Page 14 of 23 « First<1213141516>Last »
Topic Options
#61844 - 11/26/11 12:13 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Khk]
Caladrius Offline
member


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 318
Loc: SoCal
 Originally Posted By: Khk


+O+ Right. Without me abstracting the object for you, you cannot know its existence. And this is why the ONA use abstractions - as part of this same process and force just illustrated - you can try to sound like an expert... +O+




This is what I was waiting for... your point and things I can work with.

We first have you admitting that you yourself produced an "abstraction" of an Object.

You then say that without you abstracting this Object, your other person "cannot Know" the Object.

To "Know" a something means to have become Consciously Aware of it. Once having Known, you Experience the Object in some real way. Once having Experienced the Object - as you do directly - you Know the Wise/Ways of the Object first hand.

Notice how in your case You as Person A and your other person you play word games with Person B are left in the same situation before and after your demonstration:

Before you yourself are the only only to directly - non-abstractly - experience the Object, and Person B has no such direct experience of this Object.

After your giving Person B your Abstraction of the Object, Person B is still left lacking such a direct experience which you so enjoy with your Object.

The question must then become: How do you get Person B to directly - SANS words - to experience/see/touch this Object you yourself enjoy holding and tapping on a computer screen?

How do you make Person B equal to you or on the same level of experience with you of this Object instead of being DEPENDENT on you for your words and teachings, discourses, is the question.

Another way to state this said question is instead of Abstracting for you the joys of sex I enjoy directly for you to simply hear the abstraction of: How do I get your ass to directly enjoy sex too SANS the abstract words? The answer is I somehow lead you or give you the means by which if the means is follow, you will experience the sex directly without me yapping my mouth off to you.

Giving your Person B an abstract description of objects, events, experiences, things, in no way causes Person B to have the same direct wordless experience you enjoy.

If I had an Object I was tapping on a computer screen and I actually wanted others see and feel this Object JUST LIKE ME, I would devise a way or method, or means by which you can come into direct experience of this said Objected like this:

1. I have an Object I am holding up in my hands.
2. It is a dildo, 5 inches, and real looking with balls.
3. Would you like to see it and feel this Object too?
4. I bought it at the Spearmint Rhino on the corner of such and such street.
5. get into a car, drive there, and get your self one, and feel it in your hands, so that you may also enjoy the experience of a dildo. As opposed to drooling over what abstract words play and imagery I can speak to you.

In my above example me speaking and describing the dildo to you would the the Abstraction, you following those 5 simple steps to get a hold of a dildo is the worldless non-abstract apprehension of a thing directly.

Another example would be if say I were a drop out but I worked hard and was self made. As a friend you come to me and ask me: "Gee Caladruis, being a high school drop out, how did you become self made? Can you teach me how to do what you do?"

I say "sure I can. I spent my time at a public library and Self-Educated myself, and got a job, and went from there."

Thus, I take your hand and Guide you to the public library which I Self-Educated myself in for many years and I say to you: "Der it is nigga. get your ass in there and Self-Educate yourself. Cuz I can Lead you to the water, but I can't make a nigga drink it."

In that example, rather than give you a spiel about how I Self-Educated myself and teaching you abstractions of what I may have read and learned, I Guided you to a place so that you yourself can cultivate on your own terms the actual experience I went thru. In such a way that you are able to experience the wordless act of Self-Educating yourself.

That example is what happens in Buddhism. You have a supposed Buddha who is called the Samma Sambuddhassa (( The Completely Self-Educated One)). He came to his Buddhi in the forest by himself.

The Buddhist comes to the Buddha and asks to be enlightened too. The only way he can Guide you to directly experience dhamma ((Phenomena)) is by trying to upaya for you different ways such that you yourself eventually find yourself inside the forest or directly experiencing on your own terms a dhamma or natural phenomenon.

Teachings in this case are the abstractions. The Upaya is the trick or Method or Means which tries to Lead you into the experience of a phenomenon directly. Your own direct experience of such is what is not abstract. There is a difference.

In your example of your Object tapping your PC, you yourself enjoy the direct experience of this Object, neither before or after your abstract discourse of said Object did anyone end up with the direct experience of this said Object. They only Know the words and ideas and imagery you gave to them. You did not in any way cause them to gain their own direct experience of this Object or a duplicate of this Object, where that they themselves wordlessly - SANS the abstract wordings - feel and come to an Understanding of the Object on their own terms. Just as you had the benefit of.

So the question I would ask you Khk is: Having an Object which you experience directly and wordlessly yourself, how do you make it so that I too may directly experience this Object, without the abstract wording and description, teachings, and BS? Can you devise an expedient method to guide me or lead me to such a direct experience?

Notice that in your quoted statement you admit that all you have done was give an abstraction, as opposed to trying to lead your "student" to experience the Object on their own, such that they may gain their own Understandings of this Object on their own terms SANS your abstractions.


Edited by Caladrius (11/26/11 12:23 AM)
_________________________
.:.gone fishing.:.

Top
#61845 - 11/26/11 12:14 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Khk]
thedeadidea Offline
member


Registered: 08/15/10
Posts: 209
Ah but the Tao cannot be told so if it was a pen, stapler or penis you slapped against your monitor it is the Tao but not the eternal Tao for the eternal Tao cannot be called pen, stapler or penis.
Top
#61846 - 11/26/11 12:36 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Caladrius]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
 Originally Posted By: Caladrius
[quote=Khk]

+O+ Right. Without me abstracting the object for you, you cannot know its existence. And this is why the ONA use abstractions - as part of this same process and force just illustrated - you can try to sound like an expert... +O+




This is what I was waiting for... your point and things I can work with.

+O+ G'day - well yes, it wasn't ME keeping you waiting. +O+

We first have you admitting that you yourself produced an "abstraction" of an Object.

+O+ Yes. +O+

You then say that without you abstracting this Object, your other person "cannot Know" the Object.

+O+ Yes. +O+

To "Know" a something means to have become Consciously Aware of it. Once having Known, you Experience the Object in some real way. Once having Experienced the Object - as you do directly - you Know the Wise/Ways of the Object first hand.

+O+ So how do you know about the ONA if they don't tell you about it? +O+

Notice how in your case You as Person A and your other person you play word games with Person B are left in the same situation before and after your demonstration:

Before you yourself are the only only to directly - non-abstractly - experience the Object, and Person B has no such direct experience of this Object.

After your giving Person B your Abstraction of the Object, Person B is still left lacking such a direct experience which you so enjoy with your Object.

+O+ Yes - that is unquestioned - but the act of being unable to determine my object is the requisite example of what an abstraction is - and proves the point that you cannot know unless I tell you. Everything after that is secondary to the matter of the actual abstracting. +O+

The question must then become: How do you get Person B to directly - SANS words - to experience/see/touch this Object you yourself enjoy holding and tapping on a computer screen?

+O+ The question is - exactly that. How can ONA spread its Work and Ideology without talking, writing, abstracting it? How does it get froms ALs mind, to yours? Magic? Telepathy? No. You knew nothing of ONA until AL wrote about ONA. He abstracted it for you, for everyone, in order to make what was invisible, visible. +O+

How do you make Person B equal to you or on the same level of experience with you of this Object instead of being DEPENDENT on you for your words and teachings, discourses, is the question.

+O+ I don't think you can - which is why I said at the beginning, I think abstractiona and form are different for everyone - but it is UNIVERSAL that no-one can tell me what the object is. You don't have the information, contained in the abstract - and can only guess. +O+

Another way to state this said question is instead of Abstracting for you the joys of sex I enjoy directly for you to simply hear the abstraction of: How do I get your ass to directly enjoy sex too SANS the abstract words? The answer is I somehow lead you or give you the means by which if the means is follow, you will experience the sex directly without me yapping my mouth off to you.

+O+ Yep we covered that - oral transmission is still abstraction. +O+

Giving your Person B an abstract description of objects, events, experiences, things, in no way causes Person B to have the same direct wordless experience you enjoy.

+O+ No - almost never, abstraction has the effect of unique unknowable mingling with the total geometry of the person creating new and freakish hybrids of thought. We can only reach an amicable agreement. But there are universals to some forces - such as abstraction. +O+

If I had an Object I was tapping on a computer screen and I actually wanted to others see and feel this Object JUST LIKE ME, I would devise a way or method, or means by which you can come into direct experience of this said Objected like this:

+O+ Yeah - lol - you'd abstract it. +O+

1. I have an Object I am holding up in my hands.
2. It is a dildo, 5 inches, and real looking with balls.
3. Would you like to see it and feel this Object too?
4. I bought it at the Spearmint Rhino on the corner of such and such street.
5. get into a car, drive there, and get your self one, and feel it in your hands, so that you may also enjoy the experience of a dildo. As opposed to drooling over what abstract words play and imagery I can speak to you.

+O+ You read the rest of the thread right? You do know I'm entirely in agreement with you here? You are abstracting, describing, forming the object for others so that they can know what it is - how does ONA not do that with its writings, TOW, Dark Gods, chants, and endless exhaustive abstraction to correct and guide? Hm? +O+

In my above example me speaking and describing the dildo to you would the the Abstraction, you following those 5 simple steps to get a hold of a dildo is the worldless non-abstract apprehension of a thing directly.

+O+ Oral tranmission is abstracting the object for me. But we're not discussing objects we can see - we're discussing how one can experience the a-causal, or the numinous, or honour, or fear, or yellow before it is abstracted? To make you aware of the existence of the ONA - the ONA used abstract forms to create the ONA, including its title. +O+

Another example would be if say I were a drop out but I worked hard and was self made. As a friend you come to me and ask me: "Gee Caladruis, being a high school drop out, how did you become self made? Can you teach me how to do what you do?"

I say "sure I can. I spent my time at a public library and Self-Educated myself, and got a job, and went from there."

+O+ Holy shit. which is an abstract - you're making something, some experience, some knowledge visible for someone who does not have the information until you abstract it into a sentence loaded with information - lol! +O+

Thus, I take your hand and Guide you to the public library which I Self-Educated myself in for many years and I say to you: "Der it is nigga. get your ass in there and Self-Educate yourself. Cuz I can Lead you to the water, but I can't make a nigga drink it."

In that example, rather than give you a spiel about how I Self-Educated myself and teaching you abstractions of what I may have read and learned, I Guided you to a place so that you yourself can cultivate on your own terms the actual experience I went thru. In such a way that you are able to experience the wordless act of Self-Educating yourself.

+O+ If you guided me wordlessly - without the previous abstraction - to a library - then I still have to abstract to know it's a library. But your example has changed to present something which is visible to both of us because we are both standing in front of it and able to abstract it for ourselves in order to process and understand it - which only cements my point that without abstracting the ONA for you by writing, making the TOW, fenrir, and all that other stuff - you'd have no chance of knowing the ONA was there, let alone what the hell it was about. +O+

That example is what happens in Buddhism. You have a supposed Buddha is called the Samma Sambuddhassa (( The Completely Self-Educated One)). He came to his Buddhi in the forest by himself.

The Buddhist comes to the Buddha and asks to be enlightened too. The only way he can Guide you to directly experience dhamma ((Phenomena)) is by trying to upaya for you different ways such that you yourself eventually find yourself inside the forest or directly experiencing on your own terms a dhamma or natural phenomena.

+O+ Yeah, that's no different, you're using an abstract example to get me to see something I can't see, right? I think you missed the point on this one Chlo. +O+

Teachings in this case are the abstractions. The Upaya is the trick or Method or Means which tries to Lead you into the experience of a phenomena directly. Your own direct experience of such is what is not abstract. There is a difference.

+O+ YES! OMG yes. lol - Teachings are the abstractions, the same way ONA uses teachings which are abstractions to inform all you wonderful people about the ONA! +O+

In your example of your Object tapping your PC, you yourself enjoy the direct experience of this Object, neither before or after your abstract discourse of said Object did anyone end up with the direct experience of this said Object. They only Know the words and ideas and imagery you gave to them.

+O+ Yep. So we are agreed that the ONA uses abstracts. That wasn't so hard was it? +O+

You did not in any way cause them to gain their own direct experience of this Object or a duplicate of this Object, where that they themselves wordlessly - SANS the abstract wordings - feel and come to an Understanding of the Object on their own terms. Just as you had the benefit of.

+O+ Yep - just like the writings of ONA made you an expert, again... +O+

So the question I would ask you Khk is: Having an Object which you experience directly and wordlessly yourself, how do you make it so that I too may directly experience this Object, without the abstract wording and description, teachings, and BS?

+O+ You didn't read the previous threads did you - you jumped to a conclusion about what I was saying based on what you skimmed.
I FULLY agree, as I have said all along, that you cannot experience the object without the abstract wording, description, teachings and BS. +O+

Can you devise an expedient method to guide me or lead me to sch a direct experience?

+O+ No-one can. But I can tell you what it is and based on the information you recieve, you can try to experience it yourself somewhat better now that is is partly visible, like, I don't know - the Septenary Way. lol. +O+

Notice that in your quoted statement you admit that all you have done was give an abstraction, as opposed to trying to lead your "student" to experience the Object on their own, such that they may gain their own Understandings of this Object on their own terms SANS your abstractions.

+O+ Yes - yes - and yes. Thank you. But you should have read the thread. +O+




Edited by Khk (11/26/11 12:45 AM)

Top
#61847 - 11/26/11 12:36 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Interrogist]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 860
Loc: Nashville
Hey, Interrogist. Good to be back. So how was the holiday for you (if you chose to celebrate it)? As for me - eh, not bad. Looks like you've been keeping yourself busy while I was away. That's good. You know what they say about idle hands...

Earlier, you Interrogated me:

 Originally Posted By: Interrogist
By what method will you discern who deserves what? Please explain.


My response is that I use no particular method. I make my decisions based on the merits of each case. Those I like, I generally treat well. Those I don't like, I generally don't. A vanilla answer I suppose, but it seems rather common sense to me.

Now I will Interrogate you:

You have taken great pains to distance yourself and your method from forms such as Satanism, and yet you have spent a great deal of time at this Satanic forum. What would you say to those who might see this all as an exercise in hypocrisy?
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#61848 - 11/26/11 12:47 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: thedeadidea]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
 Originally Posted By: thedeadidea
Ah but the Tao cannot be told so if it was a pen, stapler or penis you slapped against your monitor it is the Tao but not the eternal Tao for the eternal Tao cannot be called pen, stapler or penis.


+O+ You're abstracting Tao. +O+

Top
#61849 - 11/26/11 12:48 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
+O+ Because how are you to get me to know it's all Tao - if you don't point it out using a word? +O+
Top
#61850 - 11/26/11 12:55 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Khk]
Caladrius Offline
member


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 318
Loc: SoCal
 Originally Posted By: Khk


+O+ You read the rest of the thread right? +O+




Yes. Enough to see you have a obsessive fixation on Abstractions. Trying to get others stuck on Abstractions or stumble on them like you do.

We both know how you have a glitch for wordy writing. And a glitch for obsessively trying to assert your views.

I read the rest of the thread. I didn't comment about your spiel on ONA because I write enough on it.

I entered at this point to make a few point to the general reader to try and give them a different perspective.

There are abstractions, and then there is the actual, phenomena which we can experience.

We can either talk and ramble on about the abstraction of natural phenomena or some sinister deed or whatever. Or we can devise ways, methods, methodologies to try and lead people to the actual Direct Experience of such things by themselves and on their own terms.

That is all I had to add to this thread. I have no interest in your personal feelings with the ONA. If anybody just looks closely at ONA stuff, they will see that many time one is urged to gain the Direct Experience of a phenomena or something, rather than get lost in the forest of words and ideas, and outer spiel. There is a difference between an abstraction and what is actual and real.

This is my last post in this thread. I have a Thanksgiving to enjoy.
_________________________
.:.gone fishing.:.

Top
#61851 - 11/26/11 01:40 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Caladrius]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
 Originally Posted By: Caladrius
 Originally Posted By: Khk


+O+ You read the rest of the thread right? +O+




Yes. Enough to see you have a obsessive fixation on Abstractions. Trying to get others stuck on Abstractions or stumble on them like you do.

+O+ Well people want to rattle on about them but clearly have no idea what they're talking about - choosing to make some 'abstracts' concrete and others 'impossible' according to what suits them. So I gave an exercise that demonstrates it quite clearly. +O+

We both know how you have a glitch for wordy writing. And a glitch for obsessively trying to assert your views.

+O+ Jeez - settle down. +O+

I read the rest of the thread. I didn't comment about your spiel on ONA because I write enough on it.

+O+ Yes but you missed the point here - it happens - doesn't make you a bad person - ! +O+

I entered at this point to make a few point to the general reader to try and give them a different perspective.

+O+ You abstracted. +O+

There are abstractions, and then there is the actual, phenomena which we can experience.

+O+ Yeah which we've been both saying all along. +O+

We can either talk and ramble on about the abstraction of natural phenomena or some sinister deed or whatever. Or we can devise ways, methods, methodologies to try and lead people to the actual Direct Experience of such things by themselves and on their own terms.

+O+ Yes like the abstract of the TOW to express the Septenary Way lol, holy shit. It's not that hard. +O+

That is all I had to add to this thread. I have no interest in your personal feelings with the ONA.

+O+ Well goodbye then. And thanks for stopping by and sharing your abstractions. +O+

If anybody just looks closely at ONA stuff, they will see that many time one is urged to gain the Direct Experience of a phenomena or something, rather than get lost in the forest of words and ideas, and outer spiel. There is a difference between an abstraction and what is actual and real.

+O+ yep... They will use the abstracts used by the ONA to come closer to the essence beneath it. +O+

This is my last post in this thread. I have a Thanksgiving to enjoy.

+O+ Happy Thanksgiving then. +O+



Top
#61852 - 11/26/11 01:45 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Khk]
thedeadidea Offline
member


Registered: 08/15/10
Posts: 209
 Originally Posted By: Khk
 Originally Posted By: thedeadidea
Ah but the Tao cannot be told so if it was a pen, stapler or penis you slapped against your monitor it is the Tao but not the eternal Tao for the eternal Tao cannot be called pen, stapler or penis.


+O+ You're abstracting Tao. +O+


But I am not abstracting the Tao is abstracting itself and in abstracting itself it is abstracting that which cannot be abstracted. Defying the rules of logic which are also the eternal Tao. The Tao has contradicted itself many times now but there is no real contradiction.

Therefore
The Tao unzipped his Tao grabbed his Tao slapped it against the Tao.

Or the Shorthand version if you prefer.

Tao.

Top
#61853 - 11/26/11 01:55 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: thedeadidea]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
+O+ OK so Tao is abstracting itself. How do you explain that to me - without using abstracts? Go ahead - explain it, without using any words. +O+
Top
#61855 - 11/26/11 03:14 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Khk]
Apeynon Offline
stranger


Registered: 11/04/11
Posts: 40
Loc: In Your Bedroom Pillow
 Originally Posted By: Khk
so Tao is abstracting itself. How do you explain that to me - without using abstracts? Go ahead - explain it, without using any words.

Since it seems you cannot or are unwilling to define or explain what you mean by abstractions and abstracts, and compare your definition with that of others, such as that given by Long/Myatt, this really is quite funny.

Which explains my lack of recent replies. Merely stating as you did "that some things cannot be explained" is quite frankly not good enough considering how you continue to use the term 'abstraction' as a sort of weapon in reply.

One might suggest in the nicest possible way that you go back to your drawing board and construct an ontology which rationally explains 'abstractions', reality, existence, perception, language, words, blah blah blah - and then argue why according to your ontology such things as the ONA and 'the acausal' (as defined by the ONA) are 'abstractions'.

Until then, it seems to me - and no personal offense intended - all this amounts to is just undefined words bandied about on the internet in some sort of adversarial way.

Top
#61856 - 11/26/11 03:22 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Apeynon]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
It is true that language in itself is an abstraction and that it complicates communicating something effectively. We can never explain something we experience in words so the other will exactly know what we talk about. Language, or at least that what words imply, is for each different.

But we can easily use language to explain the method we use to gain this experience even when there is again no certainty this experience will be identical.

So yes the moment we communicate, even with ourselves, we abstract. But what are we gonna do? Quit communicating?

D.

Top
#61857 - 11/26/11 03:26 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Khk]
thedeadidea Offline
member


Registered: 08/15/10
Posts: 209
 Originally Posted By: Khk
+O+ OK so Tao is abstracting itself. How do you explain that to me - without using abstracts? Go ahead - explain it, without using any words. +O+



Last one... not all words are abstractions in fact this is the case at least in the fundamentals of the English Grammar. How does the tao abstract itself? It moves and is all things as soon as someone utters the word door the Tao abstracts itself of course the ineffable Tao would be the highest abstraction of all.

The word spoon in and of itself might have numerous referents but words only have meaning and context. One might get to the point where every word becomes an abstraction in type and form to an extent I grasp that. But I think Diavolo pegged it when he pointed out all language might be understood to be only metaphorical.

Abstraction relies solely on describing things through the basis of ideas. I'm all for the mystic razzle dazzle the map is not the territory, all experience might be understood as one single stream of consciousness and there is no spoon. But on the other hand I might see the ocean as my body or still drown in it or come closer and I'll poke you in the eye with what I call a spoon and see if it now becomes one.

For the acausal undifferentiated world there is the witnessing of phenomenon where all life to a degree differentiates and experiences a causal world. Life then is the cosmos observing itself as such cosmos (tao) abstracts itself everytime an abstraction is used.

Much like a declaration of my love, hatred or absurdity is my performing the praxis of abstraction.

Or if you want the short version again.

Tao.

p.s. this is the last time I am doing this a bad Alan Watts impersonation has a limited time of comedic value before it becomes sickening.



Edited by thedeadidea (11/26/11 03:26 AM)

Top
#61858 - 11/26/11 05:42 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Diavolo]
Interrogist Offline
member


Registered: 11/12/11
Posts: 162
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
It is true that language in itself is an abstraction and that it complicates communicating something effectively. We can never explain something we experience in words so the other will exactly know what we talk about. Language, or at least that what words imply, is for each different.

But we can easily use language to explain the method we use to gain this experience even when there is again no certainty this experience will be identical.

So yes the moment we communicate, even with ourselves, we abstract. But what are we gonna do? Quit communicating?

D.



This is a blog that I posted some time back, and while it is a bit off topic, as its original context was the issue of RHP/LHP and Proxy/Validation, and how I personally view and utilize these, its close enough to this issue of abstraction and language, that Id like to re post it here, and collect your opinions on my views. This will perhaps also elaborating on another aspect of Interrogistic Methodologies, to be understood, questioned, or shot down.

***

Interrogistic Memetic Transmutation Cycle

As of late, I have been involved in many conversations, the topics of which, have lead to debate pertaining to the LHP, and its supposed counterpart, the RHP. It would seem that regardless of the definition held by any one individual, -it means this vs it means that- that the only consistency would be, that they were right, and everyone else is wrong. At that point, it became another issue, at least for me, as that very (right vs wrong) terminology raised a red flag, as any time I notice the use of the terms, or similar notions, I start looking for the duality in it all. I have to ask myself, who made the call as to what is right and wrong, because if I didnít make the call, well, the whole formula need be reassessed.

I do this due to the fact that most conceptual dualities are false, and in this concept, I believe that I have found one such duality. I believe its source to lie specifically in that, one creates an unnecessary choice, makes that choice, and then neglects the intellect of the individual who encounters knowledge via this (RHP/LHP), and I also believe that to consciously lean one way or the other, limits ones thought process, and inadvertently limits ones ability to attain knowledge. As thus, here I aim, not to correct anyone, but to thank them for causing me to expound upon my views to the point of self revelation, and elaborate on what Ill refer to as the (Interrogistic Memetic Transmutation Cycle)

I believe that many have been duped into associating extreme values with the, supposedly, opposing sides of RHP and LHP attainment, and as thus, only the LHP will suit their needs. Most appropriately, it would seem as though they used the same tailor who fitted their Satanism, as comfort makes it true in these modern times, and not necessarily, knowing what the fuck you are talking about. Such definitions are hardly needed when these hallow claims are exchanged without question, and as Dan once put it forth, worn as if a badge of membership . This thesis will, in many ways, be a representation of my personal definition, application, and proposal, based not on my comfort, and not on the historical Eastern definition of the terms, yet based entirely on my Interrogation of the, here and now.

It is in this light that I have come to feel the need to lay out the codification of the Interrogist view on the matter, in which no such RHP/LHP dichotomy exist within the context of gaining knowledge. I base this line of thinking on the false premise of (mutual exclusivity) implying a proposition, whereas that implication is actually an option. I do agree entirely with the (joint exhaustive) concept.

You see, what (joint exhaustive) implies, is that everything in a dichotomy, in our case (RHP/LHP), must belong to either one side, or the other. It is rather plain to see that in our case, this pertains specifically to the gaining of knowledge, be it via (proxy) or via(experience). In short, this states simply that any knowledge you are able to gain, comes to you in one of these forms, Not where that knowledge falls within ones predefined notions. It is simple enough to understand that what is implied here is quite simply, the method of delivery, and not what is being delivered.

Where the tricky bit lies, is within the finer points of the (mutual exclusive). Logically, until this point, one side is able to compliment the other side, representing one another in reverse, and reproducing one another. Thatís the joint aspect, well at work. The problem appears when one introduces a completely unnecessary proposition, as the proposition in question is optional, and in no way implied. This proposition insist upon having the property of being either true or false, and as such, twist the conceptual context of what the dichotomy implies, thus, an unnecessary choice comes forth, that needed not to be made in the first place. Remember that delivery? It was just rerouted to a predefined notion of being (false), and rejected due to the method of delivery, without contents of the package even being examined.

This illusion of (choice requirement) destroys a logical understanding of the (Interrogistic Memetic transmutation cycle), and once a choice has been made, participation in, and manipulation of, the cycle is permanently hindered by that choice being supposedly true/false or right/wrong. All the while, the choice was unnecessary in that no propositions hold over one side and not the other. Logically, the complimentary fields of knowledge intake are not opposites by default. The false duality is reviled by means of the individual passing judgement before the knowledge can even be examined, as the method of delivery now inaccurately predefines its quality.

The assignment of (good stuff like Satan) to the LHP, and the assignment of (bad stuff like God) to the RHP, only drive my point home, that as of yet, many have not shed their unnecessary abstractions, and are rather bound by them. Worse still yet, its is believed that those who accept any form of RHP intake, ďare nothing more than blind fools who accept anything and everything they are toldĒ, while those who accept only the LHP intake ďare godlike beings with extraordinary power and unhindered understandingĒ. Fucking PleaseÖ

It is my belief that intellect is the determining factor, and not a chosen path, which governs ones understanding pertaining to Interrogistic Memetic transmutation cycles, and so far as I can tell, the Cycle works as thus.

Knowledge comes via (proxy) and initiates, in most persons, the (Primary (Speculation Stage) which pertains to the self, and attempts to validate said input. Those who lack intellect will not be able to Interrogate the (proxy) input, and as thus fail to initiate a profitable (Primary (Speculation Stage), and are likely to disregard, or become bound to the meme. The Interrogistic being, however, will merit such intellect, so as to successfully complete the primary (speculation stage), and yield its fruit.

The result of an Interrogistic (Primary (Speculation Stage) will be the evaluation of the (proxy) input, and determination of merit, pertaining to seeking experience based verification. At this point, the Interrogist may choose to pursue the matter, or drop the matter all together. Hypotheticalís will be considered, and a decision will be made. Its the ability to make that call, that determines ones participating in, rather than, being bound to, the (IMT) Cycle. The Interrogistic make the meme subject to themselves, whereas the mundane make themselves subject to the meme. Once an Interrogist has properly tested such (proxy) inputs validity, they are able to internalize, and utilize, the most efficient practical application of that knowledge.

That knowledge being verified, the Interrogistic has yet another opportunity to pursue the matter, or drop the matter all together. Once again, hypotheticalís will be considered, and a decision will be made. If the Interrogist would like, the (Secondary (Speculation Stage) can take place, in which he/she is able to participate in, and manipulate the Cycle, by way of repackaging that original (proxy) input, and making beneficial alterations to the meme. Such alterations may include added information and methodical description, whereby fellow Interrogist are quickened on their path to the same validation, and so too can such alterations include the elimination of crucial details, or the addition of false information, that the meme become detrimental to the mundane. After such alterations have been made, it only a matter of distribution.

This is where the Interrogist lives, outside of the useless boundaries of good/evil, right/wrong, or god/Satan. Anities and isms point out where the mundane have become stuck in the (IMT) Cycle, and to the Interrogist, point where to attack. Thatís the very root of hacking the (IMT) Cycle, and reprogramming social memetics to ones own advantage. (Proxy) input = validation = (Proxy) output, and as your output is anotherís (Proxy) input, the cycle is rather indefinite.

The path of the Interrogist has no such dualities, as Interrogist are quite simply entrepreneurial opportunist,
_________________________
#~9O3913~&
%~1N9131~!
$~3A1319~$

Top
#61861 - 11/26/11 07:08 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: William Wright]
Interrogist Offline
member


Registered: 11/12/11
Posts: 162
 Originally Posted By: William Wright
Hey, Interrogist. Good to be back. So how was the holiday for you (if you chose to celebrate it)? As for me - eh, not bad. Looks like you've been keeping yourself busy while I was away. That's good. You know what they say about idle hands...


I do not take part in mundane celebrations any more than I must, unless I find it to be advantageous to a current goal in some way. My family is disturbed, as I refuse to attend their gatherings. I've been telling them for a while now, that their gods are false, their governments are corrupt, and I have many more things to fight for, than to be thankful for.

I am sickened by their holding hands and thanking people in the fucking sky for a Nation that cares so much for them, as it stands directly opposed to my nature. I wish they would all seriously fucking die. I have no use for that god, or this nation, or the (holiday) in question.

I may be young and hardly as experienced as some here, who are more aged and knowledgeable than myself, however, it seems to me that anyone who speaks on the tyranny of the state, from one side of their mouth, while having a happy holiday out of the other side of their mouth, is a fucking hypocrite.

 Originally Posted By: William Wright
Earlier, you Interrogated me:

 Originally Posted By: Interrogist
By what method will you discern who deserves what? Please explain.


My response is that I use no particular method. I make my decisions based on the merits of each case. Those I like, I generally treat well. Those I don't like, I generally don't. A vanilla answer I suppose, but it seems rather common sense to me.


My only observation here would be that your ('vanilla' common sense) is, as a matter of fact, a method. ;\)

 Originally Posted By: William Wright
Now I will Interrogate you:

You have taken great pains to distance yourself and your method from forms such as Satanism, and yet you have spent a great deal of time at this Satanic forum. What would you say to those who might see this all as an exercise in hypocrisy?


Indeed, well, I tend to ignore what a person thinks of themselves, and make up my own mind as to who and what they are. I stated in a previous post on this thread, an analogy, in which I described a scale of praxis.

On this praxis scale, you might say that Satanism extends from 5 to 15, whereas Interrogistic Methodologies extend from 10 to 20.

I resonate highly with Satanist between 10 to 15, while I have a few standards between 15 to 20, which set me completely apart on a philosophical standard level, and likewise, from 5 to 10, Satanist hold standards which set them apart from the Interrogistic philosophical filtration.

I credit Satanist and Atheist with being the only philosophical (schools, if you will) which challenge my nature, by offering the Fire that I seek. For what I imply by the Fire, refer to my Wordperss and reference the post titled The Interrogist Star.


Edited by Interrogist (11/26/11 07:18 AM)
_________________________
#~9O3913~&
%~1N9131~!
$~3A1319~$

Top
Page 14 of 23 « First<1213141516>Last »


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

Generated in 0.035 seconds of which 0.005 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.