/17/11 05:10 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Dan_Dread]
Interrogist Offline
member


Registered: 11/12/11
Posts: 162
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
Enlightenment? That's really one of those words that make my skin crawl. Anyhow, I disagree. In this context, 'forms' are a vehicle of expression for essence. Also, you seem to be speaking as if there was some sort of destination we need to get to. Where exactly is this ' enlightenment' located? ;\)


Well, in this context Dan, the enlightenment might be called attainment, if your more comfortable with that term, and the destination is a personal one. Some persons like myself, personally, envision a better system than he one we have, and while that vision of the future is mine alone, it encompasses everyone, and in this context is that very destination.



Edited by Interrogist (11/17/11 05:11 PM)
_________________________
#~9O3913~&
%~1N9131~!
$~3A1319~$

Top
#61525 - 11/17/11 05:12 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Interrogist]
Interrogist Offline
member


Registered: 11/12/11
Posts: 162
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
Ok, why? The point of the application of fire to ideas and concepts is to find what works and what doesn't. The idea that everything must constantly be torn down and replaced seems to miss the essence of that. Forms are useful within their given context, as tools. Would you toss out your framing hammer because you feel using a screwdriver would make you stand out more?


I understand your meaning Dan, but for me this is represented both within and without, thus, Interrogisma and Interrogismi. Within, in order to fully know that you are free of programing offered by societal, political, or religious systems, most of (us) assume an amoral standard by which we break down each and every aspect of belief that we are able to access within our memetic self. Then, along that process, one is able to redefine the self according to what some call 'organic' standards. I have simply added that attribute of Interrogismi, to the method of Interrogisma. Some may still call me a Satanist if they like, however, I have torn down that form, and rebuilt it according to my personal organic standards. Id say the same of any form that I fit, and I fit more than one, though in my person they are unified into one organic standard that I refer to as Interrogist. Interrogist = that which survived the Fire, and is the Stone of Satan if you will.

I still have the hammer and the screwdriver, they just suit me 'personally' and look better than most, ;\) I noticed that you painted yours as well.



Edited by Interrogist (11/17/11 05:16 PM)
_________________________
#~9O3913~&
%~1N9131~!
$~3A1319~$

Top
#61526 - 11/17/11 05:13 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Interrogist]
Interrogist Offline
member


Registered: 11/12/11
Posts: 162
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread

Categorizations are useful though. If you rip the label off a can it doesn't change the contents.


That's my very point! If the contents are the issue, why fuss with the label? In this context, the label rarely tells you what's in the can, without telling you also, how to feel and what to think about the contents. I'm just saying that I want the contents Without the directions.



Edited by Interrogist (11/17/11 05:16 PM)
_________________________
#~9O3913~&
%~1N9131~!
$~3A1319~$

Top
#61527 - 11/17/11 05:14 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Interrogist]
Interrogist Offline
member


Registered: 11/12/11
Posts: 162
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread

Say what? Form is the 'language', essence is the meaning. Sure you can make up your own language..but you'll end up talking only to yourself.


Well man, I cant say that I have ever seen you out to hold someone's hand, so, that's a bit like the pot calling the kettle black, ;\) If someone takes up the title Interrogist, and they do it properly, well, more power to them, but its not my over all goal. If anything, I say Id like to see people creating their own path, rather than (uniting as independents) or (joining non joiner clubs), I'm sure you catch my drift.

 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
Definitions are all we have. We label, we classify, we categorize. Yes the term LHP has been predefined, else why use the term at all?


I cant say that I do use it that much, but your point is sound, and in this context I do agree.

 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread

We can never be free of form, or of abstractions, until such a time as our thoughts are no longer bound to language and reason. All we can do is use what fits best at any given time.


I'm not addressing this in the context of language, but in the context of religions, belief 'systems', and cults, and the like. You know well that Satanism id MUCH more that a simple word Dan. Its damn near a religion, and for some its little more than inverted Christianity.


Edited by Interrogist (11/17/11 05:18 PM)
_________________________
#~9O3913~&
%~1N9131~!
$~3A1319~$

Top
#61528 - 11/17/11 05:14 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Interrogist]
Interrogist Offline
member


Registered: 11/12/11
Posts: 162
And what the fuck is the deal with this quoting system? What am I doing wrong?

Ahhh *facepalm*

Never mind...


Edited by Interrogist (11/17/11 05:17 PM)
_________________________
#~9O3913~&
%~1N9131~!
$~3A1319~$

Top
#61529 - 11/17/11 05:29 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Diavolo]
Interrogist Offline
member


Registered: 11/12/11
Posts: 162
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
Form is just the context in which you share some ideas or views. The problem is that you can't not use a form because you talk with people in a manner which makes it easy for them to understand. Your form depends upon the culture or subculture you are interacting with.

If you interact with satanists, it's easiest to use a satanic context, simply because that's the standard context they're using. The same message would require a different form when interacting with Muslims, or Christians... etc.

This is all that form is; an adaptation towards the specific worldview of those you are communicating with. You use that one not because it is cool, or whatever else, but because it serves the purpose best.

This is why form is important and what many don't understand and why they get lost in form while forgetting why the form is actually used.

D.


I get that D, I really do, however, your inadvertently admitting that this is necessary due to the stupid shit people believe, such as Muslims, Christians, or whatever else... Having no respect or use for these systems, I see no use in adapting to that form for any other reason than plotting destruction therein. Thus I have no worldview in which these systems dwell to very long into the future, and I see no use in maintaining the form of those who Id rather see die. My ideal worldview would be, to say what you mean with direct and factual data packed terminology, and systematically destroy any and all illogical terminology, customs, and belief systems. Maby thats just me.
_________________________
#~9O3913~&
%~1N9131~!
$~3A1319~$

Top
#61530 - 11/17/11 05:55 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Interrogist]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3753
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Originally Posted By: Darryl

Within, in order to fully know that you are free of programing offered by societal, political, or religious systems, most of (us) assume an amoral standard by which we break down each and every aspect of belief that we are able to access within our memetic self. Then, along that process, one is able to redefine the self according to what some call 'organic' standards.

You do remember who you are talking to right? I was both doing and writing about this some years before you re-invented it. :P

Anyhow, do you truly feel that you are 'fully free of programming?' You've arrived?

I personally don't think that is even possible, only incrementally approachable. A bigger obstacle by far than any form or abstraction is the belief you have transcended them all.

 Quote:

Well, in this context Dan, the enlightenment might be called attainment, if your more comfortable with that term, and the destination is a personal one.

I don't feel there is a destination. Just the walk itself.

 Quote:

Well man, I cant say that I have ever seen you out to hold someone's hand, so, that's a bit like the pot calling the kettle black,

That wasn't my point though. My point is that none of us are special snowflakes. Language is a tool. You can slap some new words over top of ideas described by old words, but unless something new is added I don't really see much point.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#61532 - 11/17/11 06:06 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Interrogist]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Interrogist
I get that D, I really do, however, your inadvertently admitting that this is necessary due to the stupid shit people believe, such as Muslims, Christians, or whatever else... Having no respect or use for these systems, I see no use in adapting to that form for any other reason than plotting destruction therein. Thus I have no worldview in which these systems dwell to very long into the future, and I see no use in maintaining the form of those who Id rather see die. My ideal worldview would be, to say what you mean with direct and factual data packed terminology, and systematically destroy any and all illogical terminology, customs, and belief systems. Maby thats just me.


Not really. There are only two reasons we converse with people (aside social chitchat) and that is to either improve ourselves or to bring a message across for whatever purpose. To maximize the advantage of both, we adapt the form accordingly. Look at the New Testament as an example. Why was baby J. using parables? Because his audience was illiterate and needed a simplified form to understand what he was talking about. We do the same.

A subject like the LHP can be explained in many forms but it doesn't do much good when using Kali, Brahman and Maya when talking to people that aren't familiar with that context. So you talk in their language. This doesn't imply you are degrading yourself because that is only the case if you consider form more important than the tool it is. If someone has a problem communicating in a certain form, the form isn't the problem but the one communicating.

D.

Top
#61533 - 11/17/11 06:22 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Dan_Dread]
Interrogist Offline
member


Registered: 11/12/11
Posts: 162
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
You do remember who you are talking to right? I was both doing and writing about this some years before you re-invented it. :P

Anyhow, do you truly feel that you are 'fully free of programming?' You've arrived?


lol, Yes I do realize that Dan. But what no one seems to understand is that I accept that there is nothing new under the sun. I never claimed to reinvent anything other than myself. I also never claimed to be free of that programming, but to have embarked on the quest to root it out if at all possible. So have I arrived? Well, yes I have, I have arrived at that quest, which is more than many can honestly say.

 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
I personally don't think that is even possible, only incrementally approachable. A bigger obstacle by far than any form or abstraction is the belief you have transcended them all.


I agree, and again, that was not my claim. If you break it down, what I said was rather desirous of creating a society that would not program its populous, such as we have been programmed. These can be transcended by way of our generation destroying the systems that create that programming, thus, several generations from now, it would be nothing more than pages in a history book. That generation would have its own issue mind you, but that's not to say that Ours are unchangeable.

 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
I don't feel there is a destination. Just the walk itself.


That, my friend, is one of the few areas in which we differ, so far as I know. I reject that the world just is what it is and can not be changed. Its not a must that you have a destination in mind, but its not impossible either.

 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
That wasn't my point though. My point is that none of us are special snowflakes. Language is a tool. You can slap some new words over top of ideas described by old words, but unless something new is added I don't really see much point.


The new thing being added is myself, and an being this thing everyone wants to call Satanism, only without the archetype or Satan. I seriously don't see what that upsets everyone so much, lol.
_________________________
#~9O3913~&
%~1N9131~!
$~3A1319~$

Top
#61535 - 11/17/11 06:27 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Diavolo]
Interrogist Offline
member


Registered: 11/12/11
Posts: 162
Well... I guess Ill shut up then,
_________________________
#~9O3913~&
%~1N9131~!
$~3A1319~$

Top
#61536 - 11/17/11 06:38 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Interrogist]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3753
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Originally Posted By: Interrogist


That, my friend, is one of the few areas in which we differ, so far as I know. I reject that the world just is what it is and can not be changed. Its not a must that you have a destination in mind, but its not impossible either.



The problem I see here is that there are two types of person..those that cut their own way, and those that follow;and the former is a needle in a haystack.Will to power is such that most of the former use this truth to their own ends, and the cold reality is that most of these have no sense of honour.

So you see, any vision people such as you or I might have for what would constitute a 'better way' will only ever appeal to those that see the world in a certain light, and we will never constitute a majority. The path is such that it separates individuals from nomos, but nomos can never be slain.

That's not to say I don't stand firmly against this orthodoxy but I do so by virtue of walking the path, not vice versa.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#61537 - 11/17/11 06:41 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Interrogist]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: Interrogist

The new thing being added is myself, and an being this thing everyone wants to call Satanism, only without the archetype or Satan. I seriously don't see what that upsets everyone so much, lol.


I don't think anyone is upset. Personally I was just attempting to entertain your ideas as you come recommended by folks I respect.

So, yesterday I asked this:

In one paragraph or less describe in concise terms how your methodologies and/or codifications are different than what is commonly accepted as Satanism (and when referring to Satanists, I'm talking about people who are serious and have a demonstrated understanding of LHP principles).

And have finally gotten my answer:
 Originally Posted By: Interrogist

The new thing being added is myself, and an being this thing everyone wants to call Satanism, only without the archetype or Satan.


Separate of what we choose to call it, it does appear that we are all on roughly the same (individual) path (to personal truth & acquired wisdom).

By the by, if you'd worded your first post as you worded the one I'm quoting I probably wouldn't have taken issue with you over it (so I'm glad you didn't).
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#61538 - 11/17/11 06:52 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Fnord]
Interrogist Offline
member


Registered: 11/12/11
Posts: 162
Indeed Fnord, I tend to gain more perspective when persons take issue with my ideology, so thank you.
_________________________
#~9O3913~&
%~1N9131~!
$~3A1319~$

Top
#61539 - 11/17/11 06:54 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Interrogist]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
^ We all do, sir. it's part of the process.
(sorry for the one-liner).
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
Page 3 of 23 <12345>Last »


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

Generated in 0.029 seconds of which 0.003 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.