Page 4 of 23 « First<23456>Last »
Topic Options
#61540 - 11/17/11 06:57 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Dan_Dread]
Interrogist Offline
member


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



Thats fair enough.
_________________________
#~9O3913~&
%~1N9131~!
$~3A1319~$

Top
#61555 - 11/18/11 04:02 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Interrogist]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Interrogist
Well... I guess Ill shut up then,



Hmm, did I say something offensive?

What I'm trying to say is that if form is a tool, we'll use exactly the form needed that gets the job done. Any feelings we have regarding any of these forms is an issue we have to work at because it implies we attribute more importance to them than needed.

Tools are tools. Form is form.

D.

Top
#61560 - 11/18/11 07:48 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Diavolo]
Interrogist Offline
member


Registered: 11/12/11
Posts: 162
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
 Originally Posted By: Interrogist
Well... I guess Ill shut up then,



Hmm, did I say something offensive?

What I'm trying to say is that if form is a tool, we'll use exactly the form needed that gets the job done. Any feelings we have regarding any of these forms is an issue we have to work at because it implies we attribute more importance to them than needed.

Tools are tools. Form is form.

D.


No, I am not offended whatsoever, Its just becoming apparent that what we are referring to as form is not the same concept necessarily. Its not feeling I need to sort out so much as linguistics. Sorry if I gave you the wrong impression D.
_________________________
#~9O3913~&
%~1N9131~!
$~3A1319~$

Top
#61565 - 11/18/11 11:33 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Interrogist]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
It's indeed possible we're both talking about something different.

What I consider form is the framework a message is delivered in.

D.

Top
#61567 - 11/18/11 12:13 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3752
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Indeed, form is the framework, the substance is what fills it out.

Think of it like ice sculptures which can be shaped to appeal to any aesthetic..yet each is still just water.

If you want to deliver a message of autonomy and resistance,(the water) you shape it so it has appeal to a given audience. Satanism, Anonymous, Anarchism, even unpopular and comparatively extreme political groups, sculptures that can be crafted from this particular 'water'.

In this light, there is little use in throwing the bathwater out with the baby. ;\)
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#61569 - 11/18/11 04:34 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Dan_Dread]
Interrogist Offline
member


Registered: 11/12/11
Posts: 162
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
It's indeed possible we're both talking about something different.

What I consider form is the framework a message is delivered in.

D.


 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
Indeed, form is the framework, the substance is what fills it out.

Think of it like ice sculptures which can be shaped to appeal to any aesthetic..yet each is still just water.

If you want to deliver a message of autonomy and resistance,(the water) you shape it so it has appeal to a given audience. Satanism, Anonymous, Anarchism, even unpopular and comparatively extreme political groups, sculptures that can be crafted from this particular 'water'.

In this light, there is little use in throwing the bath water out with the baby. ;\)


What I was (perhaps, not so directly) addressing is the case in which one becomes bound by the "beliefs and customs" of a particular form, as if to say that one is in no way a good Satanist, once Satanism becomes a dogma rather than a toolset. Likewise, this happens with any such system of belief, when one becomes bound by the tools rather than using the tools for personal reasons (outside of) that system. Perhaps abstraction would have cleared up my statements for you all. I have seen many make the statement (caught in the outer Form), thus, it is that context in which I used the term Form. I do apologize for the misunderstanding.


Edited by Interrogist (11/18/11 04:35 PM)
_________________________
#~9O3913~&
%~1N9131~!
$~3A1319~$

Top
#61570 - 11/18/11 04:39 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Interrogist]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3752
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Yes, many conflate form with substance, in fact to do so is inherent to almost every religion on earth.

But this is to say nothing of the value of any given form, taken on its own.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#61571 - 11/18/11 04:58 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
No disagreement there; often the form is mistaken for the essence but I'm of the opinion that when the essence can't shift forms, it isn't of any value at all.

Another problem is when form gains too much important, the essence becomes lost between all those trivialities and as such, the form grows quite ineffective as a means of communicating this very essence.

I personally prefer simplicity. The less you need to explain when you're explaining something, the more effective it is.

To give a current example; luciferianism as promoted by some. Whenever they explain what it is about, you're flooded with "special" words and definitions which first have to be explained on their own resulting in a linguistic maze where no longer any clear essence is discovered.

D.

Top
#61572 - 11/18/11 05:11 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Diavolo]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
Agreed and exactly why I requested a paragraph earlier in the thread.

The more convoluted (wordy, overly complicated) something is, the more likely it is to have flaws.

This whole business is really about paring everything down to its bare essence and then evaluating for truth.

It's the hard road.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#61574 - 11/18/11 05:58 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Fnord]
MindFux Offline
member


Registered: 12/27/10
Posts: 172
What I've taken from this is that Darryl doesn't like term Satanist and so has taken the essence and stuck his own form around it which critically works for him in terms of its applicability to how he thinks.

I've also taken from this that had he just called it Satanism it wouldn't have required 4 pages of explanation to land at this point and everyone would have already known exactly what was being referred to.

So it would seem that it is revealed that the label 'Satanist' is still the shortest path to the goal line in terms of quickly representing the current and making it apprehend-able, causally speaking.

MF.

Top
#61577 - 11/18/11 06:46 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: MindFux]
Interrogist Offline
member


Registered: 11/12/11
Posts: 162
 Originally Posted By: MindFux
What I've taken from this is that Darryl doesn't like term Satanist and so has taken the essence and stuck his own form around it which critically works for him in terms of its applicability to how he thinks.

I've also taken from this that had he just called it Satanism it wouldn't have required 4 pages of explanation to land at this point and everyone would have already known exactly what was being referred to.

So it would seem that it is revealed that the label 'Satanist' is still the shortest path to the goal line in terms of quickly representing the current and making it apprehend-able, causally speaking.

MF.


I agree and disagree MF, as one could well call me a Satanist, but Satanist only describes parts of who I am, while Interrogist describes (in time will describe) all of who I am. Ill meet you in the middle and say that Interrogist could be thought of as a verity of Satanist, or perhaps a Satanic method. Either way, just keep in mind that I have no use for deities, or archetypes, an that includes the devils too. I am fiercely atheistic in my thoughts and methods, to the point that I even bump heads with Satanist who hold dear to the term. Its just what I am. As D has said, its a word that you guys use, so I use it to communicate easily with you guys, while I personally have no respect for the concept. If that concept represents the nature of man, then fucking call it (Man). The fact that everyone is hung up on the Satan word, simply is not my issue. I'm settled in for 40 pages. That's just my (Interrogist) style.
_________________________
#~9O3913~&
%~1N9131~!
$~3A1319~$

Top
#61579 - 11/18/11 09:21 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Interrogist]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3752
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Originally Posted By: Darryl
but Satanist only describes parts of who I am, while Interrogist describes (in time will describe) all of who I am.

I find this statement perplexing. You speak against those that would conflate form with substance, yet work towards turning your essence, in totality, into a form?

Personally I don't think it would be possible to fully describe my numinous, carnal essence in any one context, which brings me to:

 Quote:

If that concept represents the nature of man, then fucking call it (Man).

It doesn't, though. Maybe to the glommers on that have no real idea as to what the LHP is about, but not to the few that get it.

Satan is simply the contemporarilly relevant incarnation of heterodox tradition, a categorization for a certain type of action and the ideas that compel one to act. Satanism isn't something you are, but something you do.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#61581 - 11/18/11 10:38 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Dan_Dread]
Interrogist Offline
member


Registered: 11/12/11
Posts: 162
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
I find this statement perplexing. You speak against those that would conflate form with substance, yet work towards turning your essence, in totality, into a form?

Personally I don't think it would be possible to fully describe my numinous, carnal essence in any one context, which brings me to:


No man, that's just it. If anything I am doing everything in my power to reject the solidifying of a form, at least a permanent form. How is it that you think I am advocating a form. Im addressing that the essence is not dependent on the form, and may change form, while maintaining the unchanging essence.

If you agree that you could not possibly describe the numinous, carnal essence that is You, in any one context, you have to ask yourself why it is that you hold the Satanic context so dear. Personally, I think you realize what Im saying, you have just had that Satanic form for so long, you see no need to take it off.

 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread

It doesn't, though. Maybe to the glommers on that have no real idea as to what the LHP is about, but not to the few that get it.

Satan is simply the contemporarilly relevant incarnation of heterodox tradition, a categorization for a certain type of action and the ideas that compel one to act. Satanism isn't something you are, but something you do.


Dan we are still on the same page here, and I acknowledge fully what is being implied. What is being implied (so far as I am concerned) is the path, methods, and ideas held by those few that cause them to strive to become more, to know more. In the end, regardless of how far you take that path, you are still a man. We agree on what is taking place, and only disagree on how to represent that action, that (doing), as the man is a man is a man.

I simply do not choose to call it a Satanic path. I call it an Interrogistic path, as a man can interrogate, but a man cant Satan. Satan is a concept, whereas interrogation IS an action, a (doing). You cant do a concept, you can do an action. Anyway, Im not asking anyone else to adopt my terminology, so much as Im telling everyone that Im Not going to use their own. This is my path, not everyone else path.

That which I call the Fire reviled to me that it is in NO way necessary to maintain that Satan concept, in order to proceed along the path, thus it is an option, and I have discarded it. If you see me calling myself a Satanist, do keep in mind that I am up to something. While I am open to any opinions offered, I see no reason for us to dwell on the issue, as no one here seems willing to budge whatsoever, myself included.

The path can be navigated without the permanent adoption of gods, goddesses, deities, or archetypes, and that is what I aim to do.
_________________________
#~9O3913~&
%~1N9131~!
$~3A1319~$

Top
#61587 - 11/19/11 11:26 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Interrogist]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Interrogist
No man, that's just it. If anything I am doing everything in my power to reject the solidifying of a form, at least a permanent form. How is it that you think I am advocating a form. Im addressing that the essence is not dependent on the form, and may change form, while maintaining the unchanging essence.

If you agree that you could not possibly describe the numinous, carnal essence that is You, in any one context, you have to ask yourself why it is that you hold the Satanic context so dear. Personally, I think you realize what Im saying, you have just had that Satanic form for so long, you see no need to take it off.


The "Interrogist" framework with its symbolry and definitions are clearly a form Darryl. A part of the reason you use it, and this isn't intended as much as criticism as it being an observation, is ego. I haven't got a problem with it but it shows that not only what is said is important but how and who said it are important too. Why else would there be a need to create a different framework with definitions which require additional explanation?

You should not confuse the use of the satanic form with being stuck in it. It is simply practical and efficient when conversing in a satanic environment.

D.

Top
#61603 - 11/19/11 07:04 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Diavolo]
Interrogist Offline
member


Registered: 11/12/11
Posts: 162
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
The "Interrogist" framework with its symbolry and definitions are clearly a form Darryl. A part of the reason you use it, and this isn't intended as much as criticism as it being an observation, is ego.


The "Interrogist" framework with its symbolry and definitions represent the construction of my personal rejection of the idea of adhering to a preexisting framework of another, and I thought that would be obvious. Is it based on my ego somewhat? Fuck yeah it is, but its My ego, and not that another. I never thought I would be told by a Satanist that judgement was wrong, but it happened on SIN, and now, am I to understand that on the Club, Ill be told that ego is wrong too? Wtf D, please explain that to me in greater depth. If judgement, ego, and forging ones own way, is not Satanic, then I certainly am not a Satanist by any stretch of the word.

 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
I haven't got a problem with it but it shows that not only what is said is important but how and who said it are important too.


What is said, represents me, How it is said, I determine, and its said by me, and for me. I dont see the issue.

 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
Why else would there be a need to create a different framework with definitions which require additional explanation?


Because Im not going to assume a prefabricated framework, and then fool myself in to thinking that Im being an individual opposed to assuming prefabricated frameworks...

 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
You should not confuse the use of the satanic form with being stuck in it. It is simply practical and efficient when conversing in a satanic environment.

D.


Well D... I hope you know that I have a great deal of respect for you, and I welcome you to school me at any time, and I mean that.

However, as far as I can tell, Satanism is completely socially acceptable, and poses no threat whatsoever to the mundane society. The governments of the world are aware of it, and no laws set out to restrict it. They laugh at it, and at best read books about it. Now since when the fuck was the LHP walk, so fucking cuddly and acceptable. I want people to know that Id kill their children, rape their gods, then eat the family dog... Satanism simply does not imply that to the public anymore. Thus pertaining to practicality, Satanism does not serve my needs symbolically, whereas the Interrogistic methodology does.
_________________________
#~9O3913~&
%~1N9131~!
$~3A1319~$

Top
Page 4 of 23 « First<23456>Last »


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

Generated in 0.029 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.