Page 12 of 23 « First<1011121314>Last »
Topic Options
#61807 - 11/25/11 11:23 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Khk]
thedeadidea Offline
member


Registered: 08/15/10
Posts: 209
The temple of THEM is a distinct shade of the O.N.A. to be honest I like the software metaphors Mindfux unpacked versions 1,2 &3 to differentiate his own schtick. But the very fragrence of what is ONA and what is not is about the same as what is Satanism and what is not.

Bar a few obvious examples blackwood, mabon and the like there are few which I would characterize as a universal example of meaning or definition. Though there might be a few common abstract denominators both in what exists beyond words and what exists in the specific character which can be transmitted Satanism manifests as a pluralism best understood as a loosely connected cabal of freethinking individuals.

One might want to bare the zen koan in mind "If you travel along a road and happen upon the buddha, kill him." The point at which Satanism and by extension the ONA is treated like a golden cow is the point it loses all meaning and value rather becoming another bubble that must be popped to reach true autonomy rather then vitalizing or crystallizing autonomy. It becomes the hammer to the self rather then the hammer with which to build something with your own two hands.

Too say these things mean anything is foolish but to lay claim to an esoteric tradition via semantics seems folly.

I personally like these two articles for the point to be explicitly explained.

http://onanxs.wordpress.com/about-on/
http://onanxs.wordpress.com/what-satanism-is/joining-the-order/

Top
#61808 - 11/25/11 11:28 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Khk]
Apeynon Offline
stranger


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

Which words of yours don't really deal with my riposte to your claim that anyone - from Blackwood to Venger - could rightly claim to be ONA, and which refuted your statement that "We just can't know or judge others representation of ONA."

Yes, we can know and judge them by virtue of what the ONA is and isn't.

Top
#61809 - 11/25/11 11:31 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: thedeadidea]
thedeadidea Offline
member


Registered: 08/15/10
Posts: 209
venger and blackwood really ?

Edited by thedeadidea (11/25/11 11:33 AM)

Top
#61810 - 11/25/11 11:36 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: thedeadidea]
thedeadidea Offline
member


Registered: 08/15/10
Posts: 209
At the point where venger and blackwood enter the discussion for O.N.A. Derrida raped every nexicon all day and all night long without lube.
Top
#61811 - 11/25/11 12:13 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Apeynon]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
+O+ @ Apeynon - I see. I'm not trying to avoid any question answering. But who are you to decide who is ONA?

You think they're not ONA? Didn't you just say that the Praxis allows everything and anything - but the Kulture doesn't? So if they aren't in the Kulture, they may still [blindly, foolishly or ineptly] following the praxis in their [misguided] belief that they think it is their right to do it however they like - if not, then they are letting someone else tell them how to do it and give them marks when they get an A or detention when they get a D.
I think that the explanation by ONA of what is a unique journey extends far abroad enough to allow Anyone and Anything to be ONA. At least- it used to.
I respect your decision not to engage in a practical exercise that would prove essence cannot be understood without abstraction. +O+

+O+ How about you Interrogist - you seem to have your shit together on abstraction - Anyone, really - what is the object I am holding up to the screen? *taps it again*. Let's set aside all the intellectual semantics for a moment where no-one seems to agree - and try to utilize an actual practical exercise based on what I have learned from my praxis and practical exploration within the ONA, as regards the nature of Form, Abstraction [lets call it X], and Perception. +O+


Edited by Khk (11/25/11 12:14 PM)

Top
#61812 - 11/25/11 12:47 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Khk]
Apeynon Offline
stranger


Registered: 11/04/11
Posts: 40
Loc: In Your Bedroom Pillow
 Originally Posted By: Khk
But who are you to decide who is ONA?

It's not me deciding - it's the nature of the beast. Which begs the questions - what is the ONA? What does being ONA mean?

Well, so far as I know, it does mean certain things. Specific things. Above all - doing specific amoral stuff, and learning from the doing. Being exeatic, blah blah

It doesn't mean that you just sit on your arse and, like Blackwood and Venger - make claims, give yourself some stupid title and, worst of all, talk about being good citizens, bow down to the tyranny of states, pontificate about morality and how breaking laws and 'terrorism' and 'hate' are wrong.

 Originally Posted By: Khk
Anyone, really - what is the object I am holding up to the screen?

An abstraction...
No wait, it's one empty hand holding an empty abstraction making a sound I can't hear.

Top
#61813 - 11/25/11 12:57 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Khk]
Apeynon Offline
stranger


Registered: 11/04/11
Posts: 40
Loc: In Your Bedroom Pillow
 Originally Posted By: Khk
So what is the object? I can't define anything let alone precisely without using more abstraction.

You can explain what you mean when you use the term abstraction, and how this differs from the definition of abstraction in, say, A Glossary of Some ONA Terms.

Personally, I do think it's possible, and necessary, to explain and define the term abstraction independent of other abstractions. By reference, like I said, to what is not an abstraction - i.e. a living human being, and the experiences of such a human being. Their recorded explanations, aural and written, which hint at what's beyond language; and the methods or techniques they may devise to help other experience what they have and thus 'know' as they do. Methods like the star game, e.g.

Just claiming that the ONA is an abstraction - and that niners blah blah are abstractions - without explaining your use of the term isn't much of an argument, is it? Same with your use of the term 'forms'.

Not even if you're saying - as you appear to be - that language always implies abstractions, since without explaining 'abstractions' the statement doesn't mean very much.

Likewise, your statement that -

 Originally Posted By: Khk
the a-causal is also an abstraction

doesn't mean much without explaining what you mean by abstraction, and how your meaning differs from, say, that of Long/Myatt.

Surely saying something like "the ONA is one temporal fallible presencing that uses causal forms and a sinister praxis to incite and inspire some people to discover the illusion of abstractions and opposites, and can be improved upon" is better than just saying "the ONA is itself an abstraction, a religion..." ;\)

When you state -

 Originally Posted By: Khk
proving that you can perceive without an abstraction

You seem to be implying that human perception is tied to what you term 'abstraction'.

So, for the sake of argument, let's assume that by abstraction you mean --> a word, and which word has or is assumed to have some opposite.

There are several flaws in assuming perception implies abstraction, in my view. First, what do you mean by 'perception'? Second, what do you mean by 'knowing'?

For instance, are you basing this 'knowing' on the perception of the senses, as per Aristotle? Let's make another assumption, and say you are.

Here's the rub, and the crux of the ONA point of view. That type of 'knowing' is just causal knowing. There is another type of knowing - acausal knowing - which faculties like empathy, and some Occult methods like the star game and esoteric chant, present to us, make available to us, and which don't require your assumed abstractions or words or language to denote them. For the denoting is in the experience, the living, the doing.

Like Anton Long said somewhere - both esoteric chant and the star game are types of esoteric language. Which give us such acausal knowing. There are other types of esoteric language, like that between empaths, between a rounwytha or three.

Other types should be developed.

 Originally Posted By: Khk
I'm not criticizing the ONA for having flaws

It has flaws. It should be criticized. Revised. Changed. Developed. Used adversarily to develop other ways, other systems.

 Originally Posted By: Khk
Well I'm working on your star game -

Mine??
 Originally Posted By: Khk
- 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.


Agreed! Which just seems to confirm that like I said "we've talking the same talk" but seem to be using the same terms in slightly different ways.

 Originally Posted By: Khk
Is it important to get somewhere?

Sometimes, for some people. But it's more a question, for me, now, of whether I can be bothered or not - whether I want to try to continue to explain. Nothing personal, by the way.

Top
#61815 - 11/25/11 01:39 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Apeynon]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
 Originally Posted By: Apeynon
[quote=Khk]So what is the object? I can't define anything let alone precisely without using more abstraction.

You can explain what you mean when you use the term abstraction, and how this differs from the definition of abstraction in, say, A Glossary of Some ONA Terms.

+O+ Not without using more of what I call abstractions and hopelessly obscuring the essence. So I am trying to show you - but you do not even want to try the exercise - why not - it's new, strange, an unusual method opposed to a mountain of words- but give it a go - you might learn something. +O+

Personally, I do think it's possible, and necessary, to explain and define the term abstraction independent of other abstractions. By reference, like I said, to what is not an abstraction - i.e. a living human being, and the experiences of such a human being. Their recorded explanations, aural and written, which hint at what's beyond language; and the methods or techniques they may devise to help other experience what they have and thus 'know' as they do. Methods like the star game, e.g.

+O+ I've mastered the Star Game. It's probably responsible for my abstract-based insight. +O+

Just claiming that the ONA is an abstraction - and that niners blah blah are abstractions - without explaining your use of the term isn't much of an argument, is it? Same with your use of the term 'forms'.

+O+ Some things cannot be explained - so again, you tell me what the object I am holding is - or tell me if you can't - and I will tell you why - thus illustrating my point through a practical, undebatable, objective example rather than confusing the issue with any kind of definition and skipping straight to the nuts of the matter. +O+

Not even if you're saying - as you appear to be - that language always implies abstractions, since without explaining 'abstractions' the statement doesn't mean very much.

+O+ Can you only understand in forms? through words? via the intellectual constructions of abstraction? You should try the Star Game. +O+

Likewise, your statement that -

 Originally Posted By: Khk
the a-causal is also an abstraction

doesn't mean much without explaining what you mean by abstraction, and how your meaning differs from, say, that of Long/Myatt.

+O+ Well just because Myatt writes about it - doesn't mean I understand what he is talking about. Whereas, if you can tell me the object I am holding - you can prove that perception of a real, living form is possible without requiring an abstraction to 'know' it. +O+

Surely saying something like "the ONA is one temporal fallible presencing that uses causal forms and a sinister praxis to incite and inspire some people to discover the illusion of abstractions and opposites, and can be improved upon" is better than just saying "the ONA is itself an abstraction, a religion..." ;\)

+O+ Oh I've said all that shit throughout the decade - read my books - but here is a chance for you to experience the actual transaction of abstraction to essence and you're passing it up. I have sore hands from all the writing and back-flips and insane mental gymnastics - read my books that s in there too, along with the hundreds of manuscripts I've written that go to great lengths to break down such things ad infinitum - but nothing says it better than practical experience. An experience, I can engage you in to practically and definitively prove my point beyond doubt. +O+

When you state -

 Originally Posted By: Khk
proving that you can perceive without an abstraction

You seem to be implying that human perception is tied to what you term 'abstraction'.

+O+ Yeah it is. +O+

So, for the sake of argument, let's assume that by abstraction you mean --> a word, and which word has or is assumed to have some opposite.

+O+ OK - +O+

There are several flaws in assuming perception implies abstraction, in my view. First, what do you mean by 'perception'? Second, what do you mean by 'knowing'?

+O+ Take the exercise and we will avoid any confusion about who is right, and who is quite quite wrong. +O+

For instance, are you basing this 'knowing' on the perception of the senses, as per Aristotle? Let's make another assumption, and say you are.

+O+ Ah, going transient? Whatever you want to call it - the exercise works to illustrate that unless you name it - it does not exist for you - even as it exists for me. I know what it is - but you can't - because you need me to abstract it for you so it exists for you to. +O+

Here's the rub, and the crux of the ONA point of view. That type of 'knowing' is just causal knowing.

+O+ And that type of description is just one more abstraction. +O+

There is another type of knowing - acausal knowing - which faculties like empathy, and some Occult methods like the star game and esoteric chant, present to us, make available to us, and which don't require your assumed abstractions or words or language to denote them. For the denoting is in the experience, the living, the doing.

+O+ Yeah I've already agreed with you on this - several times. +O+

Like Anton Long said somewhere - both esoteric chant and the star game are types of esoteric language. Which give us such acausal knowing. There are other types of esoteric language, like that between empaths, between a rounwytha or three.

+O+ Yep that's all well and good. +O+

Other types should be developed.

+O+ If they can +O+

 Originally Posted By: Khk
I'm not criticizing the ONA for having flaws

It has flaws. It should be criticized. Revised. Changed. Developed. Used adversarily to develop other ways, other systems.

+O+ Oh shit yeah it has flaws - read my books, lol, but because it has to use the same system as everything / everyone else. And those flaws occur thanks to abstractions not being able to reflect the essence. +O+


 Originally Posted By: Khk
Well I'm working on your star game -

Mine??

+O+ ONA's. +O+

 Originally Posted By: Khk
- 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.


Agreed! Which just seems to confirm that like I said "we've talking the same talk" but seem to be using the same terms in slightly different ways.

+O+ Yes but you're not seeming to want to take the exercise even to prove me wrong so I can't speak any other language with you if you won't try. +O+

 Originally Posted By: Khk
Is it important to get somewhere?


Sometimes, for some people. But it's more a question, for me, now, of whether I can be bothered or not - whether I want to try to continue to explain. Nothing personal, by the way.

+O+ No of course not - but you should know that not everything can or should be explained and sometimes you have to just DO. So what is the object? +O+

Top
#61817 - 11/25/11 01:49 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Apeynon]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
 Originally Posted By: Apeynon
[quote=Khk] But who are you to decide who is ONA?

It's not me deciding - it's the nature of the beast.

+O+ My beast says they [could] that is, the potential exists, for them to be ONA. Not good examples - maybe slow starters - life's a long process - we don't start out geniuses with a superior grasp of the ONA's praxis and we have to break a lot of eggs before we can make the omelette. Some people just can't cook the eggs well but it doesn't mean they're not cooks. - so I still don't see how those boys are excluded from the praxis even if they choose to do it their own way, and even if that way is terribly lazy or just plain terrible [which it is], sure I see and know why they are excluded from the kulture, but its really an ecumenical matter. +O+

Which begs the questions - what is the ONA? What does being ONA mean?

+O+ I dunno its just an abstract term for something else isn't it? Means what I need it to mean - its an abstract. +O+

Well, so far as I know, it does mean certain things. Specific things. Above all - doing specific amoral stuff, and learning from the doing. Being exeatic, blah blah

+O+ Right - so go ahead and tell me what the object is and learn from doing. +O+

It doesn't mean that you just sit on your arse and, like Blackwood and Venger - make claims, give yourself some stupid title and, worst of all, talk about being good citizens, bow down to the tyranny of states, pontificate about morality and how breaking laws and 'terrorism' and 'hate' are wrong.

+O+ Well if the Praxis is infinite, yeah, it does - if the kulture won't accept them that's an entirely different matter. The point is, there exists the possibility that the form portrayed does not exhibit the essence beneath - and so we judge from appearances [albeit lots of appearances] but they may still be following the praxis and call themselves ONA. YOu may not want them to be associated with the ONA - but that's not for us to decide unless we are a religious institute. +O+

 Originally Posted By: Khk
Anyone, really - what is the object I am holding up to the screen?


An abstraction...
No wait, it's one empty hand holding an empty abstraction making a sound I can't hear.

+O+ Well about time. So why don't you know what it is? +O+

Top
#61818 - 11/25/11 02:17 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Khk]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Khk
+O+ My beast says they [could] that is, the potential exists, for them to be ONA. Not good examples - maybe slow starters - life's a long process - we don't start out geniuses with a superior grasp of the ONA's praxis and we have to break a lot of eggs before we can make the omelette. Some people just can't cook the eggs well but it doesn't mean they're not cooks. - so I still don't see how those boys are excluded from the praxis even if they choose to do it their own way, and even if that way is terribly lazy or just plain terrible [which it is], sure I see and know why they are excluded from the kulture, but its really an ecumenical matter. +O+


No offense K but I think you're being too optimistic here. Not everyone is cut out to be everything. Sure we all start out as raw material but when chipping away the dross, not all metal inside will have the same quality. That's just how things are.

Sure we could lower our expectations and consider anything as a step into the right direction but what is more important to notice is all those steps into the wrong direction.

D.

Top
#61819 - 11/25/11 02:30 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Diavolo]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
[quote=Khk]+O+ My beast says they [could] that is, the potential exists, for them to be ONA. Not good examples - maybe slow starters - life's a long process - we don't start out geniuses with a superior grasp of the ONA's praxis and we have to break a lot of eggs before we can make the omelette. Some people just can't cook the eggs well but it doesn't mean they're not cooks. - so I still don't see how those boys are excluded from the praxis even if they choose to do it their own way, and even if that way is terribly lazy or just plain terrible [which it is], sure I see and know why they are excluded from the kulture, but its really an ecumenical matter. +O+


No offense K but I think you're being too optimistic here. Not everyone is cut out to be everything. Sure we all start out as raw material but when chipping away the dross, not all metal inside will have the same quality. That's just how things are.

+O+ Morning - no offense taken - the matter is not with the quality of them its with the definition of praxis as including anything at all - i.e. an infinite array - everything from Honour to Paedophilia it seems is permissible - but not these two? I don't get it. +O+

Sure we could lower our expectations and consider anything as a step into the right direction but what is more important to notice is all those steps into the wrong direction.

+O+ I agree - they're both clowns, embarassing examples of how to use the praxis - but IF the praxis is infinite and can embody everything and anyone at any stage, no matter how slowly they progress - and certainly Naos and Hostia and even some recent manuscripts intimated and even detailed this: there's no debate. +O+

D.

Top
#61820 - 11/25/11 02:31 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
+O+ Do you know what the object is, Diavolo? +O+
Top
#61821 - 11/25/11 02:49 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Khk]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Khk
+O+ Do you know what the object is, Diavolo? +O+


Yeah and I wouldn't mind if you'd put it back into your pants.

D.

Top
#61822 - 11/25/11 02:55 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Khk]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Khk
+O+ Morning - no offense taken - the matter is not with the quality of them its with the definition of praxis as including anything at all - i.e. an infinite array - everything from Honour to Paedophilia it seems is permissible - but not these two? I don't get it. +O+


When undefined, praxis can indeed be about everything but what worth has praxis when not consciously applied in order to gain something specific? I could consider everything I daily do as praxis but honestly, most of it is just me doing shit without any specific purpose in mind.

D.

Top
#61823 - 11/25/11 04:52 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Interrogist Offline
member


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


No, That is simply Logical Praxis in action. If it makes one feel better to state it (THAT WAY), then good for them, however, "Satan" is just a word, a concept, an abstract idea, that some persons feels represents those ideas they hold dear. Be that as it may. Praxis itself is not bound to that conceptual terminology, it is not measured by that satanic standard, (outside of the individual), and it is bound to the methods of those individuals, so as to qualify as being a (proper) Praxis, whatsoever. That's the 'Satanism' illusion. And everyone is accusing (me?) of just lumping everyone together? Please...

Praxis is the process by which a theory, lesson, or skill is enacted, practiced, embodied, or realized. "Praxis" may also refer to the act of engaging, applying, exercising, realizing, or practicing ideas. This has been a recurrent topic in the field of philosophy, discussed in the writings of Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine, Immanuel Kant, SÝren Kierkegaard, Karl Marx, Martin Heidegger, Hannah Arendt, Paulo Freire, and many others. It has meaning in political, educational, and spiritual realms. Wiki.

Now Iím not necessarily insisting that you have done so, though, I fell that it may be worth stating that, it is not logical to assume Satanism and Praxis as existing in the fashion of being mutually exclusive or jointly exhaustive. In this case "Satan" is hardly more than a fashion, a theory, a (personal) representation of what is ultimately nothing more than ones personal Praxis, as represents their personal standards and world view.

Now that addresses the over all scale of Praxis in question, and questions what portion of it is indeed covered by the 'Satanism' concept? It also paints an more accurate picture of the reason that I am here, if I do not identify as a 'Satanist', as on that philosophical, and over all, scale of Praxis, I admit a great deal of overlap, while also addressing those areas where I personally cover the scale, which 'Satanist' hardly even touch whatsoever. Thus my title makes no attempt to redefine 'Satanism' so much as it aims to define myself, and my personal standards as listed -are being listed- according to Interrogistic Methodologies, of which this is only one.

A rose by any other name would be as hypocritical, my good man. So, for Satanist to assume that they might go about redefining Praxis so as to define themselves, while at the same time mocking my new terminologies which actually represent a different set of values and (standards within) is, well..., fucking laughable, lol. But hey, Iím just o9a3o noob, so what would I know? ;\)

 Originally Posted By: SkaffenAmtiskaw
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.


If one assumes a title that does not represent their standards, because its the common status quo, that is by its very definition, conformity. If one sets aside their personal standards and replaces them with the standards offered to them by the status quo, that is by it very definition, adherence to a dogma. You continue to write me of as a Satanist crying out for special attention, where as in reality, I have some (overlap) with Satanist, and otherwise, entirely different standards than the (common) Satanist, thus I do not use the term Satanist to represent my person, as would be foolish.

 Originally Posted By: SkaffenAmtiskaw
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.


I welcome all the criticism you guys have to offer, and I will continue to laugh at the absurd notion that some of you project, in which I am ignorant so long as I do not see things just exactly as you see them, and equate being correct to agreement with your ideals.

 Originally Posted By: SkaffenAmtiskaw
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.


First of all, fuck Mabon. Second, see my above statement... ;\)

You know, I fully expected to have my ideas challenged here, but what I did not expect was having to make the same point over and over and over, or having my methods misrepresented over and over and over. Many of you continue to ask me the questions to which I have already given answers, just saying...
_________________________
#~9O3913~&
%~1N9131~!
$~3A1319~$

Top
Page 12 of 23 « First<1011121314>Last »


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

Generated in 0.033 seconds of which 0.004 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.