Page 18 of 23 « First<1617181920>Last »
Topic Options
#61939 - 11/27/11 11:38 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Diavolo]
Apeynon Offline
stranger


Registered: 11/04/11
Posts: 40
Loc: In Your Bedroom Pillow
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
Could we maybe stick to some sort of debate and leave the who what where out of it?

Fair enough.

But he did make some funny claims, particularly about being behind a heck of a lot of ONA stuff. Perhaps we should continue to debate his claims without descending down to personal stuff.

Top
#61950 - 11/28/11 06:54 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Apeynon]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Everyone is free to debate anything, no problem there.

Let me add that not everyone pro-ONA here is DM, unless he invented a teleporter or somehow gained Kilroy's powers.

Personally I doubt it very much he spends his time here but should I be wrong: Hi, hi and hi to you too. ;\)

D.

Top
#61952 - 11/28/11 07:24 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Khk]
Apeynon Offline
stranger


Registered: 11/04/11
Posts: 40
Loc: In Your Bedroom Pillow
In reply to some claims made. For the purpose of this debate let's continue to assume that the Khk here who replied to me is in fact the guy from the Aussie Them thing.

 Originally Posted By: Khk
Absolutely nothing in fifty years on the supposed secret tradition of the 'Rounwytha' until the writing of Baphomet: A Man's Roles for Women: The Greatest Heresy. Then in response

Since you haven't explained what the etymology of Rounwytha is and thus what it means, your claim regarding that word is somewhat unclear. Rounwytha one of those words, like Fayen, whose etymology and meaning could be discovered by a heck of a lot of research in somewhere like the Bodleian and also by reading velum MSS in various collections, like the British Library.

But most people learn it from someone who already knows - that's oral tradition, which apparently you claim doesn't exist in the ONA. Like you seem to claim that AL doesn't privately answer questions from academics and other people, but just makes such private correspondence up and publishes it when, using your turn of phrase, he allegedly feels 'threatened' and so writes some new 'explanation'.

But let's pass over all that and get back to your item about Baphomet.

Baphomet? So Baphomet as Dark Goddess - and the Sapphic Dark Daughters of Baphomet - didn't exist until you wrote your item?

Man's role for women, you say. Nothing published about this by the ONA prior to your essay?

I refer you to MSS such as Breaking The Silence Down, written decades ago, or The Giving, or what Sister Bronwyn of the Dark Daughters of Chaos nexion wrote over 20 years ago. Or that story, The Girl Goddess.

What is sapphistry after all? A man's role for women? What is the girl goddess? A man's role for women? LOL!

The ONA has been pushing sapphistry and feminine archetypes for over 30 years. Perhaps a re-reading of the following might help -

http://rounwytha.wordpress.com/sapphic-sorcery-in-praise-of-the-feminine/

Will you claim that also was inspired by you and that AL wrote it since you allege (or seem to have alleged) there's no inner ONA and the OG are all just AL wearing a variety of silly hats, including pointy ones!

Your item about Baphomet amounted to saying stuff like "Baphomet – for all her unearthly countenance and glory, is still, the supply of an archetype for women, by men." Because she's depicted as beautiful blah blah

Yet you overlooked two crucial things. First, Baphomet and her daughters are shape-shifters who use their sexuality to manipulate men. So of course they're going to appear beautiful. Second, well, how many women from ONA sapphic nexions have you met in person?

Perhaps you just generalized about ONA women and what they think, after reading some ONA stuff on the internet.

Also, it's a bit funny to me that in your Baphomet item you wrote that you depicted Baphomet as "holding a kitchen knife." Diane in 'Breaking The Silence Down', anyone? The quote from that text goes something like this - "the knife she wielded was long with a blade of surgical steel..."

 Originally Posted By: Khk
I write Chrono-bet and lo and behold suddenly everyone's an expert on the meaning of the chrono-spatial influence of 'I' or 'The' - Coincidence?

Linguistics, anyone? But joking aside, that article of yours seems to me to amount to you saying "language is an inhibitor of the Acausal". Which is what the ONA have been saying since when the term acausal was first used - words and language can't really describe the DG's, or the acausal. Esoteric chant as a magickal technique, anyone? Esoteric chant - chant, not words, not language - as a means of invoking and 'naming' the DG's.

So it seems you're claiming that because AL used the words "some assumptions underlying language and grammar" he must have gotten the idea from you, even though he was writing about such stuff as subject-copula-predicate, about what names denote, and about esoteric chant as a new type of language.

 Originally Posted By: Khk
I detail the nature and essence of the Star Game in Black Magical Sympathy and the Star Game and reveal how to map the nodes but poor Dave feels threatened and writes a new explaination immediately after

Leaving aside your assumption about DM feeling threatened by your insights, what does that article of yours say that hasn't been said before about the star game?

Mapping? Nodes? Hmm... How's about the section 'The Esoteric meaning of the Star Game' in Naos, where details of how to represent someone's psyche is given and it's stated that this can give a person magickal control over someone else. It's also explained in the next section, 'the septenary star game - esoteric theory'.

But kudos to you for using different terms to explain the same thing.

So it seems you're claiming that because AL used the word mapping about the star game in an essay last year, he must have been inspired by you, even though his use of the term relates to stellar pointers and his essay is about invoking the Dark Gods using the star game, i.e. about magickal mimesis.

Top
#61959 - 11/28/11 10:22 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Apeynon]
thedeadidea Offline
member


Registered: 08/15/10
Posts: 209
At this point the discussion is as close to formal christian apologetic I have ever seen Satanism get. I am amused and oddly disgusted at the same time...
Top
#61960 - 11/28/11 10:33 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: thedeadidea]
Apeynon Offline
stranger


Registered: 11/04/11
Posts: 40
Loc: In Your Bedroom Pillow
 Originally Posted By: thedeadidea
At this point the discussion is as close to formal christian apologetic I have ever seen Satanism get

Fair comment.

But if someone makes silly claims, what's wrong in pointing out their mistakes?

 Originally Posted By: thedeadidea
I am amused and oddly disgusted at the same time

I'm just amused \:\)

But it's getting boring now, as I think the point has been made.

Top
#61961 - 11/28/11 11:14 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Apeynon]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Not that I want to get involved into certain claims made but I personally don't think that DM or AL are the type to feel very threatened when they actively encourage people to evolve and expand.

Normally the personality type that feels threatened are those desperately trying to remain the center of attention whilst actively opposing anything that deviates.

This far, I can't recall anything I read giving that impression.

D.

Top
#61962 - 11/28/11 11:37 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Diavolo]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1640
Loc: Orlando, FL
 Quote:

Not that I want to get involved into certain claims made but I personally don't think that DM or AL are the type to feel very threatened when they actively encourage people to evolve and expand.


I do recall back in his keyboard-Jihadi days Myatt would wage e-crusades across a medley of Islam forums against every petty critic who called bullshit on his antics. If he does still indulge in down-and-dirty polemics, it's probably through a 'nym.... (Granted, that's still not a reason to suspect that every ONA member is a DM sockpuppet, but I suppose there will always be that particular element.)
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#61963 - 11/28/11 12:03 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: The Zebu]
MindFux Offline
member


Registered: 12/27/10
Posts: 174
On the subject of whether or not something is, or is not an abstraction am I the only person who doesn't actually give a fuck?

Crude a cliche as that may be, the fact that what language denotes is by definition abstract in its absence as a physicality or previous experience of that object's physicality (meaning anything that is not physically grounded can never be identically and directly known by 2 or more parties to a conversation even if both are discussing the 'same thing') is a truism of such gargantuan proportions that devoting 18 pages to discussing it seems ridiculous.

The fact is, the only thing that is not an abstraction to an individual is what they have experienced. While the word 'love' for instance may be an abstraction in itself, my experience of what 'love' is, to me, based on my own experience of the thing that I use that term to denote is not an abstraction, even if to describe it to another it must be necessarily abstract.

Therein lies the dichotomy at the center of the whole pie, which is false because it really sits squarely in the 'observer, observed' dichotomy which is a larger philosophical problem that has a wider scope than language. For me an abstraction is a linguistic causal form where the acausal essence can only be accessed through individual experience.

Every word I type describing to another a deed I've done is an abstraction to them. Their apprehension of what I have done, talked about, described, acted on, felt, or manifested is by definition not directly accessible to them, so they must through abstract means (either assembled from their own experience which is by definition indirect to my experience, or knowledge gained from elsewhere) approximate (or abstract) what I'm getting at. To me however, it is simply something I know through direct experience.

I've never railed against 'abstractions' because I have guilty pleasures. You know, rather than go out and perform an experiment in QM, I'm not above just doing the math and reading a fucking book. Sure my knowledge may be 'abstract' or I may rely on 'abstractions' because I've never seen with my own eyes photons hit a particle detector and demonstrate interference patterns, but then I'm not building my lifestyle around that either. Everything has its place.

If I tell someone what it feels like to be in a protest when the shit hits the fan. Or what it feels like when you obtain some information you by rights shouldn't have I don't rely on 'abstractions'. Each word has a customized denotation and connotation to me that is formulated instinctively from direct experience. Protest has a meaning to me for instance that is based on direct experience of violent protest. It has a connotation that is not abstract, a feeling, a texture that is an apt description of something to me. To the person I'm talking to, it is however an abstraction and there's the dichotomy.

To rail against all abstractions makes any communication impossible as we are all relying on the other person 'abstracting' our meaning from something they have not themselves experienced. I only rail against those relying on abstractions as readily as their own experience. (i.e. the abstraction to avoid is to assume you know what a violent protest feels like because you read about one rather than have been in one).

I am aware that's a heinously crude example of a much finer point, but those who are tracking my logic can get their on their own. In other words, in one sense I am simplifying this to: "To a speaker with direct experience who has an unavoidable non-abstract denotation and connotation to a certain word, he is not using an abstraction, to the listener he is using abstractions. So it becomes about lessening your internal reliance on abstractions, rather than hoping that everyone is in fact you with all of your exact experiences and access to their acausal meaning, or stop talking at all (define self paralyzing)". In another sense. I'm not.

Whicha.

MF.


Edited by MindFux (11/28/11 12:12 PM)
Edit Reason: fixing more fuck ups

Top
#61965 - 11/28/11 02:18 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: MindFux]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I think the value of realizing language, and thus everything we express through it, is an abstraction is in recognizing the problems that are inherent to this. It explains why some directly understand when something is mentioned while others simply can't.

You are right that when you describe a certain deed and what this experience provided to you, you unavoidably abstract but even when, someone having done similar deeds will directly understand what you talk about, regardless of the abstraction involved. They know what you know because they know what they know, even when it doesn't have to be a perfect match. Those unfamiliar to such deeds will simply have no idea about that you mention and can only try to compile something they imagine it to be. But they will not “know”.

This makes us understand that talking about certain things to certain people will not lead to an understanding unless we provide them a method through which they will “know”. It also shows us that when even simple communication has these problems, needlessly complicating will only exponentially increases these.

Communication might be just one talking to another but effective communication is quite something else.

D.

Top
#61966 - 11/28/11 02:38 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Diavolo]
MindFux Offline
member


Registered: 12/27/10
Posts: 174
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo

They know what you know because they know what they know, even when it doesn't have to be a perfect match. Those unfamiliar to such deeds will simply have no idea about that you mention and can only try to compile something they imagine it to be. But they will not “know”.


^^^^^^This.

Abstractions in language are necessary. They're the linguistic equivalent of something acausal requiring a causal form in order to interact with a causal reality. The causal from is no more the acausal 'essence'(/whatever) than the abstraction is the actual thing that it describes. The key thing is the experience of the 'acausal' itself making the forms, or abstractions used to guide others to that knowing on an individual basis necessary tools rather than an apparent contradiction.

MF.

Top
#61973 - 11/28/11 05:42 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: MindFux]
Octavian Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/30/11
Posts: 81
This discussion on causal and acausal and form and essence and language and everything else has been fascinating and has surely made enormous sense to every sensible observer.

I would like to respectfully submit the below link as a useful tool for finding appropriate wording to support some of the more interesting and entertaining notions found in this discussion...

http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/

Top
#61975 - 11/28/11 07:35 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Octavian]
thedeadidea Offline
member


Registered: 08/15/10
Posts: 209
@ Octavian LMAO... Some of it is bad but it isn't all bad. Some of this does have a reference to some kind of collapse of subject/object. Some of it that just assumed 'you get it' works from what I am assuming is some of the work of Carl Jung but functions as a functional jargon for a language community. Other parts of it are admittedly wank of words and nothing statements for which the link you provided is as close to poetic justice one will come across in digital media.

Edited by thedeadidea (11/28/11 07:36 PM)

Top
#61988 - 11/29/11 12:30 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: The Zebu]
Apeynon Offline
stranger


Registered: 11/04/11
Posts: 40
Loc: In Your Bedroom Pillow
 Originally Posted By: The Zebu
I do recall back in his keyboard-Jihadi days Myatt would wage e-crusades across a medley of Islam forums against every petty critic who called bullshit on his antics.

I'm going to be a bit pedantic here and possibly go a little off topic. So excuses over, here goes.

Having read some of his Islamist stuff on usenet - soc.religion.islam (2001-5) - and on the islamicawakening forum (2006-2009), I'd say he wasn't defending or quibbling about his personal views, but about Islamism itself, and always about controversial - 'heretical' - topics, like defending suicide attacks, defending the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks, defending the Taliban, bin Laden, and attacking 'the kuffar'. That didn't make him very popular.

As for him being a 'keyboard-Jihadi' - I think the fact he was mentioned at several NATO conferences about terrorism, got a full page spread in 'The Times' newspaper, and kept under regular surveillance for years might indicate otherwise.

Top
#61990 - 11/29/11 12:40 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Diavolo]
Apeynon Offline
stranger


Registered: 11/04/11
Posts: 40
Loc: In Your Bedroom Pillow
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
I think the value of realizing language, and thus everything we express through it, is an abstraction is in recognizing the problems that are inherent to this

Making a distinction between language conveying information and expressing abstractions, and so being unable to express 'the nature of being' - like Long did in his recent article, is interesting, I think.

So while there are problems about language which need to be addressed, I don't think it's as simple as saying that all language is faulty or useless and that all words are abstractions. Else why are we here and elsewhere, communicating, or trying to?

Top
#61991 - 11/29/11 01:39 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Apeynon]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Language itself is abstraction. It's what separates us from other animals, and ourselves.

As has been said, nothing but abstractions themselves can be directly communicated through language. The core grit always requires two eyes and two hands.

This isn't to say languages is useless, far from it..it is the most valuable tool we have, across the board.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
Page 18 of 23 « First<1617181920>Last »


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

Generated in 0.03 seconds of which 0.004 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.