Page 1 of 2 12>
Topic Options
#61838 - 11/25/11 11:11 PM Satan as Real
thedeadidea Offline
member


Registered: 08/15/10
Posts: 209
Often if you converse with someone with nothing to say in terms of Satanism they will run a party line.

"Satan is a force in nature", "Satan is a symbol or metaphor" ... Inquire further you might get "adversary." Where is the rest ? it's shakespearian because the rest is silence... I understand why people are hesitant to use the word 'real' and Satan. Together in the same sentences Venger, Blackwood and Venus with few exceptions theists are fucking retards. In the way we use that word theist for 99 % of the people we encounter.

But I would hold if Satan is simply a word salad there would be no point in my own identification my own name, opinion and worldview would suffice. Is there not a way as a fiction that is a superimposition and imputation on reality Satan is real for we have named and recognized it ?

A mountain differs not from the plain accept we see it obviously rise from the ground and recognize its obvious distinctness so name it thus. Is it not the same for Satan ? To an extent I respect this term being qualitative in terms of there is no empirical abstraction that will provide a quantitative relation.

But if the world is dog eat dog, life a struggle, the food chain, natural stratification, mortality, carnality, desire, Will, creativity and the Faustian ideal are all as natural in a suchness to the world as friction. I do not talk then in purely poetic truth such as of spirit, purpose or soul I describe the world as I do the day following the night. Simply in a more abstract way.

Even if you insist on Satan being fictive how powerful would you view the metaphor ? Milton intended his Paradise Lost to ursurp the bible in religious faith. It didn't literally but poetically it is the most quoted book ever written in the english language, used to extrapolate every corner of the human condition and history and is revered as more classic then most of the classics to the point of genius of the muse incarnate... At that point the fervor takes on something else.I am not asking you do you have faith in Satan a religion could be a series of axioms a piece of art transcendent but still human can also occur in the moors of just being human.

I view the Faustian ambition or deeming of value of your own mind and your own being creating and being the highest arbiter of value there is. But I also am aware that I have a worldview and when I look out into the world and see it as adversarial I realize that what I call Satan is larger then myself. Indeed for I might see the ocean as my body but it does not mean I am then immune from drowning.

Top
#61854 - 11/26/11 03:08 AM Re: Satan as Real [Re: thedeadidea]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3112
Satan is real as far as the interpretation of deeds with his name on are being committed.

The question you are posing here is about the same as the question of god, it will trigger more or less the same answers. Some will believe he is an actual creature, others will see it as a good force of nature etc etc.

But those are simply the personal interpretations of the word and mirror simply what a person beliefs in on personal level. Satan becomes real once out in the open field, once jumped into the abyss, into real life. Every act performed in his name, be it ritualistic or simply destructive (crazed christians commiting crimes saying he made them do it) is Satan in the sense that the external perceiving world, by use of media, has the possibility to label it as "Satanic" giving more or less credit towards actual existence.

It's for this reason that Satanism is to be experienced. It's all nice to discuss about what it is and what isn't, but the main fixation is getting it "out there". A person can start with any interpretation he wants, it is only trough progress (by experience) that the Satan becomes real.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#61859 - 11/26/11 06:38 AM Re: Satan as Real [Re: Dimitri]
thedeadidea Offline
member


Registered: 08/15/10
Posts: 209
I don't doubt that I create Satan in a sense but I do so as an artist I didn't dream this character up it existed prior to me it will exist after me. Satan as a collective entity I have always viewed as the artists deity in a sense for it was the poets and painters that gave him more form then authentic scripture.

The problem I have with this is in terms of abstraction there is a level to which this deity exists beyond a semantic form. Namely if you want to describe this adversity as a force in nature 'the lion eating the zebra' so to speak. This isn't a categorical assessment innately it is a conceptual form yes but like gravity has direct implications on your existence whether you are aware of the abstract or not.

Of course there are more qualitative parts to this discussion I wouldn't dispute that because simply there are parts I reject. But even the embodiment of a Faustian ideal I can reconcile taking that form from a social fabric which exists.

Top
#61902 - 11/27/11 06:21 AM Re: Satan as Real [Re: thedeadidea]
Jason King Offline
Banned/Martyrdom Denied
active member


Registered: 10/24/10
Posts: 731
Loc: 65?1%833Q!92A24 (It's a code)
 Originally Posted By: thedeadidea
But I also am aware that I have a worldview and when I look out into the world and see it as adversarial I realize that what I call Satan is larger then myself. Indeed for I might see the ocean as my body but it does not mean I am then immune from drowning.


This sounds slightly familiar, perhaps I've heard it before. And perhaps I wr . . .

Let me digress with a story (of sorts), and allow it to be that each will take this as they will . . .

When I stood at the throne of the Almighty, I queried as to my particular ignorance. I was met not with a thunderclap, not with an earthquake, but rather with a whisper (q.v. 1 Kings 19:11-13). And I was given two vergences, only one of which was familiar to me at the time: "Kali; Tezcatlipoca".

I get it now, and it is a "terrible vision". Undeniable and unpleasant in equal parts. What some have called the "dark night of the soul". And yet, the only possible Dawn lies in the matrix of the here and now. And at last I understood the meaning of that soft, praeternatural voice . . .

JK
_________________________



Top
#61906 - 11/27/11 08:59 AM Re: Satan as Real [Re: Jason King]
Bette Doom Offline
member


Registered: 06/18/11
Posts: 134
Loc: Virginia, USA
You mentioned Tezcatlipoca/Texcoco, and I had to bite. As a very young girl in Texas living in a both bilingual and somewhat intellectual environment, I was sometimes entertained with stories from the Aztecs and their neighbors, and the figure of the "smoking mirror over dark water" provided pretty endless fascination for me.

To this day I will contend that, despite the famed extremities and excesses of the Aztec Death Cult, the civilization of Tenochtitlan (now Mexico City) had a more sophisticated concept of what we refer to as "the adverserial" inherent in the natural world.

Getting back to ole' Tezcaptlipoca/Texcoco, one of his most intriguing epiphets essentially means "the enemy of/towards both sides..." sound like anyone we can think of? I won't go so far as to draw equivalencies between the Biblical concept of "Satan" and any the Gods of Aztlan simply because that system doesn't not lend itself to the same moralistic divergence of creative principles. There is, for instance, no "YHWH" equivalent that I can see, and I would not identify Tezcatlipoca as such.

Thank you for posting, Jason.


Edited by Bette Doom (11/27/11 09:18 AM)
_________________________
A man's character may be learned from the adjectives which he habitually uses in conversation.-Twain

Top
#61909 - 11/27/11 10:16 AM Re: Satan as Real [Re: Bette Doom]
thedeadidea Offline
member


Registered: 08/15/10
Posts: 209
@ Casper the frie..... I mean JK good to see you buddy. Yeah yeah the empirical thing I kinda got from you. But your book is a word soup in cryptograh font. Not only that if you just slap people in the face with jargon you invented (even if it actually has a fucking definition) they don't take to it like ducks to water.

With that said the gods might have been the first fiction, first concepts of the world beyond our social relations. But the nous has always been there in some kind of form thing is I am about as likely to think someone's specific experience in any form is necessarily the same as mine.

But from a cosmic perspective sure why not little differentiation.

@ Bette how is it better ? More what is it I am referring to as the adversarial in the natural world ?

Top
#61910 - 11/27/11 11:53 AM Re: Satan as Real [Re: thedeadidea]
Bette Doom Offline
member


Registered: 06/18/11
Posts: 134
Loc: Virginia, USA
How better? Well, my first instinct is to say that the typically European notion that mortality itself is the evidence/punishment/consequence of humanity's innate corruption is completely lacking in the Aztec worldview. As to the recognition that survival demands suffering and that Nature is not itself "hospitable" to Mankind, my point was that this is pretty much axiomatic according to that system. As a result of that belief, the society was structured after a manner that, as far as I know, is unique to that region and the indigenous people thereof. The catch is, everyone grew up knowing that for any number of reasons, they could be made the subject of public ritual slaughter. This produced a remarkable ambivalence regarding the fact of death itself and a sharply honed focus on practical activity and the accumulation of individual skill/honor/power while still alive.



Socrates himself was considered strange, wise, and possibly insane for identifying voluntary and intentional euthanasia as essential to the vitality and cohesion of a community. I know of no other civilization that accepted this with greater and more widespread application than the Aztecs.

By their own accounts, the traditional practice of large-scale public human sacrifice was quintessential to the functionality of their entire social and political structure. I mention this because, although the Empire was relatively small, it produced a shockingly high degree of technical development and ingenuity. When discovered by Europeans in the early 1500s, the Aztecs were found to have been following a heliocentric model for so long that an alternative shocked them. It is, to me anyway, well worth considering whether either punitive blood-sport or other widespread public death spectacles can, in fact, positively alter the behavior and attitides of a that society's other members.



Edited by Bette Doom (11/27/11 12:16 PM)
_________________________
A man's character may be learned from the adjectives which he habitually uses in conversation.-Twain

Top
#61934 - 11/27/11 05:30 PM Re: Satan as Real [Re: Bette Doom]
thedeadidea Offline
member


Registered: 08/15/10
Posts: 209
I thought of this some time ago the idea of being willing to die for the gods not because they were necessarily 'real' (how we think of real and by extension value) because as ideals they would represent a solidarity greater then any one man. I actually think this is one of seven possible solutions I could see of a social order that could facilitate the metaphysical tradition and promise Julius Evola sought.

As specifically for the culling you should be writing a type of propaganda. Of all the individual rights people have if they have not the right to take their own life then what is the functions of liberty do they actually have?

Top
#61951 - 11/28/11 07:07 AM Re: Satan as Real [Re: thedeadidea]
Jason King Offline
Banned/Martyrdom Denied
active member


Registered: 10/24/10
Posts: 731
Loc: 65?1%833Q!92A24 (It's a code)
 Originally Posted By: thedeadidea
But your book is a word soup in cryptograh font.


Word soup, word salad - fuck you, jack.

I challenge you to find me a single sentence in Postmodern Satanism which can be improved in either terminological economy or evocative power. Or both, for extra credit.

But yeah, always good to see you as well.

JK
_________________________



Top
#61958 - 11/28/11 10:16 AM Re: Satan as Real [Re: Jason King]
thedeadidea Offline
member


Registered: 08/15/10
Posts: 209
I'd have to go back and have a look... but the challenge seems kind of vague. Firstly I would say the communication economy of an entire work is more justified to look both at the minutia and entirety of the work. You could write prose as dense as Dostoevsky but if you repeated the same essential thing every page then the economy of communication would be inefficient. But defining that would also be hard enough given that you try to emphasize pluralism throughout the entire thing...

Also given that you literally wrote the book on the subject and coined the term post modern Satanism would be analyzing your own principle jargon without calling into question it's necessity.

Couple this with your 'evocative power' it would leave me in the realm of being a literary theorist/critic. Which whilst learning their jargon and theory of text is useful for principles of analysis. These are things I have no innate interest in being beyond a slightly more enriched reader.

I enjoyed your book and I dare say your entire slight on things more than most. But the wordsoup commentary comes more from the point of using your own jargon to communicate your point in common dialog without really unpacking it. Some of this might be intentional on your part as I remember explicitly asking you back in the old youtube days something to the effect of WTF is a dharmakaya and how the hell does that match up with Satanism.

You even alluded to it that you were being intentionally vague and wanted to be asked about it. I believed you and still do but one can also build a golden temple out of innuendo alone. Problem is if you want to beat about the bush in youtube, forums and things playing up the role of the trickster. If you are succeeding at it people should be criticizing you for being ambiguous to some form or degree or another.

Top
#61968 - 11/28/11 04:15 PM Re: Satan as Real [Re: Jason King]
Bette Doom Offline
member


Registered: 06/18/11
Posts: 134
Loc: Virginia, USA
 Originally Posted By: Jason King
 Originally Posted By: thedeadidea
But your book is a word soup in cryptograh font.



I challenge you to find me a single sentence in Postmodern Satanism which can be improved in either terminological economy or evocative power. Or both, for extra credit.


JK



Nothing about that seems remotely vague. You go through the book, and if you find any sentences that are either ungainly or poorly phrased, show how and why, and you get a cookie. Don't be such a punk, Dead;-)
_________________________
A man's character may be learned from the adjectives which he habitually uses in conversation.-Twain

Top
#61970 - 11/28/11 04:35 PM Re: Satan as Real [Re: Jason King]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Jason King
I challenge you to find me a single sentence in Postmodern Satanism which can be improved in either terminological economy or evocative power. Or both, for extra credit.


Since you asked:

 Originally Posted By: PMS
It becomes a transubstantiation of mythic relevance whereby individuated persona and transpersonal cosmos merge to exhibit a complex state of opposition to the divine tyranny glyphed by the deus otiosus known variously as God, Allah, YHWH, Jesus Christ, ha-Shem, Olodumare, Brahman, et al.


D.

Top
#62004 - 11/29/11 07:33 AM Re: Satan as Real [Re: Diavolo]
Jason King Offline
Banned/Martyrdom Denied
active member


Registered: 10/24/10
Posts: 731
Loc: 65?1%833Q!92A24 (It's a code)
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
Since you asked:

 Originally Posted By: PMS
It becomes a transubstantiation of mythic relevance whereby individuated persona and transpersonal cosmos merge to exhibit a complex state of opposition to the divine tyranny glyphed by the deus otiosus known variously as God, Allah, YHWH, Jesus Christ, ha-Shem, Olodumare, Brahman, et al.


D.



Ahh, yes, the infamous "Zach Black" sentence. But here's the deal - this was actually the perfect example to make my case. And I'll note, you attempted neither a reduction in words or a more evocative delivery.

Let's break it down phrasewise. . .

"a transubstantiation of mythic relevance"

"individuated persona and transpersonal cosmos"

"merge to exhibit"

"a complex state of opposition"

"the divine tyranny glyphed"

"the deus otiosus known variously [. . .]"

The thing is, each of these is perfectly economical with regards to preserving communicative power. Take "deus otiosus" for example. It is a technical term in the literature on comparative religion/mythos, and could not have been presented cheaply, or been as effective with added explanatory verbosity.

The same can be said for "transubstantiation of mythic relevance," which is both a double entendre aimed at ex-Catholics and also a completely compact delivery of the core idea. On this latter, see the immediately preceding context regarding the nature of self-identification as a Satanist.

Hey, look, I get it. I actually intended it (as TDI rightly recalled from a previous conversation of ours). This book was not written for everybody. Not even for every person who may decide to "throw up the horns" at a weak point in their life. It was written for The Next, and those who, when challenged, move forward emboldened by the Current. The sixth sentence makes this all clear, btw. "Keep it simple, stupid" may be a good motto when dealing with the Stupids, but they were never my intended audience . . .


JK
_________________________



Top
#62007 - 11/29/11 08:04 AM Re: Satan as Real [Re: Jason King]
thedeadidea Offline
member


Registered: 08/15/10
Posts: 209
Nothing wrong with keeping it simple but sometimes depending on the specific point one tries to make one needs to go to complexity. I could compare and contrast taste in writing but I'll do that when I have a book of my own to do it with. Which at current is not the case, simplicity and complexity naturally lead one to another often anyway. Postmodern Satanism (PMS)in a nutshell is quite simple. But there is a saying a philosophy that can be fit in a nutshell belongs in one.

From first principles PMS is simple enough but the expansion of it leads to an immense complexity. It is like chess you could learn the rules and piece moves in an hour but spend a lifetime trying to master it. I could also say the same for other forms of Satanism as well.

The one thing I think PMS has tried to do more then any other however is develop a dialectical concern for the epistemological and ontological status of Satan. Whether people view this of value or not I couldn't be bothered to meander through pages of sophistry to find out or really care. I liked it and deemed it valuable and that is good enough for me.

TDI


Edited by thedeadidea (11/29/11 08:05 AM)

Top
#62016 - 11/29/11 12:17 PM Re: Satan as Real [Re: Jason King]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Jason King
Ahh, yes, the infamous "Zach Black" sentence. But here's the deal - this was actually the perfect example to make my case. And I'll note, you attempted neither a reduction in words or a more evocative delivery...

Hey, look, I get it. I actually intended it (as TDI rightly recalled from a previous conversation of ours). This book was not written for everybody. Not even for every person who may decide to "throw up the horns" at a weak point in their life. It was written for The Next, and those who, when challenged, move forward emboldened by the Current. The sixth sentence makes this all clear, btw. "Keep it simple, stupid" may be a good motto when dealing with the Stupids, but they were never my intended audience . . .


JK


Actually, and I'm being very bold I know, but deus otiosus is wrong here. In their context deus revelatus is much more appropriate considering the fact those divine fuckers didn't really sit back and took a nap. In Brahman's case it might differ but even there I'd more go for a deus absconditus.

Btw, the argument that the book is written for the "brainies" is good but doesn't really change the fact that this sentence is a bit wordsoup. I'm not going to go into everything but individuated persona? Isn't that a bit like mechanized robots?

Edit; just wanted to add I liked the book, as I said in the past, but I just couldn't resist trying to earn those credits. ;\)

D.


Edited by Diavolo (11/29/11 12:34 PM)

Top
Page 1 of 2 12>


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

Generated in 0.028 seconds of which 0.001 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.