PDA

View Full Version : Secret Societies and Emotions (derailed)



Awani
03-20-2017, 11:03 AM
Warning: this thread is a train wreck and all over the place... why so serious?

Just had a funny idea. I make a few assumptions and these can be debated I guess... but I ignore those things and just post "the thought/idea" as is.

1. Generally women are better skilled at paranormal activities throughout history.
2. I think it is because they are more in tune with their emotions so it is easier for them to sense energies and vibrations.
3. Men are not allowed to cry and generally have to be hard and strong.
4. Perhaps secret societies became a thing, because men did not want other men to know that they had gatherings where they behaved like women: being all emotional and crying etc.

:cool:

Andro
03-20-2017, 01:41 PM
Generally (as in 'generalization'), not only women, but also gay men tend to be more in touch with their emotions, intuition and psychic abilities. Just as a simple example, gays have to develop a 'Gaydar' (a sort of heightened intuition to recognize each other, possibly bordering on a psychic ability), while heteros usually grow up 'taking it for granted' that everyone around them (men AND women) is most likely hetero as well.

In some indigenous cultures, gays were often recognized as 'differently gifted' (having a different variety of skills) and were in many instances nurtured as such and assigned to develop their abilities with the local Shaman(s), to better serve the needs of the tribe.

Maybe that's also the reason that some (not all) 'secret societies' are reluctant to accept gays as well.

But all this doesn't mean that hetero men are without feelings or without psychic abilities. I think that in most cases it's the social programming that 'teaches' them to repress those and 'man up'.

It's interesting to notice, sociologically and anthropologically speaking, how especially since the 1980's, many gay men have started to embrace a more 'macho' culture (growing mustaches, wearing leather, body-building, etc) while many women, especially in the 'West', are displaying more 'masculine' traits - all part of a compensation mechanism for millennia of repression, I guess. And even to this day, words like 'gay' and 'woman' are still used (especially by & between men) as derogatory terms.


Just had a funny idea. I make a few assumptions and these can be debated I guess... but I ignore those things and just post "the thought/idea" as is.

1. Generally women are better skilled at paranormal activities throughout history.
2. I think it is because they are more in tune with their emotions so it is easier for them to sense energies and vibrations.
3. Men are not allowed to cry and generally have to be hard and strong.
4. Perhaps secret societies became a thing, because men did not want other men to know that they had gatherings where they behaved like women: being all emotional and crying etc.


✂------------------------------------------------

Awani
03-20-2017, 02:00 PM
Maybe that's also the reason that some (not all) 'secret societies' are reluctant to accept gays as well.

Could it be that this is just a saftey measure so people don't find out how "gay" the activities are within the secret society? Perhaps?

Wherever you find objection there is usually a hidden acceptance. :)

:cool:

zoas23
03-21-2017, 07:58 AM
1. Generally women are better skilled at paranormal activities throughout history.

False... I think it is quite a patriarchal belief, though it can be traced to very ancient ages. The idea is always that the females are irrational and intuitive and the males are rational and wise.

I.e, at the Oracle of Delphi the pythia (who received the visions) was always a female, but the prophētēs (who interpreted the visions) was always a male.

This logic can perfectly be understood by reading Plato's "Ion" (even if the 2 characters are males). Socrates discusses with a poet there. The idea of the dialogue is about the Greek idea of Enthusiasm (enthous -and yes, the idea of "Entheogen" comes from that same root). The Greeks considered that the Poets were inspired by Gods, an idea that Socrates doesn't question at all... BUT he discusses with the Poet who is better at understanding the SENSE of the Poems, if the Poet or the Philosopher. Socrates supports the idea that the Poet brings the message, but the Philosopher understands it.

I love, adore and have devotion for Plato, but he had a BIG problem with the arts. I do not agree with the thesis of the "Ion" dialogue.

I bring the "Ion" because historically the females have been considered some sort of "Ions": intuitive, non rational, emotional, etc...

All I have to say on the subject is: bullshit... and fuck gender roles. That's just a prejudice.


2. I think it is because they are more in tune with their emotions so it is easier for them to sense energies and vibrations.

Are they more in tune with their emotions? I honestly think that both genders are pretty equal. This is not a political statement or a SJW statement... but we can get rid of some myths... and listen to Juana...

"You foolish men that accuse
women, without a reason
without seeing that you´re to blame
of the same thing you accuse.

(...)

The stubborness of your crazy ideas
seems to me, from the outside,
that of the child who speaks of the boogeyman
and then is afraid of him."



3. Men are not allowed to cry and generally have to be hard and strong.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmE4-r7_02s


4. Perhaps secret societies became a thing, because men did not want other men to know that they had gatherings where they behaved like women: being all emotional and crying etc.

My favorite "secret society" is no other than the School of Pythagoras... It is a known fact that the school accepted men and women of both genders (yes, I am plagiarizing Allen Ginsberg) as Akousmatikoi (non-initiates)... and there's always discussions about if the the school accepted men and women as Mathematikoi (initiates), but MOST scholars consider that both men and women were accepted as Mathematikoi. [There are some discussions about it though, because it's not 100% clear].

Other than that, the Gnostic "secret societies" in most cases accepted men and women... and you can easily find that out in "Against Heresies" by "saint" Irenaeus (the saint of idiocy probably). He clearly states that Marcus used his Valentinean school to seduce and have sex with the female initiates (which is the interpretation of an idiot, but it's clear that the school or "secret society" had both men and women).

So we are talking about "Secret Societies which are exclusive for males"... rather than "secret societies" in general. I have a simple opinion about them: they have ZERO worth... they are useless and sunk into their own prejudices.


Generally (as in 'generalization'), not only women, but also gay men tend to be more in touch with their emotions, intuition and psychic abilities. Just as a simple example, gays have to develop a 'Gaydar' (a sort of heightened intuition to recognize each other, possibly bordering on a psychic ability), while heteros usually grow up 'taking it for granted' that everyone around them (men AND women) is most likely hetero as well.

LOL... My gaydar works VERY well and I'm 100% hetero. BUT it is useful to find friends (I prefer gay persons as friends simply because they are more interesting for me... in a strange way this is unrelated to their sexual choice, but more related to the fact that in our societies the gays are somehow FORCED to adopt an "alternative lifestyle", I can't have friends who are not FORCED* by some reason or other to have one).

*The word "Choice" can be used, but I think the word "Forced" is more legitimate... some things can't be chosen or faked.

I have to say that I do not think that the gays have a better access to their psychic abilities... Probably the QUEERS have it... but using QUEER in the broad sense of the word.


Maybe that's also the reason that some (not all) 'secret societies' are reluctant to accept gays as well.

Again, we are talking about "secret societies for males only" (I gladly stay away from them). You are not wrong, a lot of them are secretly homophobic...
Some of them accept gays, but then make their life impossible as to force them to leave.
... or they do weird things... i.e, a well known "males only secret society" used to have a specific wedding ritual... BUT when gay marriage became legal (here), the super secret society decided to stop celebrating weddings. Why? Because they didn't have the guts to simply say that they didn't want to celebrate a "gay wedding", so they stopped celebrating ALL weddings. Pathetic.

So... Why there are "secret societies for males only"? Maybe that's the question. A part of the answer is that females were considered unworthy of them a long time ago (because of the same reason that in several democratic countries the females were given quite recently the right to vote).

BUT there is another reason... which is quite silly: in lots of cases they work as "clubs" for men who don't want to spend their time with their wives... and visits to brothels are not uncommon (source: I know a lot of persons who are into male only rites... most of them confess that they are completely idiotic and can't explain even to themselves why the hell they stay there).


But all this doesn't mean that hetero men are without feelings or without psychic abilities. I think that in most cases it's the social programming that 'teaches' them to repress those and 'man up'.

That's not untrue... It can be avoided though, but sometimes it does have a cost. I can give personal examples, but I would not go that far this time.


It's interesting to notice, sociologically and anthropologically speaking, how especially since the 1980's, many gay men have started to embrace a more 'macho' culture (growing mustaches, wearing leather, body-building, etc) while many women, especially in the 'West', are displaying more 'masculine' traits - all part of a compensation mechanism for millennia of repression, I guess. And even to this day, words like 'gay' and 'woman' are still used (especially by & between men) as derogatory terms.

The Punk movement was quite important in that "change"... Whilst some gay performers didn't exactly adopt a "macho" style (i.e, Pete Shelley of the Buzzcocks (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzUJIA4u9hs)) they still were openly gay and adopted the "aggressive" harsh and "in your face" attitude of the other punk bands. A lot of the performers of the greatest bands were openly gay and some of them were singing like rabid dogs (I ADORE Tomata du Plenty of the band The Screamers (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRjxGCBMgTw), who had been a drag queen, but changed his style to adopt a "punk attitude" and he didn't look like someone anyone wanted to mess with when he was playing live... same thing goes for Nervous Gender (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CamOqyyck9o), who were as harsh as they could). The examples are almost countless.
(The very first "Punk Movie" was openly gay -"Jubilee" by Derek Jarman, of course).

And, of course, you have the Beat Generation with Burroughs and Ginsberg and their friends... who were not really "feminine" in their attitude, but openly gay in most cases... and mostly showing how is it to be FORCED to live an "alternative lifestyle" that was probably harsher than most very masculine heteros could stand.

No surprise that BOTH the Beat Generation and the Punk movement are QUITE linked to times in which the repression was not reduced, but increased.

Of course, there is no need to be so Freudian and assume that the ONLY reason to be forced to adopt an alternative lifestyle is a sexual orientation. Some people simply cannot afford to live in the Chaos of the Normal (I can't... and it's completely unrelated to sexual orientations, even if I despise the super-macho ideology, but that's not MY reason... I simply can't "play the game" I was thrown into -the World- and made my own rules).

Anyway, going back to the homophobic male only super secret clubs... they are a nightmare I would never get into (shiny medals and silly rituals without any depth). Even the Catholic Church is less idiotic than them.
I'm not so sorry if my opinion offends someone.

Andro
03-21-2017, 08:27 AM
I prefer gay persons as friends simply because they are more interesting for me... in a strange way this is unrelated to their sexual choice, but more related to the fact that in our societies the gays are somehow FORCED to adopt an "alternative lifestyle".

Sexual orientation (which gender/s one is attracted to) is NOT a 'sexual choice' (it's not a 'choice', period), nor is it 'forced'. It is technically not a 'lifestyle', either.

However, a culturally 'alternative' lifestyle (i.e. 'subculture') can be 'chosen' or appear as 'forced' simply because of being rejected by so-called 'mainstream' cultural 'lifestyles'.

'Choice' is only when you have more than one option to choose FROM :)

It's like god making Eve out of Adam's rib and then asking him to 'choose' a wife :). Sounds like communist elections - one candidate only, who always gets 're-elected' :rolleyes:

zoas23
03-21-2017, 08:55 AM
Sexual orientation (which gender/s one is attracted to) is NOT a 'sexual choice' (it's not a 'choice', period), nor is it 'forced'. It is technically not a 'lifestyle', either.

Somehow off topic, but you misunderstood my words.
I never had the idea that sexual orientation is a choice, nor that it is forced. It is.

I did mean, however, that people who are gay, lesbian or transgender (which is not really a sexual orientation) are usually FORCED to adopt a way of life that differs from what is the "normal" lifestyle of an average person... and not that it's an "alternative" lifestyle in itself (I mean, it's not something intrinsic, but mostly social... or not "mostly", but absolutely social).

Though I also meant that other persons are also FORCED to do the same by other circumstances which are quite unrelated to sexuality.
FORCED for the lack of a better word.

Andro
03-21-2017, 10:50 AM
We already clarified this on Skype, so I'm just posting this for future generations :)


Somehow off topic, but you misunderstood my words.
I never had the idea that sexual orientation is a choice, nor that it is forced.

Well, you wrote:


I prefer gay persons as friends simply because they are more interesting for me.. in a strange way this is unrelated to their sexual choice.So I know you didn't mean it like that, I'm just clarifying it for posterity :)

Now back to the misogynistic, repressed but entirely brotherly butt-fucking Freemasons :)

Here's a new term I just put together: Ritualistic, Initiatory & Strictly Brotherly Butt-Sex. No homo! Because 'brotherly' sex doesn't count! LOL ;)

-------------------------------------------------

Awani
03-21-2017, 12:34 PM
False... I think it is quite a patriarchal belief, though it can be traced to very ancient ages. The idea is always that the females are irrational and intuitive and the males are rational and wise.

Are they more in tune with their emotions? I honestly think that both genders are pretty equal. This is not a political statement or a SJW statement... but we can get rid of some myths...

No, I don't agree. Yes it is true that everyone is an individual but if you make a survey of all men and women on the planet you will find (I assume, based on my life experiences) that women are more connected to their emotions

Both genders can have these traits, but the fact is that women have been ALLOWED to have emotional traits to a greater degree than men. This is pretty obvious IMO.

Where I work there are about 30 girls and 30 boys. I know them pretty well and if I tell the 30 boys that "they are a useless fucking cunt" they will either laugh, become angry or say something back to me. If I say this to the 30 girls I know that at least 15 of them will go home crying and the rest will "fight back" (although probably 29 will cry).

There have been about 3000 people where I work in the last 10 years and half have been women and I can recall one time when a man cried at work, but there have been a woman crying at work about (at least) one time every 14 days in those ten years. Often for no reason (none they admit to anyway).

Women ARE in general more in tune with their emotions and able to express them. I don't care if a person is a feminist, SJW or a republican. This is "fact" as much as something can be a "fact"... if I can be so bold.

Should it be like this? That is another topic and not the point of this thread.

Also women have been, throughout history, the wise old woman, the soothsayer, the witch, the shaman in many cultures and in great numbers (but thanks to the patriarchy not often recorded in history by name)... for example everyone has heard of Merlin, but not as many has heard of Morgana... this I know you cannot doubt. Yes there have been men also that have been wizards and warlocks... but women have usually taken this role.

Pre-Patriarchy or Paternality or Dominatior Culture the GOD of all the major beliefs in those days were a GODDESS.

Just because something is a stereotype does not mean there is not some truth in it. Right or wrong, if something generally is... it is. A stereotype of Amercians where I live is that they are fat patriotic Jesus loving people... when I have been in America (and lived there) I have to say that 80 % of my experience show that it is a true stereotype (some states are fatter than others - I have never been in California where silicone whores and SJW armies are in great numbers... will I see a lot of this when I go there... PROBABLY YES... but of course I will meet individuals that are different as well).

Finally 1: the theory put forth by me in this thread was just a "funny" idea that could be true... I would not take it so serious. :)

Finally 2: Masons call each other brothers, feminist women call each other sisters... hmm... I see a pattern. LOL.

:cool:

Axismundi000
03-21-2017, 12:44 PM
Apart from the secret society guff the assertion that emotional intelligence is directly linked to sexual orientation is very questionable. All I see here is yet another critical theory driven debate. Neonate lack of close physical contact with parents is I feel the basis of such fanatical nihilism as we see with critical theorists. The neonate lack of prolonged close contact produces a deprivation motivated fanatical nihilism. A driving need to put forward any paradigm which is against the primary norms and values of the culture within which the critical theorist resides because all of human culture that ever existed must be negated. From the contact/affection starved infant the nihilistic critical theorist emerges filled with hatred and angst for every human value and achievement. Thus this continual need to raise counter-culture debate as shown here.

zoas23
03-21-2017, 03:51 PM
No, I don't agree. Yes it is true that everyone is an individual but if you make a survey of all men and women on the planet you will find (I assume, based on my life experiences) that women are more connected to their emotions

Both genders can have these traits, but the fact is that women have been ALLOWED to have emotional traits to a greater degree than men. This is pretty obvious IMO.

I do not agree at all... There's LOTS of emotions which are socially prescribed to men and somehow forbidden to women. i.e, the "romantic declarations of love" are still quite prescribed to men.... and we have built a whole pop culture based on such thing...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQsEYy3wMyM


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqrmRsL3U-4


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqhOVY58zIo

Just three examples of somehow popular artists who do not play with gender roles at all and clearly focused on the emotions (you can add most of the "Crooners" to this short list).


Also women have been, throughout history, the wise old woman, the soothsayer, the witch, the shaman in many cultures and in great numbers (but thanks to the patriarchy not often recorded in history by name)... for example everyone has heard of Merlin, but not as many has heard of Morgana... this I know you cannot doubt. Yes there have been men also that have been wizards and warlocks... but women have usually taken this role.

Hmmm... Merlin and Morgana is not exactly the fight between male and women, but two mystical religious representations... Merlin of Christianity, Morgana of Paganism. There is a religious sub-text there and it's not surprising that the Christian became the "famous" one... I do not really relate it to genders. The whole story of Arthur is quite biased towards Christianism.


Finally 2: Masons call each other brothers, feminist women call each other sisters... hmm... I see a pattern. LOL.

It is interesting though how Masons call their wives... I don't know the English expression, but in Spanish it is "cuñada" ("Sister in Law") and NEVER "wife", "Spouse", etc.... Which is quite derogatory. As if at work you were asked not to call your "daughter" using the word "daughter" and were asked to use the expression "niece". Never saw or heard anything more absurd.

You say that it was just a funny comment and not something "serious"... It is possible to be VERY serious about funny things though. Our "jokes" are VERY serious (Umberto Eco's "The Name of the Rose" just came to my mind).

Quite often our "jokes" conceal a very deep (or intrinsic) ideology... so deep that we only can express it as a joke. LOL... if you wanna know the truth about someone, just ask him to tell you a few funny jokes.


Apart from the secret society guff the assertion that emotional intelligence is directly linked to sexual orientation is very questionable. All I see here is yet another critical theory driven debate. Neonate lack of close physical contact with parents is I feel the basis of such fanatical nihilism as we see with critical theorists. The neonate lack of prolonged close contact produces a deprivation motivated fanatical nihilism. A driving need to put forward any paradigm which is against the primary norms and values of the culture within which the critical theorist resides because all of human culture that ever existed must be negated. From the contact/affection starved infant the nihilistic critical theorist emerges filled with hatred and angst for every human value and achievement. Thus this continual need to raise counter-culture debate as shown here.

Thus the avant-garde is a product of " Neonate lack of close physical contact with parents"... LOL.
Honestly, if you wanna go Freudian... then at least remember the basics. This deprivation of contact will not produce an "ideology", but rather a psychosis (which is not a nihilism anyway).
I can testify that I am as neurotic as it gets... And I can state that my dear Andro is another neurotic (he doesn't even allow us to go too far from the original topic or he creates a new thread... and even made me clarify the expression "sexual choice" for "sexual orientation" for the posterity when he certainly knows how I think and that we have no disagreements there... and even if the expression was wrong, the context already made clear the intention).

My criticism of society and Andro's criticism of society are a bit different though... but if such thing was the product of a "Neonate lack of close physical contact with parents", then we should also have psychotic structures... and I am unable to say who is more neurotic, but probably we are even* (two typical neurotics without any psychotic traits).

*Probably Andro is a bit more obsessive and I am a bit more of the romantic type (the need to satisfy some persons, the need to have a partner, etc). If you wanna play the psychology game, then remember that neurosis is caused by an EXCESSIVE close physical contact with the parents rather than the lack of it.

Last, but not least, Neurosis and Psychosis are NOT ideologies.

Axismundi000
03-21-2017, 05:43 PM
The reason why there are such things as teddy bears and extra soft baby blankets is because children in modern countries lack sufficient close contact with a parent.

Awani
03-21-2017, 06:27 PM
I do not agree at all... There's LOTS of emotions which are socially prescribed to men and somehow forbidden to women. i.e, the "romantic declarations of love" are still quite prescribed to men.... and we have built a whole pop culture based on such thing...

I don't think so. I mean artists are not the same. An artist can get away with whatever. But most men drink beer and work in a factory or drive a taxi or construction or run a bank or whatever... can these men cry in front of their friends and say that they feel sad or are scared? Generally.

I don't know about where you live but in all the societies I have lived in THEY CANNOT.

I don't say it is right or wrong, I am just observing what is the general status quo. Emotion = Weakness. You cannot argue that this is not the mentality men have to live up to... even feminists know this.

Perhaps you are confusing your belief or dream or self with what is actual reality for most "normal" men that are not part of occult orders or artist groups as you are... BY THE WAY... you kind of prove my point in the initial post: you are not - based on your posts and what I know of you - a typical MALE MACHO MAN and lo and behold you are in many occult secret orders. Exactly what I am saying.

Ha ha ha.

:cool:

Andro
03-21-2017, 07:19 PM
Zoas mon cher, quite a piece of psychoanalysis :)


the assertion that emotional intelligence is directly linked to sexual orientation is very questionable. [...] Neonate lack of close physical contact with parents is I feel the basis of such fanatical nihilism as we see with critical theorists.

Is this obliquely alluding to the possibility that lack of close physical contact with the parents leads to 'non-mainstream' sexual orientations? If yes, it sounds like what a 'gay conversion' minister the-rapist would say :)


The reason why there are such things as teddy bears and extra soft baby blankets is because children in modern countries lack sufficient close contact with a parent.

I had lots of close, loving, tender physical contact with my both my parents... and I also had a teddy bear and some really soft blankets... Mmmm... soft... and it was in the 70's... and the first teddy bear they got me was too big and it scared me.... so they got me a smaller one... with whom I had fascinating philosophical conversations in Baby-Gibberish... If only I could remember them...


A driving need to put forward any paradigm which is against the primary norms and values of the culture

Unless by "close physical contact" you mean literally beating some good ole' fashioned 'values' into me... If this is the case, I was severely lacking in such sort of physical contact :)

Speaking of values, I think some people alive today would have had a jolly good time in the 50's... I mean the 1850's (and on)... In Victorian England... Now THOSE were values!

I wonder if people have any idea what the book Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde (1886) is really about... (speaking of men and their emotions)

Or skipping forward in 'time', what the X-Men movies are really about... (hint: they're NOT about mutants with superpowers)


BY THE WAY... you kind of prove my point in the initial post: you are not - based on your posts and what I know of you - a typical MALE MACHO MAN and lo and behold you are in many occult secret orders. Exactly what I am saying.

1. Zoas not a typical male macho man.
2. Zoas is in many occult secret orders.
3. Therefore, it (kind of) proves the point that members of occult secret orders are also like that?


Ha ha ha.

Bless your soul (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0EW0s1fN-8&feature=youtu.be&t=77) :)


✂------------------------------------------------

Awani
03-21-2017, 07:58 PM
This thread has totally derailed... but that is why I placed it in General Discussions thank God.



1. Zoas not a typical male macho man.
2. Zoas is in many occult secret orders.
3. Therefore, it (kind of) proves the point that members of occult secret orders are also like that?

Yes, it would make any respectable scientist proud to see this level of evidence! :) Zoas23 is clearly the model subject for such study.

---------------------------------------------------

As for the "Gay Debate" I think it is very easy (if anyone reading this has a hard time grasping what Andro means).


Low brow simplified example of the debate of being/chosing gayness:

Imagine a food you 100 % love to eat.
Imagine a food you 100% hate to eat... food that disgust you utterly.

Now imagine someone trying to force you to love what you hate, and hate what you love... to eat.

If you feel in your heart that this is possible to do without any problem, because the food you loath with all your taste buds is just disgusting to eat due to what your parents, society or whatever did to you... then YES you are right and Andro is wrong.

Personally no soul on Earth could ever make me enjoy a hot plate of homeless bum diarrhoea. I'm sorry... but that is just how I was born. Freshly picked strawberries... well that I can eat every day... too bad society thinks it is abnormal and incorrect to eat fluid shit reeking of old sasuages and eggs because Jesus said so (apparently). Guess I have to pretend to enjoy that runny smelly vagrant poo...


High brow wholesome simplified example of the debate of being/chosing gayness:

Love & Lust is blind.*

:cool:

* regardless if you are straight or gay please refrain from fucking small children no matter how blind you are...

Axismundi000
03-22-2017, 12:23 PM
.......
Is this obliquely alluding to the possibility that lack of close physical contact with the parents leads to 'non-mainstream' sexual orientations? If yes, it sounds like what a 'gay conversion' minister the-rapist would say :)



I had lots of close, loving, tender physical contact with my both my parents... and I also had a teddy bear and some really soft blankets... Mmmm... soft... and it was in the 70's... and the first teddy bear they got me was too big and it scared me.... so they got me a smaller one... with whom I had fascinating philosophical conversations in Baby-Gibberish... If only I could remember them...



Unless by "close physical contact" you mean literally beating some good ole' fashioned 'values' into me... If this is the case, I was severely lacking in such sort of physical contact :)

Speaking of values, I think some people alive today would have had a jolly good time in the 50's... I mean the 1850's (and on)... In Victorian England... Now THOSE were values

I'm not sure it actually worth trying to fully unpick this textual diarrhoea. I shall make a few salient points only. It speaks to me of being in denial ( e.g. I had good parental contact but also teddies). Then going off at a tangent about Victorian values, I doubt anyone here is so old as have had such an upbringing so this seems incoherent and well....... fanatical to me. It seems to me that the cause could be: a childhood lacking parental intimate contact leading to deprivation and consequently an adult fanaticism of critical theory and nihilism. This is one explanation for these comments.

Andro
03-22-2017, 01:07 PM
This is one explanation for these comments.

Yes, it's the completely wrong/misguided one.

You can hardly see/'get' what's staring you in the face, let alone subtext, and even less the occasional bit of embedded humor. You have one single fixed set of concepts that you keep repeating, mainly to yourself. You're not listening. You're not communicating. You don't want to learn. You're not open to other perspectives. You don't want to 'grow'. You don't want to understand. You have already made up your mind. You just put things in their respective mental boxes and tell yourself you got it figured out.

There's no point or value in communicating with you about anything, maybe except for the likes of lab methods and alembics.

The question now is how long will it take until Mr. Hyde finally emerges... If he hasn't already :)

Axismundi000
03-22-2017, 01:16 PM
Whilst the explanation and theory I offer is only a possible explanation and not definately so. Andro; your anger, negative characterisation of me and then withdrawal is a classic sign that there may be something to what i suggest. Such behaviours are the classic defence mechanisms of a person in denial. For this reason I am not upset and wish you well on your journey,

Aham
03-22-2017, 01:29 PM
https://pandagif.com/gifs/78K806OHPM.gif

Andro
03-22-2017, 01:34 PM
Whilst the explanation and theory I offer is only a possible explanation and not definately so. Andro; your anger, negative characterisation of me and then withdrawal is a classic sign that there may be something to what i suggest. Such behaviours are the classic defence mechanisms of a person in denial. For this reason I am not upset and wish you well on your journey,

It's not a 'negative' characterization'. It's how you come across to me in your posts. It is, of course, subjective. It also seems you have a liking for 'targeting' or 'provoking' certain people on more than one thread/occasion. If I were in 'denial' (as you speculate), I wouldn't be so open about myself as I am on this forum and in my life as well. You also see 'anger' where there isn't any :)

So, you're 'not upset' because 'I'm in denial'. But I'm NOT in denial, so are you upset now? You shouldn't be.

Words come easy but can have great ingress. I suggest you chill and take it down a few notches before your words hurt some people who are actually confused about themselves. Because with me, you're really barking up the wrong tree.

But to respond in kind - too many repressed (in your case male) emotions can and may cause such behavior as you are displaying. Hence the 'Mr. Hyde' reference.

Just live and let live, man. Don't put everything in mental boxes, lest you end up in one.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

I wish you well on your journey as well.

Andro
03-22-2017, 01:39 PM
https://pandagif.com/gifs/78K806OHPM.gif

Glad you're enjoying the spectacle :rolleyes:

Anything to entertain my devoted fans!

But feel free to join in any time!

:cool:

Aham
03-22-2017, 02:13 PM
But feel free to join in any time!



As Dev himself said at the beginning of his post, "Just had a funny idea" has somehow ended in a place that's not so funny :)

The gif was my attempt to bring 'funny' back to the discussion and go back to the topic at hand.

BTW, I do agree that Axis' word choice could have been better... which only goes to show that women are emotionally superior to men :D :cool: :p (yes, a sample size of <1 is sufficient)

Dev, you were right!!!

Axismundi000
03-22-2017, 05:53 PM
It would seem that not only is my theory very upsetting but even my turn of phrase is also rather naughty.

Perhaps this will help.

http://i64.tinypic.com/2dabqkk.jpg

zoas23
03-22-2017, 07:15 PM
I don't think so. I mean artists are not the same. An artist can get away with whatever. But most men drink beer and work in a factory or drive a taxi or construction or run a bank or whatever... can these men cry in front of their friends and say that they feel sad or are scared? Generally. I don't know about where you live but in all the societies I have lived in THEY CANNOT.

I forgot the geographical factor, you are right. To be honest, I HATE the "nordic culture" (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany)... I do not exactly mean the culture in the sense of art production, literary production, etc (in that sense there's many things I LOVE)... but the atmosphere, the cold manners, this is hard to explain. The subtle tone of the voices, the "cleanness" of everything... some sort of taboo with "touching" each other (I noticed in the nordic cultures that friends don't touch each other when they talk, whilst the USUAL here in a conversation is that there is an unconscious physical contact -i.e, a hand of the shoulder of the other one, or a hand on the elbow of the other one, etc). Having hosted several persons from different places of the world at my house, I can state that I always saw the same thing, the ones who come from "cold cultures" (it's not just the Nordic one, the North Americans are probably worst in that sense, same thing goes for the English)... they feel almost "raped".

The USUAL here when to person talk is that they stand like this:

| |

Whilst what I have seen there is that the usual is that they stand like this:

| _______________________ |

I am by far more used to the Latin cultures (Italy, Spain, South America, France)... The "Nordic cultures", USA, England, several etceteras... I feel there as if everyone was inside of an individual big condom. So if the reaction I saw HERE by people from these "cold cultures" is to feel raped, my feeling when I visit those places is weird, even a bit asphyxiating.

I am not saying that one style is better than the other, but PROBABLY in the "cold cultures" it is harder to be open about some feelings. This is unrelated to patriarchy or feminism or anything related to those issues.


Perhaps you are confusing your belief or dream or self with what is actual reality for most "normal" men that are not part of occult orders or artist groups as you are... BY THE WAY... you kind of prove my point in the initial post: you are not - based on your posts and what I know of you - a typical MALE MACHO MAN and lo and behold you are in many occult secret orders. Exactly what I am saying. Ha ha ha.

My CLOSEST friends are not into Occult Orders though (with a few exceptions).
But if you want to un-derail the thread and talk seriously... I do not participate in any "male only" Order (nor I would).
As for the Orders or "secret societies" as a way to express the emotions... it's a broad generalization, but you can use the idea of the Pentagram and the Water is just 1/5 of it.
And going deeper, SOME rites can actually work for someone who has a need to express emotions somewhere... whilst other rites are certainly LESS emotional than an average casual meeting between friends (i.e, a typical birthday party, a dinner with friends, etc).
So it really depends a lot on which rite we are talking about. The most "technical" ones would be VERY disappointing for someone with those needs.

As for the gays... to be honest, I ONLY participate in non-homophobic rites (and always with members of both genders with equal rights)... and an interesting fact is that the presence of gays is certainly by far higher than the average of the total population (I would need to count a lot of people as to give an accurate percentage, but I'd say that more or less 35% of the males are openly gay in most of the rites I know).

[strange fact: whilst the genders are quite equal in amounts, there's more or less the same amount of men and women.... the presence of lesbians is certainly LOWER than the average of the total population... I think that in 20 years I only saw 1 or 2 lesbian women, whilst the gay males are certainly around a 35%]

Other strange fact: they are NOT endogamic places... in 20 years I think I saw 3 couples being formed INSIDE a "secret society"... which is certainly below the average of what you would expect in a place where lots of persons gather periodically.

Other than that, a lot of the males perfectly fit into the "typical macho" stereotype there...

So my conclusions are:
1) are those places for men to express their gay side? I don't participate in male only rites....in all the ones I know there's lots of gays (who are openly gay, even some couples of legally married gays). I never saw the hetero ones acting "more gay" than they act outside of the rites.
2) Are they places where males can express their emotions more fluently? It depends a LOT on the rite... in some rites this idea CAN be true, though that's not the point... whilst in some other rites, I'd say that the context makes it by far less "let's express our emotions here" friendly than a casual meeting between friends.
3) For some strange reason the amount of gay males is noticeable higher than the average of the population, whilst the amount of lesbian women is noticeably lower. I do not know why.
4) Never saw anyone "getting out of the closet" there and stating that he's gay... the ones who are gay are properly informed that it's OK, so they don't need to hide it.

Then again, I can speak for non-homophobic and mixed (for both genders) rites.... And yes, I do know several gays who were not exactly expelled, but forced to leave some "male only" rites (they made their lives impossible simply because they were gay). Hmmm... one of my closest friends (who is a typical macho and 100% hetero) and WAS into the most popular "male only" rite (do I need to name it?) managed to trace the gays who were being *tortured* and invited them to his Lodge (where he was the master). He was later asked to give explanations about the strange high amount of gays... his explanation was as simple as: "Am I breaking any rule? Are you questioning my Lodge because some persons are gay?". The ones who asked explanations decided to keep their mouth shut.


Zoas mon cher, quite a piece of psychoanalysis :)

With 2 psychoanalyst parents and a psychoanalyst girlfriend, I would say that I am surrounded.... LOL.


I had lots of close, loving, tender physical contact with my both my parents... and I also had a teddy bear and some really soft blankets... Mmmm... soft... and it was in the 70's... and the first teddy bear they got me was too big and it scared me.... so they got me a smaller one... with whom I had fascinating philosophical conversations in Baby-Gibberish... If only I could remember them...

Which is not an explanation of your sexual orientation... though I'd say that it perfectly explains why you are a quite typical non-pathological neurotic with some obsessive tendencies.
(LOL... So I am, though less prone to develop obsessions and more prone to seek for the approval of some specific persons who are, for some reason, important for me).
Though I noticed that when we have to organize something we often make numbered lists... LOL... Neurosis at its best!


1. Zoas not a typical male macho man.
2. Zoas is in many occult secret orders.
3. Therefore, it (kind of) proves the point that members of occult secret orders are also like that?

LOL... I do agree with the numbered list.

So... maybe the question would be why I like SOME "secret societies" (I would called them "Orders", but it's just semantics).
The FIRST one I knew was heavily based on the USA and England... It was my "first love" when it comes to Orders... and I had to travel to the USA.
I had the LUCK that it was a very kind Order and they organized for me some sort of US tour, with several persons hosting me in different states of the USA.
I was very young and I was certainly not very experienced in anything... but I adored to be received as if I was a king and receiving explanations about a lot of things that were interesting for me... and lots of gifts (art, books... and TIME, yeah, our greatest gift is the TIME we give to another person).
I was, by then, fascinated by a specific book ("The Theater and its Double" by Artaud) and a person in Pennsylvania taught me how to "jump" to other realities... which was mind-blowing for me.
And then in each state I was learning something different... whilst seeing how lots of very different persons had lifestyles that I liked a lot... points of view that were both new and old for me... so it was very pleasant.
And I've learnt there something that Deleuze & Blanchot say: that friendship as a category is a condition to think... and that the word "philosophy" literally means "friend of wisdom"... and we get closer to becoming friends of Sophia when we have friends who are also trying to become his friends (though take it for granted that she stays away from those places where women are not allowed to enter in equal conditions!).

So it's not exactly the "friend", but the "friendship" what makes us think. I am totally plagiarizing Deleuze with this idea, but a good friendship is identical to a comedy duo.
I.e, last night we talked maybe due to my use of the expression "sexual choice", but then we ended up talking about a lot of things... or showing things... or joking about a specific place to visit and I was not very convinced, but you knew that my girlfriend is my weakness, so you asked me if she would agree with you and I said that for sure she would agree with you... so you said that you know with whom you have to talk.... Or I can make jokes with your tendency to forget some details about non-important things (though I know that you probably forgot that joke). So, that's comedy.
For sure we mutate each time, so sometimes it's Sancho and Quixote, sometimes it's Dante and Virgil, sometimes it's Abbot and costello... etc.
But there is a common ground, what Deleuze calls a pre-language... sometimes it's the silly phrases, sometimes they have an unique charm. I don't know, I remember that you said: "You have the right to be wrong"... and I laughed.

So, what's the point of an Occult Order?
Well, it's similar to what I have just said. It is a context that creates a pre-language and makes it possible to communicate with persons who are VERY different.
i.e, there is a consensus in this forum to name something that doesn't have a name as "Spiritus Mundi", thus we can communicate and say "Spiritus Mundi".
Same thing happens in an "Occult Order"... i.e, we can say that we are going to work with the Ruach and everyone KNOWS what such thing means in that context.
I like it, it is useful for me, I don't really give a damn if someone does not like them (i.e, I am used to listening to Andro mocking a bit all my Orders and making some funny jokes about it... which is funny for me, I do not get offended at all... I don't need him to like them, I don't need him to say that they are the best thing that the world has to offer).


I'm not sure it actually worth trying to fully unpick this textual diarrhoea. I shall make a few salient points only. It speaks to me of being in denial ( e.g. I had good parental contact but also teddies). Then going off at a tangent about Victorian values, I doubt anyone here is so old as have had such an upbringing so this seems incoherent and well....... fanatical to me. It seems to me that the cause could be: a childhood lacking parental intimate contact leading to deprivation and consequently an adult fanaticism of critical theory and nihilism. This is one explanation for these comments.

Your theory is wrong, that's the problem.
First of all the "lack of contact" is NOT the case of Andro (neither it is my case)... I would say that our cases are quite similar: maybe an excess of it, rather than a "lack of it".
Second: this parental contact does not create "ideologies", but psychological structures.
Third: The excess of parental contact creates neurotics, the lack of it creates psychotics. Neurosis and Psychosis are NOT ideologies (a neurotic can be Nazi, supporter of Trump, Marxist, anarchist or even not interested in politics... whilst a psychotic can be Nazi, supporter of Trump, Marxist, anarchist or even not interested in politics).
Fourth: If you can't even see that Andro is a quite typical neurotic just by reading him, then you shouldn't be making these wild speculations... LOL, just look at how he gets nervous when a thread is derailed, how he likes to make numbered lists without a reason (just like this one I am making), how he plays with quite non-rational ideas (OBE), but still explains them in an obsessive, coherent and detailed way and does not create multiple branches* that go nowhere...

*Multiple branches = typical of psychotics... I don't know if it is the right English expression, but what I mean is a type of discourse that goes like this: "I want to talk about out of body experiences. I once had one that lead me to a beach. I liked a lot going to the beach when I was a teen, I used to smoke pot there and laugh. I don't suggest to smoke pot though, it's quite a confusing experience. I like a lot of experiences, like going to the beach, walking with my dog, doing experiments at the lab, watching movies, there is a movie in which I saw an OBE, but I also like musicals, music is amazing, specially swing and jazz, those are my favorite genres, but I also listen to hard rock. I am making an experiment with Cinnabar and Antimony, but I am not sure if those are the right matters, but I think they are. Anyone has experiences with them or has worked with them? O.K... I was talking about walking my dog, he's black and has a red stain in his tail, which I like, his name is Bobby. Bobby is such a sweetheart. I like nice people too, but I also like food that tastes nice. If you want to have an OBE it is important to be relaxed. A lot of things are relaxing, I have never been into a Spa... I've heard that they are relaxing though, I don't like the idea of being covered in mud and the photos I see always show people covered in mud"... That's what "creating branches" means (my closest friend is a functional psychotic and his conversations are like that... I often enjoy talking to him because I like how he associates very random things, though I always try to "cut" his branches and help him to organize the ideas, which is a big problem for him).

Fifth: a theory is meant to explain a fact... but you can't change the facts as to force them to fit into your theory. You are using classical psychology, but misunderstanding it.... confusing "ideologies" with psychological structures (and, by the way, you CAN change your ideology... conservatives who become libertarians and viceversa are not uncommon... or rabid atheists who become later Religious fanatics... but you can't really change a psychological structure).

Your theory does not make a lot of sense... nor it is adequate to explain the facts we are talking about (i.e, "Andro the destroyer and negator of all the human culture that ever existed"... LOL... You are talking about a person obsessed with alchemical classics written lots of centuries ago and very much a "traditionalist"... and also a "traditionalist" when it comes to several aspects of his private life, though I would not comment them here or anywhere -I'm very much a "traditionalist" too in a lot of areas... my close friends usually joke about it and say that I would be a good Amish, as a funny way of mocking some of my own views).

Sixth: if you wanna see the face of a neurotic, just look at the mirror, Axis... you are one too (welcome to the club!).


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PrnGo-lOVA

Axismundi000
03-22-2017, 08:00 PM
I am aware that putting a political ideology into the frame of psychology is frowned upon but it happens. E.G. Wilhelm Reich's mass psychology of Fascism were sexual repression and misery leads to fascism and brutality. Bearing in mind Adorno's basic personality work and his F scale ( F for Fascism). We have psychology as a tool of political discrediting, especial as Adorno was a member of the so called Frankfurt school from which critical theory originated.

All I have done to make bit of a change to this 'hey how do we feel about emtion and expressing them, how gay is such?' I suggest that this is in fact driven by critical theory and then I suggested a psychological basis for such persistent and recurring counter-culture arguments that pop up from time to time. Usually started by the same usual suspects. A little bit of basic discussion about defence mechanisms and people go ballistic.

There can be no doubt that people in modern culture have less long term tactile contact with parents whilst neonates. I mean who doesn't have a teddy or such when very young? Then a basic suggestion that this could feed into the basic nihilism and counter-culture imperative of critical theory and various parties go nuclear over this.

It makes no difference to me if people here agree with this but the strong reaction which looks a lot like denial on the face of it makes me think I may actually be on to something.!

So by all means all go back to the 'how gay is emotional intelligence debate' I value the responses or should I say reactions. The theory produced primarily hostility and snap intellectual denial here, ( defence mechanisms cannot really be identified via a forum, body language helps to verify). So if it is not interesting to you all to asses this theory get back to the same old issues as before and best of luck.

zoas23
03-22-2017, 11:42 PM
I am aware that putting a political ideology into the frame of psychology is frowned upon but it happens. E.G. Wilhelm Reich's mass psychology of Fascism were sexual repression and misery leads to fascism and brutality. Bearing in mind Adorno's basic personality work and his F scale ( F for Fascism).

LOL... First time I see someone questioning the idea of a counter-culture by quoting Reich... It is a bit like quoting Fulcanelli to explain that transmutations into gold are not possible.

Reich was a damn genius... Same thing goes to Adorno, Benjamin, Marcuse, etc. I adore them.
They were incredibly confused though.
Their writings are VERY dated. Their idea about sexuality in a nutshell was that sexual satisfaction leads to freedom and that freedom means a more equal society.
They wrote what they wrote during times of sexual oppression and it is VERY likely that the most "liberals" in their times were certainly more sexually open than the "conservatives" (and fascists).
The times have changed and we now have seen people like Silvio Berlusconi who shouted whenever he could what a "playboy" he was... or the idiotic racist ideas of Milo Yiannopoulos... which completely contradict their statements and prove them to be wrong. Though I understand WHY they thought that way, but it's simply a confusion of causes and effects.

The gay filmmaker Bruce LaBruce made an AMAZING movie mocking a bit these ideas, "Raspberry Reich"... which is a parody of the Baader-Meinhof group (a.k.a. Red Army Faction)... which is in the movie lead by a female character called Gudrun who is obsessed with Reich, Marcuse, Adorno... etc... and quotes them again and again explaining to the male "marxist terrorists" that follow her ideas that they have to be gay as to be TRUE revolutionaries and get rid of capitalist values.

Bruce LaBruce is a damn genius and his movie is a parody of these ideas, though LaBruce plays a lot with a "propaganda" style to promote the ideas he is mocking and considers absurd (any of his movies are what I would call the best of the best when it comes to gay counterculture... some others are less interesting). This scene summarizes the concept of the movie (sorry for the poor quality of the video).


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSWIrKBMBNk

I think that Reich and the Frankfurt School have a LOT to offer, but their conclusions about sexuality are VERY dated and they got confused between causes and effects.

Awani
03-23-2017, 12:13 AM
...some sort of taboo with "touching" each other... I noticed in the nordic cultures that friends don't touch each other when they talk... the ones who come from "cold cultures"...

When it concerns Scandinavia there is truth in this statement, however I think you have misinterpreted it. The reason Scandinavians seem cold and do not touch is because they respect personal space.

You have to keep in mind that not many people live in Scandinavia, and Scandinavia is pretty big with wide open spaces, and extremly large areas of Nature. This creates a sense of space. There have been reports of people from Tokyo who suffer agora phobia when they visit.

Also Scandinavians guard their "inner circle" more than most cultures. Strong emotions are more respected. I have talked about this in the forum many times before. The word "LOVE" is used like people use toilet paper. Especially in the English speaking language the word "love" has lost all meaning.

Where I come from, when you say "I love you", you don't say that shit when your partner goes out to get some milk. You don't say that before you hang up the phone after you called home to inform the "other" that you are running late.

You say that shit like if it was the last shit you would ever say in your life. You own it when you say it.

When a Scandinavian really gets to know a new friend it takes time. Sometimes years... sometimes less... before that "friend" is allowed to be "my friend". However when that happens it is a strong bond for life, and "intimacy" is no longer an issue.

Just like the serious respect for "I love you", a "friendship" is what is valued, not the "mi amigo" after 5 minutes sitting side by side on the bus for the first time, in rush hour. Not used as a word to describe a fellow being, like "my friend, hello..." (salesmen outside Scandinavia do this a lot).

A friend is a friend. Everyone else is a stranger.

And Scandinavians are usually the most generous as a culture.

I am not trying to portray us in a good light... we have a lot of good light... we also remain rich and free by selling bombs that you hide in fruit, in order to better target civilians. And not that long ago homosexuals were - by law - on the same illegal level as raping animals and children. And retards were not allowed to have children.

Still... compared to most countries in the world, us Scandinavians are pretty nice and friendly, if you have patience. ;)

----------------------------------------------

Hope you got some understanding to the stereotype. As I said before stereotypes are always true to some degree, but there are always many perspectives and reasons behind them.

And as always the above rant is a generalization, but it happens to - generally - be true, IMO. And I am not speaking for "how I am"... just "what is" from living in that area of the world for over three decades.


...the "cleanness" of everything...

I tastefully disagree [not observationally]. I love this. It's nice to take a stroll and not see garbage everywhere. But perhaps you refer to the Scandinavian design of minimalism and simplicity. I do agree that at least when it comes to interior design I prefer it a bit more "warm". However the Scandinavian design is a simplified exaggeration where the "style" of Scandinavia has been distilled for the world market. Very similar to Japan. And there is a beauty in that simple minimal style, there is a warmth.


To be honest, I HATE the "nordic culture" (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany)...

Excuse me, my good Sir, but GERMANY is not "nordic culture". That would be like if I said Argentina and Italy is the same culture and people. LOL. In a sense Argentina has more in common with Germany than any other country in the world if you think about it: after all Hitler lived in both.

:cool:

zoas23
03-23-2017, 04:27 AM
When it concerns Scandinavia there is truth in this statement, however I think you have misinterpreted it. The reason Scandinavians seem cold and do not touch is because they respect personal space.

LOL... this is becoming the thread of the clarifications.

No, I have not misinterpreted it, I understand it perfectly. I understand the notion of respecting the personal space of another person... It's is simply that we do not have the culture of social interaction here.

It doesn't even MEAN that you are a friend of someone. i.e, You can be driving and your car breaks. You are in Argentina. I will assume that you don't understand anything about the mechanics of a car (maybe you do, but let's pretend that you don't just for the example), but you'll take a look and will try to figure out what's wrong. Another wanna-be mechanic will probably stop by and try to help you and try to figure out what's wrong with your car. As you are both looking, it would not be strange at all if he puts his hand on your back... and once the two of you have not figured out how to fix the car and decided that calling a REAL mechanic is better, then he will say "good bye" by giving you a kiss in the cheek.

He is not expecting to be your friend, he will probably never see you again in his life, he will not ask you for money... he is simply following the usual standards of human interaction that we are used to.

LOL... the "amigo, amigo" you will only hear it if you are a tourist... the salesmen on the street usually don't have a good English, so they will try to use "nice words" assuming that the other one who probably speaks English will understand them. They are not trying to be your friends, just to sell you something. If you are a local, then you probably won't hear the "amigo, amigo".

So, in most cases people from "cold cultures" (and I am NOT talking about the weather) feel almost "raped", uneasy, the private space of their body has been touched. It's not a speculation, I saw it a lot of times when I host persons from "cold cultures".

SO... what i meant is that something similar happens to a person who comes from a "warm culture" and visits a place/country with a cold one.... it's really weird. The social interaction is bizarre, it feels almost inhuman... maybe because we are used to other "rules" of social interaction: touching is somehow a sign of respect, the idea of "respecting the body of the other person" is different (take it for granted that nobody will hug you just because... but touching your back, arms, etc... that's quite usual and common). It is even a sign of "respect".

Same thing goes for the distance between people when they talk. We are used to stand by far closer, even to a stranger. It's not really a sign of friendship, it's just how things are.

So I am strictly speaking of the social interaction. So when I said that I hate the nordic culture, I didn't mean that I hate Swedenborg, Ingmar Bergman or August Strindberg (LOL... I like a lot the 3 of them). Nor that I dislike people who lives there.

I simply meant that the social interaction is too bizarre for someone used to an absolutely different culture.

LOL... I don't think Hitler lived here, but many German Nazis did (after the war)... and yet this "many" may mean some 3,000... which is a meaningless influence. So there isn't a real German influence here (the main ones are Spanish and Italian).

Oh, with cleanness I meant both things, the "minimalism" and the literal lack of garbage... It feels a bit weird when you are used to something VERY different. It's a bit like the feeling of getting into the operating room for a surgery. It's so aseptic that it feels strange.

So, what I wrote was not meant to be taken as an offense, just an explanation of how DIFFERENT our contexts of social interaction (the places in which we live) are. How the "rules" are completely different... and how such thing feels weird in both ways (a Scandinavian can feel almost "raped" in South America... a South American can feel that everything is almost "inhuman" or "hostile" in Scandinavia). Two different cultural contexts. I'm not saying that one is better than the other... though I can confess that I can have vacations there and it is pleasant (well, I did it a few times and it was nice), but if I had to LIVE there, I would go crazy.

I BELIEVE, but I am not sure, that MAYBE in a "cold culture" is harder to express the emotions than in a "warm culture".

Axismundi000
03-23-2017, 09:35 AM
LOL... First time I see someone questioning the idea of a counter-culture by quoting Reich... It is a bit like quoting Fulcanelli to explain that transmutations into gold are not possible.

Reich was a damn genius... Same thing goes to Adorno, Benjamin, Marcuse, etc. I adore them.
They were incredibly confused though.
Their writings are VERY dated. Their idea about sexuality in a nutshell was that sexual satisfaction leads to freedom and that freedom means a more equal society.
They wrote what they wrote during times of sexual oppression and it is VERY likely that the most "liberals" in their times were certainly more sexually open than the "conservatives" (and fascists).
The times have changed and we now have seen people like Silvio Berlusconi who shouted whenever he could what a "playboy" he was... or the idiotic racist ideas of Milo Yiannopoulos... which completely contradict their statements and prove them to be wrong. Though I understand WHY they thought that way, but it's simply a confusion of causes and effects.

The gay filmmaker Bruce LaBruce made an AMAZING movie mocking a bit these ideas, "Raspberry Reich"... which is a parody of the Baader-Meinhof group (a.k.a. Red Army Faction)... which is in the movie lead by a female character called Gudrun who is obsessed with Reich, Marcuse, Adorno... etc... and quotes them again and again explaining to the male "marxist terrorists" that follow her ideas that they have to be gay as to be TRUE revolutionaries and get rid of capitalist values.

Bruce LaBruce is a damn genius and his movie is a parody of these ideas, though LaBruce plays a lot with a "propaganda" style to promote the ideas he is mocking and considers absurd (any of his movies are what I would call the best of the best when it comes to gay counterculture... some others are less interesting). This scene summarizes the concept of the movie (sorry for the poor quality of the video).


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSWIrKBMBNk

I think that Reich and the Frankfurt School have a LOT to offer, but their conclusions about sexuality are VERY dated and they got confused between causes and effects.

And yet so much of critical theory is to be seen being implemented in our daily lives. Safe zones in universities, transgender studies as part of children's sexual education. Happy holidays instead of merry Christmas etc etc. A lot of the things critical theory has brought forward I have benefited from and I have chosen examples above I personally have no objection to. To say they (Frankfurt school) were confused is incorrect I feel, specifically in terms of implementation. How could such confused ideas have had such impact over the last few decades? Also the essential nihilistic nature of critical theory can be mistaken for confusion when in fact it is methodology. Speaking from personal experience I notice a driving fanatical mania amongst exponents of critical theory even those who buy into particular ideas without understanding the overall provenance. This and the existential nihilism which accompanies it makes me wonder if a major push factor in this is in the same area as what Bowbly called anaclitic sociopathy. A narrow spectrum sociopathy were the deprivation angst is channeled into a societal norm rejecting fanaticism. It is interesting to note that people raised from children in a kibbutz show greater aggression and cruelty to the opponents of the parent society, as if the state has become the mother who must be cherished. So the idea that reduced tactile stimulus from parent whilst a neonate may lead to preference for nihilistic, societal norm rejecting views or even fanaticism as an adult is a reasonable idea to explore. As I observe the powerful reaction and angry rejection by forum members when presented with this view is very interesting indeed.

Andro
03-23-2017, 11:23 AM
How could such confused ideas have had such impact over the last few decades?

Look at history. When did coherent ideas/ideologies (the sort that of ideas/ideologies that actually benefit everyone, not just the powerful interest groups) ever have any significant impact on society? Did you know, for example, that poverty (over 60% of the world's population) is NOT accidental (http://www.humanosphere.org/podcasts/2013/05/the-rules-of-poverty/) but maintained BY DESIGN? (and by confused/confusing ideas/ideologies)

History and most mainstream culture & so-called 'values' are written and propelled by psychopaths and their trolling minions (a.k.a. 'useful idiots'). 'Confused' (& confusing) ideas RULE. Literally.

And whenever 'threatening' counter-cultures exist or arise, they are either discredited and destroyed (by labeling them 'fanatical & narcissist', for example :p) OR, more often, gradually adopted, hijacked, altered to fit the narrative of the psychopathic power structure and finally 'incorporated'. The Romans did it, and it is still being done to this day. And what's counter-culture, anyway? How much of today's 'culture' was 'counter-culture' before it became 'mainstream' and further heading for its inevitable decline, all part of perpetuating the Hegelian dialectic?


As I observe the powerful reaction and angry rejection by forum members when presented with this view is very interesting indeed.

Not nearly as interesting as the obsessive need to repeat this 'observation' in almost every post, almost like trying to become convinced that if it's repeated often enough, it will eventually make it true.


Usually started by the same usual suspects.

I assume you mostly refer to Zoas and myself :cool:

Repeatedly disagreeing with quasi-intellectual (regardless how erudite-sounding) armchair generalizations & speculations (a.k.a. 'academic trolling') doesn't necessarily indicate 'being in denial', just as having a teddy bear as an infant doesn't necessarily indicate lack of loving parental contact (of which I personally had plenty).


This and the existential nihilism which accompanies itI wonder (rhetorically) if you possess the emphatic capacity to place yourself in the shoes of people who are automatically deemed as 'lesser' or as 'outcasts' (and sometimes even outlaws) BY DEFAULT, just because they were born with the 'wrong' skin color/orientation/gender/ancestry/geography/etc? How would you feel knowing that the entire 'system' is rigged/wired against you from the start? Seeing how firmly you present your current views, I may easily deduce that if you had gotten a somewhat 'lesser' ticket at the sperm lottery, we might have witnessed the birth of an influential counter-culture fanatical nihilist :)

When I was in my early 20's, I heard a man on the radio saying he'd rather have a son who's a serial killer than a son who's gay. And I already knew very well back then that similar ideas were held by a large majority where I lived. But then, in that particular moment, I sincerely wished with all my heart that the whole world would explode in a big ball of fire... So there's the 'fanatical nihilist' moment for ya... Happy now?

I am fortunately no longer in my 20's and I see this world for what it is. The child is grown, the dream is gone, so to speak. Disillusionment tends to cast out illusions, but interestingly enough, it also facilitates a whole new level of inner freedom and peace, unknown by most. So now I just live and let live, certainly NOT feeling a victim, not incorporated into any system, philosophy or sub/counter culture - unless someone is misguided enough to get the really bad idea to start messing with me 'in real life'. But I do however reserve the right to verbally argue any silly theory that comes my way from people who basically live in their heads/books and have no fucking clue what they're talking about.

✂--------------------------------------------------

Andro
03-23-2017, 11:46 AM
In a sense Argentina has more in common with Germany than any other country in the world if you think about it: after all Hitler lived in both.

Your flawless deduction skills never cease to impress :cool: ...

Axismundi000
03-23-2017, 12:13 PM
Look at history. When did coherent ideas/ideologies (the sort that of ideas/ideologies that actually benefit everyone, not just the powerful interest groups) ever have any significant impact on society? Did you know, for example, that poverty (over 60% of the world's population) is NOT accidental (http://www.humanosphere.org/podcasts/2013/05/the-rules-of-poverty/) but maintained BY DESIGN? (and by confused/confusing ideas/ideologies)

History and most mainstream culture & so-called 'values' are written and propelled by psychopaths and their trolling minions (a.k.a. 'useful idiots'). 'Confused' (& confusing) ideas RULE. Literally.

And whenever 'threatening' counter-cultures exist or arise, they are either discredited and destroyed (by labeling them 'fanatical & narcissist', for example :p) OR, more often, gradually adopted, hijacked, altered to fit the narrative of the psychopathic power structure and finally 'incorporated'. The Romans did it, and it is still being done to this day. And what's counter-culture, anyway? How much of today's 'culture' was 'counter-culture' before it became 'mainstream' and further heading for its inevitable decline, all part of perpetuating the Hegelian dialectic?



Not nearly as interesting as the obsessive need to repeat this 'observation' in almost every post, almost like trying to become convinced that if it's repeated often enough, it will eventually make it true. As for the idea that counter-culture in many instances has become mainstream this merely shows the effectiveness of critical theory. The methodology for this was first codified by the ancient strategist Sun tzu.



I assume you mostly refer to Zoas and myself :cool:

Repeatedly disagreeing with quasi-intellectual (regardless how smart-sounding) armchair generalizations & speculations (a.k.a. 'academic trolling') doesn't necessarily indicate 'being in denial', just as having a teddy bear as an infant doesn't necessarily indicate lack of loving parental contact (of which I personally had plenty).


Then again - if all you have is a hammer, everything else looks like a nail.

You make absurd sweeping generalisations that history is propelled by psychopaths. Are you suggesting that historical figures and leaders all suffered from the genetic deficiency that causes psychopathy? Also the fact that some counterculture is now mainstream merely shows the effectiveness of critical theory, the methodology of this was first codified by the ancient strategist Sun Tzu do you think he was a psychopath?

Your various responses just come across as ranting and more denial mechanisms part of which is personal attack; I am accused of something called academic trolling which I didn't even know about until now. Certainly you may disagree and your views could be interesting however the vociferous and personal nature of your response is striking.


So discussions about how gay emotional intelligence may be is not this intellectual trolling; but suggesting a theory that regular tendency to promote counterculture is based on childhood experience is labelled as this intellectual trolling thing?

Andro
03-23-2017, 01:19 PM
You make absurd sweeping generalisations that history is propelled by psychopaths.

They are not absurd and not generalizations. Just as one example among many, google the list of countries that England has NOT invaded over the course of its recorded history. It's a very short list :)

Power hungry politicians catering to greedy corporate interests, the constantly sending of people to die in senseless wars, religious/sexual/racial persecution of all possible varieties, the 'greats' of history who stepped on corpses to satisfy their pathological lust for power... Do I need to make another (long) list now? Textbook psychopaths and their minion armies of (often paid) trolls and enthusiastic/over-zealous 'useful idiots'.


Are you suggesting that historical figures and leaders all suffered from the genetic deficiency that causes psychopathy?

Yes I am. You don't need to go further than looking at your own national ancestry.


Also the fact that some counterculture is now mainstream merely shows the effectiveness of critical theory

As Zoas already wrote, you constantly confuse between cause and effect. Attentively read what I wrote above about 'incorporating the inconveniences'. Read it again, if you don't get it the first time. I don't mean it in a derogatory way. Learning new things can be hard, especially as we get older. I've read 'Golden Chain' more than 10 times through and I'm still learning something new every time.


the methodology of this was first codified by the ancient strategist Sun Tzu do you think he was a psychopath?

Quite likely. But he is often studied, quoted and revered by psychopaths (not only, but also).


I am accused of something called academic trolling which I didn't even know about until now.

Learning something new every day :)


Your various responses just come across as ranting and more denial mechanisms part of which is personal attack.

There you go again with the 'denial' manrta. The more you repeat it, the more transparent it is who you may really be talking about. Projection is not just another river in Greece :)


the vociferous and personal nature of your response is striking.

This from someone who (if I remember correctly) liberally referred to another forum member as a 'Nazi' in the past... Besides, when in Rome...


So discussions about how gay emotional intelligence may be is not this intellectual trolling

Emotional intelligence doesn't have a sexual orientation. Depending on various factors, genetic or otherwise, different people may have different levels of 'access' to it. But it's 'there', regardless of those factors. The factors do not indicate the presence of emotional intelligence, only the levels of access we have to it.


but suggesting a theory that regular tendency to promote counterculture is based on childhood experience is labelled as this intellectual trolling thing?

'Intellectual trolling' is basically spewing fancy and erudite-sounding theories from a mental-space 'Ivory Tower', without ever being in the actual firing line.

Additionally, we ALL come from our childhoods, and although we may be differently affected - none of us is immune, you and I included.

Doesn't mean we can't try...

Addendum:

I DO agree with you about negatively destructive influences of fanatical/narcissistic 'countercultures', BUT this only occurs AFTER they have been hijacked, infiltrated and incorporated.

A genuine indie/grassroots movement is never allowed to go beyond certain limits in terms of cultural/societal influence. It either gets destroyed, incorporated or sentenced to the fringes.


✂--------------------------------------------------

Axismundi000
03-23-2017, 02:32 PM
Your second quotation and comment above where you re-assert that all historical leaders and figures suffered from the genetic deficiency that causes psychopathy has not been proven and is simply opinion. An absurd opinion that would be easy to disprove by taking genetic samples of remains of historical figures should the need arise. All it would need is for one historical figures genetic makeup to lack the genetic evidence of psychopathy and your absurd assertion would be disproved. Because you make such a remarkable and ridiculous statement which has not been proven but you regard as fact there is nothing more to be done here. At least I accept I am putting forward a theory not a proven thing.

It is part of the occult merry-go-round that deluded people who don't understand the difference between theory and proven fact offer 'spiritual services' and recieve monies from the equally deluded. Often this is accompanied by messianic tendencies where the 'spiritual leader' gives judgement on the spiritual state and likely progress of those they decide are in favour and those they deem not worthy.

Whom the Gods would destroy, they first make mad.

Awani
03-23-2017, 02:47 PM
All it would need is for one historical figures genetic makeup to lack the genetic evidence of psychopathy and your absurd assertion would be disproved.

Actually only ONE historical figure need to have it for the "theory/opinon" to have a possibility of being true. ;)


...the difference between theory and proven fact...

Is there really such a thing? IMO no.

:cool:

Andro
03-23-2017, 03:00 PM
Your second quotation and comment above where you re-assert that all historical leaders and figures suffered from the genetic deficiency that causes psychopathy has not been proven and is simply opinion. An absurd opinion that would be easy to disprove by taking genetic samples of remains of historical figures should the need arise. All it would need is for one historical figures genetic makeup to lack the genetic evidence of psychopathy and your absurd assertion would be disproved. Because you make such a remarkable and ridiculous statement which has not been proven but you regard as fact there is nothing more to be done here. At least I accept I am putting forward a theory not a proven thing.

You asked if I SUGGEST it, and I said yes. I did not state it as 'fact', but suggestion. Stop putting words in my mouth.

I am not convinced that psychopathic tendencies show up in genetic samples. Again, elitist 'ivory-tower' type of thinking. "No need to look at the sum of the symptoms holistically, because the genetic lab has all the answers". It's YOU who refuse to see the FACTS. Look at history and at the actual ACTIONS of these people.


It is part of the occult merry-go-round that deluded people who don't understand the difference between theory and proven fact offer 'spiritual services' and recieve monies from the equally deluded. Often this is accompanied by messianic tendencies where the 'spiritual leader' gives judgement on the spiritual state and likely progress of those they decide are in favour and those they deem not worthy.

Funny you should say that, since you keep assessing my own mental state and its origins on almost every post here :)

Yes, I work with shamanic healing professionally and I have actual results to speak for my work. I am not the only one who does this. You yourself practice Magick, if I'm not mistaken. I don't see why you have to go there, and it's not the first time. BTW, shamanic healing has apparently been successfully practiced (and still is) for much longer than genetic lab tests. It is my learned craft, just like any other, and it pays my bills while providing me with the opportunity to do what I love doing and be of assistance to others while at it.

You have a problem with me because I keep calling out your numerous fallacies, while you keep refusing to open your mind to perspectives other than your own (hence your repetitive/mantra-style postings).


Whom the Gods would destroy, they first make mad.

Indeed. Who are we talking about?


✂---------------------------------------------------

Andro
03-23-2017, 03:27 PM
why so serious?

Not at all, at least not on my part.

But being presented with such a 'golden opportunity' to practice my otherwise rusty debating skills, I just HAD to take it :)

Plus, I'm learning some invaluable 'trolling' tips from my 'opponent' in this game, without which I wouldn't really stand a chance in (almost) ANY debate :)

PS: I'll be 'standing down' for now, see if there are other perspectives to throw around on this 'topic'...


✂---------------------------------------------------

Axismundi000
03-23-2017, 03:39 PM
So you do not assert you suggest Andro, merely to suggest that ALL historical figures had the genetic deficiency that causes psychopathy and that history is totally driven by psychopaths indicates a poor grip on reality. You could not possibly prove this and just one example of a historical figure not having this genetic makeup disproves. In fact it has already been disproven by for example the genetic make up of Albert Einstein not having this genetic deficiency for psychopathy. He is after all an important historical figure whose scientific theories were proven and led to nuclear weapons.

You question whether I am correct about the mania, denial and anger you express, looking over your posts I could be wrong but I do not think I am. This is merely a personal opinion though, if you are as balanced an spiritual as you profess to be (and others not) well I'm sure you can take it. After all I do not offer for sale spiritual services, I do not present myself as a spiritualy qualified person in the manner you identify on your website. I think I am safe from the danger of messianic delusion for this reason. The late Israel Regardie in his book The Middle Pillar pointed out that occult work can inflate unconscious complexes which can lead to for example messianic delusions have you read it?

zoas23
03-23-2017, 07:05 PM
You question whether I am correct about the mania, denial and anger you express, looking over your posts I could be wrong but I do not think I am. This is merely a personal opinion though, if you are as balanced an spiritual as you profess to be (and others not) well I'm sure you can take it. After all I do not offer for sale spiritual services, I do not present myself as a spiritualy qualified person in the manner you identify on your website. I think I am safe from the danger of messianic delusion for this reason. The late Israel Regardie in his book The Middle Pillar pointed out that occult work can inflate unconscious complexes which can lead to for example messianic delusions have you read it?

O.K... You insist with the idea that the School of Frankfurt was right (and Reich too) when it comes to psychology... I keep my idea that their writings are VERY dated and were written in a time in which "conservatives" and "reactionaries" had very oppressing views about sexuality, whilst the most "progressive" ones had more open views about it. This logical fallacy is often called "Post hoc ergo propter hoc".

The fallacious syllogism would be:
A is X, B is not X
A is Z, B is not Z
______________
X causes Z

X = "sexually free".
Z = "non fascist, progressive, open minded, non racist, non xenophobic, leftist".

This way of thinking, this fallacy, can't explain a "Milo" and his racism, xenophobia, misogyny, etc... I would say that he has no problems in expressing his sexuality very openly... and yet he is the fascist that he is.... The Frankfurt school can't explain such thing*

Sorry for the disgusting video (I mean his opinions):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVHt_2cLxHs

*O.K... Maybe Benjamin can explain it with his idea of "The aestheticization of politics" (fascism) vs. "The politicization of aesthetics" (libertarian marxism)... but that's VERY far from what you are talking about.

Israel Regardie had some sort of fetish for messianic lunatics and was always following them (Aleister Crowley, Robert William Felkin, Frater Albertus...)
Knowing the Golden Dawn tradition VERY well, I'd say that Regardie only knew a bizarre and crippled version of it, which simply came from the insanity of Felkin. His books can't be more inaccurate.

LOL... Andro presents himself as what he is... nothing else. You'll never find him claiming that he can do something that he can't (I do not know many persons with his alchemical knowledge, so I often tell him that he's an Adept... he laughs and says that he's far from it).

I know how to edit movies and I CHARGE for it, though I am explicit about what I can do and what I can't do (i.e, CGI special effects is not really my area, so if a job needs such thing, I simply say: "that's not what I do, I can suggest someone else")... I do not see the difference. My GF is a psychoanalyst, she does not work for free either (well, sometimes she does... and sometimes I do edit for free too... and the messiah Andro works for free sometimes too).

LOL... and Axis, you offered to teach ME magic/theurgy... I rejected the offer because I already know some 6 or 7 systems and I do not feel the need right now to include another one. Are you qualified to teach magic? If so, why?

Axismundi000
03-23-2017, 09:22 PM
I did not offer to teach you magic zoas23, i suggested Bardon's material to you ( which is designed for solo work) and offered to answer any questions that you may have about Bardon's stuff, nothing more.

I have too many commitments to actually teach anyone magic at present which is why I withdrew from the hermetic academy. BTW when I was there (briefly) my services were entirely free.

Edit: I have just checked sent items PM's to you zoas23, message sent 11-22-2016. I specifically state in that message that I am not teaching magic but am prepared to offer informal advice free of charge. How did you get the idea that I offered to teach you magic?

zoas23
03-23-2017, 09:53 PM
O.K... you offered "informal advice free of charge"... my bad for using the word "teaching". So what makes you believe that you are qualified to offer "informal advice free of charge"?

(Funny... I think you are assuming that I am mocking you and suggesting that you are unable to do such thing, whilst what I actually think is that you are probably familiar with the system and thus perfectly able to give "informal advice free of charge"... which is my point).

Would you say that when you offered "informal advice free of charge" you were suffering a "messianic delusion"? Or could it be that you offered such thing because you can actually do it?
(I do not know you a lot, BUT I believe that the latter is true... so, what's the difference????).

"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?" -the Bible, how avant-garde, right?

But I prefer a passage from Austin Osman Spare:


The DWELLERS on the THRESHOLD

As we dwell on the Threshold to on extreme
The intrinsic BEING is prermaturely nascent,
Creating a CHAOS of Reflection.
When we gaze into the mirror of our-SELF,
And see our works as others judge them,
Then we realize our insignificance
To the incomprehensible intellect of
the Absolute KIĀ (the omniscient)
And find how subcutaneous our
Attainments are.
Alas ! we are children of EARTH.

This I will call HELL of the intrinsic being.

Axismundi000
03-24-2017, 08:19 AM
Zoas23 you ask if my offer of informal advice about practicing magic is because I suffer from messianic delusion or because I can actually do it. You quote from the bible which of course is largely about a messiah, according to millions THE MESSIAH.

In Bardon's material Jesus is recognised as a member of the brotherhood of light but the nicene creed is not adhered to. Zoas23 in previous posts when you have felt upset with me you have angrily informed me that I will never achieve success in Alchemy because of various attitudes you specify I have. Therefore the following biblical quote is useful and clearly appropriate for my response.

"Give not that which is Holy to the dogs, neither cast. Ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them. Under their feet, and turn again and rend you". Matthew 7-6

I shall follow this sound advice from a messiah so know Zoas23 that I am no longer prepared to offer any advice about magic to you. You state that you have been/are in several Magickal groups. From people I know it takes more than a year of work and effort to achieve acceptance criteria and become a beginner member of a magical group. So you have presumably wasted 6-7 years on this which must be a dissapointing pursuit otherwise you would not have joined so many. Bardon's material is as I mention designed for solo work this may be useful to you having tried with so many magical groups.

Finally I would make the simple observation that you can work with Bardon's stuff independently of anyone so whether or not I am genuine or suffering from messianic delusion does not matter to your progress, you do not need me for progress with Bardon's material. All you need to progress magically with Franz Bardon's magical training is persistence. His works are readily available:

Initiation into Hermetics
The Practice of Magical Evocation
The Key to the True Quabbalah

Good luck Zoas23.

zoas23
03-24-2017, 09:56 AM
Zoas23 you ask if my offer of informal advice about practicing magic is because I suffer from messianic delusion or because I can actually do it. You quote from the bible which of course is largely about a messiah, according to millions THE MESSIAH.

LOL... so quoting the Bible is a messianic complex?
I am mostly quite attached to classical Gnosticism (specially Valentinean)... so my understanding of the sense of "messiah" is not really what most people understands when that word is used.


In Bardon's material Jesus is recognised as a member of the brotherhood of light but the nicene creed is not adhered to.

I do not adhere to the Nicene Creed either... though I already said that my tendencies are mostly based on classical gnosticism.


Zoas23 in previous posts when you have felt upset with me you have angrily informed me that I will never achieve success in Alchemy because of various attitudes you specify I have.

Ah... yeah, that was when I got upset because you said that I was a "Nazi" (because I suggested that instead of repeating the same thing again and again to JDP in a specific thread, you could find the points in which you both agree... but the idea sounded "Nazi" to you.. so you decided to insult me... I also told you in private that we should find an agreement, but you simply replied to me quoting no other than Aleister Crowley and his "As brothers fight ye" -LOL... Crowley, talking about megalomaniacs with a messianic complex!).
I can't deny that his understanding of alchemy is fantastic: it's simply a metaphor for eating sperm and menses and shit... LOL, no thanks, I'm not into eating shit. Nor I think that such thing has any worth.


in following this sound advice from a messiah know that I am no longer prepared to offer any advice about magic to you Zoas23.

I kindly thanked you for your offer, which I rejected. So you are not giving me something I already told you that I do not want? LOL... OK.
If you want the truth, I have an aversion for ALL the magical systems which are based on the "reputation" of a person... I do not care if it's Crowley, Bardon, Krumm-Heller, Ron Hubbard or Samael Aun Weor...


You state that you have/are in several Magickal groups. From people I know it takes more than a year of work and effort to achieve acceptance criteria and become a beginner member of a magical group. So you have presumably wasted 6-7 years on this which must be a dissapointing pursuit otherwise you would not have joined so many.

I love to participate in several of them. I actually discourage people to participate in just ONE. I prefer to have SEVERAL points of view. I deeply dislike those who are like "hooligans" of ONE Order.
As for the times that it takes to be accepted... one year is the average... though in some others it's around 3 years... and in some others it's "automatic", but some requisites of previous experiences in other Orders are needed and it's a sine qua non.
Other than that, the "one year of work" (or around 3 years in a few Orders) is not what you think... It is simply learning the basics and there isn't a BIG difference in what happens during the "probationer" time and what happens next. It is not a waste of time at all, but you have the right to think whatever you want.


Bardon's material is as I mention designed for solo work this may be useful to you having tried with so many magical groups.
Finally I would make the simple observation that you can work with Bardon's stuff independently of anyone so whether or not I am genuine or suffering from messianic delusion does matter to your progress you do not need me for progress with Bardon's material. All you need to progress magically with Franz Bardon's magical training is persistence.

This is exactly WHY I do not follow systems which are based on the ideas of a person... you end up writing "Bardon" 4 times in 3 sentences.
Bardon, Bardon, Bardon, Bardon, Bardon, Bardon, Bardon, Bardon, Bardon, Bardon... OK... I guess I need to write his name a few more thousand times as a true sign of persistence.


Good luck Zoas23.

I am already lucky, but thank you.
Once your tantrum is over, we can speak respectfully again.

You know what's NICE about Orders? That you have to interact with persons with incredibly different ideas and personalities and you end up understanding that you do not need to "fight", that you can learn from someone who thinks different (actually, you can ONLY learn from someone who thinks different)... So you end up giving up this shitty need of destroying those who do not agree with you. As to be clear, that's bullshit for me and I do not enjoy it. Unlike Crowley, Crowley, Crowley, Crowley, Crowley, Crowley, Crowley, I do not like eating shit.

I do not like aggressive debates either... and "as brother's fight ye" is just a silly idea that a lunatic wrote when he thought that he was the true messiah.

Andro
03-24-2017, 10:42 AM
Yes, he likes to take a certain name, word combination or concept and repeat it ad nauseam, regardless of how the topic is developing.

I have taken the time to reply to most of his points with either a different perspective or a counter-argument, but my arguments were almost never directly addressed.

Instead, all I got is the 'teddy bear mantra' over and over again, which started out as not having enough parental contact (wrong!), then being a fanatic counter-culture narcissist, supplemented with 'mania', 'denial' and 'anger' and eventually escalating into me having a full-blown 'messiah complex', probably because he seems to have a personal issue with me having the NERVE to charge for practicing my hard-earned skills.

Sic Transit Axis Mundi...

____________________

Now, regarding 'messiahs'...

So, this one guy, 2000+ years ago, doesn't get enough parental contact, is also probably gay/queer (https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/was-jesus-gay-702) (making him feel feel even more like an outcast), eventually causing him to become a fanatic and a narcissist and eventually create & lead a counterculture centered around his own messianic complex... and look where we are today... We can't say it doesn't fit a certain symptomatic progression :)

Sounds like a textbook case according to Axis Mundi... And BTW, projecting 'messianic complexes' on other people while using a name such as 'Axis Mundi' (axis of the world, around which the whole world revolves, etc) - is in itself at least a little amusing.

Now 'seriously'...

'Christ' is IMO a multi-layered allegory/symbol for many things, including the Sun, and also possibly the Philosopher's Stone (i.e. Spirit 'made flesh' or Spirit 'corporified'). Whether he existed physically or not, I think is less relevant. Some researchers even claim that christianity was engineered by the Romans, possibly to create a sort of 'controlled opposition' and perpetuate the dialectic... it could have started as a grassroots counterculture, to be later infiltrated, hijacked and incorporated, as I wrote before on this thread but no one really paid attention, being to busy repeating the 'teddy bear mantra'...

There are people who saw a messianic Avatar in Hitler.

Elvis was also not spared from this, including in his own mind (according to reports from people who were close to him).

Maybe 'Axis Mundi' is right, and it was the damn teddy bear all along...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89MihWd6zKk

Also, I regret to inform that while I may have other 'issues' or 'challenges', a 'messianic complex' is not one of them.

But then again, it's irrelevant if I confirm it or deny it - from now on, I will be forever stuck in the "Brian Loop (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krb2OdQksMc&feature=youtu.be&t=231)" :)

Axismundi000
03-24-2017, 11:12 AM
It would seem that from the above I am found to be rather naughty. As I have said before this is just a forum and I'm fine with people disagreeing with my theories. Perhaps people should try to understand that a theory on a forum is just that. It would have been nice to have had fuller engagement rather then relentless ad homini and anger. The reason I repeat a point is because to me it seems not addressed, especially as usually I offer further argument. Perhaps I shall stick to the practical stuff on this forum and leave all you 'tender flowers' to your musings.

Zoas23 I note after the date of my pm to you in which I offered informal advice I received no actual decline polite or otherwise. Obviously I am not prepared to provide you any magical input now but it does seem rather immature that first you say I offered you magical training (I did not) and second you declined the offer of training or informal advice ( you did not). I do not see a decline message in my PM inbox. I notice in your PM to me you did mention you would give Bardon a try and again I wish the best in your endeavours.

Andro
03-24-2017, 11:51 AM
I am found to be rather naughty.

Yes, you're a very naughty boy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zjz16xjeBAA&feature=youtu.be&t=4)!


The reason I repeat a point is because to me it seems not addressed, especially as usually I offer further argument.

Your points WERE addressed, often one by one between quotes, with counter-arguments, which you chose to ignore.


Perhaps I shall stick to the practical stuff on this forum and leave all you 'tender flowers' to your musings.

"All you tender flowers"... You big tough macho man, you... Adorable! :)

But worry not, all god's children are welcome, and in his garden there are many mansions.

Let me offer you a brotherly e-hug and part ways on this 'road to nowhere' thread :)

http://liberatelife.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Gay-Jesus.jpg

zoas23
03-24-2017, 09:07 PM
It would seem that from the above I am found to be rather naughty. As I have said before this is just a forum and I'm fine with people disagreeing with my theories. Perhaps people should try to understand that a theory on a forum is just that. It would have been nice to have had fuller engagement rather then relentless ad homini and anger. The reason I repeat a point is because to me it seems not addressed, especially as usually I offer further argument. Perhaps I shall stick to the practical stuff on this forum and leave all you 'tender flowers' to your musings.

Leaving tender flowers... is that how your mind translates the concept of being respectful, nice, kind, etc? If that's how you understand it, then yeah... leave tender flowers (I am obviously saying it because I am probably a "nazi", of course).

You point was not ONLY addressed, but also EXPANDED with the inclusion of Benjamin, Marcuse, etc (yes, let's bring the whole school of Frankfurt and Reich). I told you it's a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, though it is easy to understand why they made it.... it was an inductive reasoning because during their lives and their times the line between "left" and "right" was by far more clear... and it's probably true that during their times the "leftists" were by far more open minded sexually than the right-wingers.

And if you want to go FURTHER, I would bring to the table Foucault's "History of Sexuality", which openly criticizes the ideas of the School of Frankfurt and specially the psychological ideas of W. Reich... by stating that rather than a "sexual repression", we have had a long history of enthusiastically talking about sex and not a history of "repressing it". The Marxist theory of a dialectical conflict is also thrown to the trash can there and replaced by the idea that there is not a class that oppresses and a class that is oppressed, but that in our societies power is atomized.

If you payed some attention to the last presidential elections of the USA, you probably noticed how it became usual to discuss the sexuality of Donald and Hillary... with the idea that Donald probably has lots of sex with his wife, whilst Hillary can't satisfy her husband and thus he cheated on her... and how the sexuality of the two candidates who had chances to win was brought into the public debate (and rumors that maybe the wife of Donald had been a prostitute, countered by rumors that maybe Hillary is lesbian, etc)... or the infamous "Milo" with his xenophobic and racist views, which confused even the right wingers who have similar ideas because the ideas of the School of Frankfurt and Reich became acceptable to our common sense, even if they are wrong (i.e, his free expression of a non traditional sexuality does not mean that he is a libertarian, non racist, non xenophobic, etc... this came as a surprise to lots of persons... Adorno and Reich would be scratching their heads).

I do not see how your point was NOT addressed (though I can see how you decided to ignore all these ideas and simply repeat the same again and again... even talking an absurd wild guess about my childhood and the childhood of Andro).


Zoas23 I note after the date of my pm to you in which I offered informal advice I received no actual decline polite or otherwise. Obviously I am not prepared to provide you any magical input now but it does seem rather immature that first you say I offered you magical training (I did not) and second you declined the offer of training or informal advice ( you did not). I do not see a decline message in my PM inbox. I notice in your PM to me you did mention you would give Bardon a try and again I wish the best in your endeavours.

My dear... you wrote to me obsessively about Bardon. It is OK to bring it here because there is nothing personal, though I am deleting a part of the second PM which can be personal:


Thelema is more of a philosophy than a Religion though some treat it in the way you describe. To me GD is an old aeon superseded magical formula, there are technical methods which are of value. Crowley's contribution for non-Thelemites is his integration of Yoga and Magic, something that in my view Franz Bardon does even more effectively.
I'm glad you find these organisations constructive zoas23. Regrettably I have only encountered the not useful examples of magical orders which could perhaps be in part due to my own temperament. If you have not looked at Bardon's stuff I would recommend them as interesting reading. Personally I consider his material to be excellent and much of my current work is Bardon stuff. (...). Bardon's material is very different to GD stuff, much less symbolism.I am not actually interested in "much less symbolism". I am not interested in Crowley's Arcana of eating shit either... I am 100% not interested in "sex magic"... LOL, I'm more into a romantic sexuality.
(I am not a hooligan of the Golden Dawn, though I'd say that it's quite good).

And saying that I will give him a try was a polite way of rejecting the offer without being harsh. I understood that he is important for you... so I simply said something along the lines of "yes, sure, I will read him with care in the future"... AFTER having explained you that I am not really interested, but you were so insistent that I had to politely say that I will read him with care in the future... as to avoid offending you by saying AGAIN that I'm not interested).

"Such a little thing
a fumbling politeness
the difference it saved me"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkXqSGScWnI

"Most people keep their brains between their legs... so, don't!".

So, yeah, absolutely... show me your "tender flowers", even in disagreement, instead of the nonsense of "as brothers fight ye".


But worry not, all god's children are welcome, and in his garden there are many mansions.
Let me offer you a brotherly e-hug and part ways on this 'road to nowhere' thread :)

We're on a road to nowhere (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWtCittJyr0)
We're on a road to nowhere (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWtCittJyr0)
We're on a road to nowhere (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWtCittJyr0)

There's a city in my mind
Come along and take that ride
And it's alright, baby, it's all right
And it's very far away
But it's growing day by day and it's all right
Baby, it's all right
Would you like to come along
You can help me sing the song
And it's all right, baby, it's all right
They can tell you what to do
But they'll make a fool of you
And it's all right, baby, it's all right

Axismundi000
03-25-2017, 12:42 AM
Whilst you and others disagree with my theory it seems to sting I think, remember it is just a theory.

So first you say I offered to give you magical training but then agree it was informal magical advice. Then you say you declined my offer of advice about Bardon's praxis by saying that you would 'give him a try'. Hmmm.... well whatever. I think that from now on I have to assume that anything you write could well mean the opposite. So I see no actual practical reliable way to communicate with you because you could say a thing but mean the opposite, I shall leave you sitting at the top of your intricate, ornate, multimedia Tower of Babel with all the other apes of Thoth.

zoas23
03-25-2017, 10:26 AM
Whilst you and others disagree with my theory it seems to sting I think, remember it is just a theory.

A sociological-psychological theory that can't explain the facts... which is what a sociological-psychological theory should do.
I think I have explained you lots of my objections to such theory and why it's wrong (wrong in the sense that it is unable to explain the facts).
You decided to ignore the objections... and simply repeat it.


So first you say I offered to give you magical training but then agree it was informal magical advice.

Yes, I absolutely agree with the fact that you offered to give me an informal magical advice about the system of Franz Bardon... So I do not see a BIG difference. So your offer leads to 2 logical possibilities:

a) You are a lunatic who offers something that you are not qualified to give.
b) You are qualified to give such advice and thus you kindly offer it.

I do not know you quite well, but I'd say that "b)" is the case, which is not truly surprising for me... I can take a wild guess and assume that you have studied his system, that you have practiced his system, that you have arrived to results that you found satisfactory and you have enjoyed it and it was GOOD for you... so you wanted to offer what you know to other persons. Excellent, I have no problems with such thing.

I explained you very clearly that I am ALREADY into several Orders with very different systems and that I was not really interested in Crowley or Thelema at all (which is the first system you talked to me about)... and then you brought the idea of Bardon and I told you that I'm OK with what I am ALREADY doing. You are so stubborn that I finally had to tell you that I will give him a try in the future.

-Do you wanna watch Jim Carrey's "The Mask"?
-No, not really... I am not really into that type of comedy.
-But Carrey's "The Mask" is different... it's the best comedy ever!
-O.K... but I honestly don't like that type of movies.
-But you should see "The Mask"!!!
-Oh... OK... Someday I'll watch it.

I appreciate the kind offer you gave me, but I am not interested, not I ever was... Such thing was so complicated for you to understand that I finally felt that it was better to say that I will do it someday... If you didn't understand the subtext and the polite way of saying "OK, but that's not for me", then try to think why I ended up saying that someday I was going to give him a try when I never had such intention.


Then you say you declined my offer of advice about Bardon's praxis by saying that you would 'give him a try'. Hmmm.... well whatever. I think that from now on I have to assume that anything you write could well mean the opposite. So I see no actual practical reliable way to communicate with you because you could say a thing but mean the opposite, I shall leave you sitting at the top of your intricate, ornate, multimedia Tower of Babel with all the other apes of Thoth.

Oh... you mean the essay titled "RICHKER"... nice pun.
There is an interesting story there... though it's more or less explicit in the essay.
The work of multimedia art titled "RICHKER" was done by a friend who is a marvelous painter (a truly talented painter, I have several of his paintings in my walls). I admire him as an artist and he's also a good friend.
So one day he showed me his latest creation: a multimedia work of art based on Kircher's Tower of Babel.
He asked me what I thought. I watched it and I told him the truth: I don't like multimedia art and I didn't like the work at all. I truly dislike Multimedia Art...
So he asked me something a bit strange, he asked me to write a review of this specific work... which I didn't like.

I remembered how Joseph Beuys HATED the politics of North America and he was also disliked in North America (because he had been a German soldier during WWII... which does not mean that he was a "Nazi", the whole of his works are an alchemical allegory that openly criticizes Nazism and openly suggest a direct democracy that works quite similar to an organized and decentralized anarchism). So he decided to visit the USA for the first time to live with a Coyote, a totemic animal for the original inhabitants of North America. A more detailed explanation of the performance can be found here: https://www.wikiart.org/en/joseph-beuys/i-like-america-and-america-likes-me

His performance was called "I like America and America likes me". Probably the USA was the pace he hated the most and probably he was one of the most hated artists in America... So he thought: How can we get along? He decided to use a shamanic idea and pick this totemic animal that distrusts people and represented for him the most authentic American spirit and tried to found a way to get along with the Coyote living with him in a cage in the USA.

RICHKER was something similar for me... I hated RICHKER and RICHKER hated me. I doubted that it had any kind of value (I do not mean "economical value", but "cultural value"), I wasn't sure if I could call such thing "art", I didn't think it made sense... and I forced myself to come to terms with RICHKER and find out why it was made and why it had a value and why it was interesting and why it was Art.

I spent several days looking at RICHKER with distrust, LOL... I was a bit like the Coyote!
I decided NOT to discuss the "meaning" of the work with its creator at all... I wanted to find its sense, value, meaning, etc by myself. All I was seeing was permutations of the Tower deconstructing itself in a senseless way.

Then I began to relate it with ideas... the system of Markos the Gnostic and the Sepher Yetzirah: two early attempts at deciphering the meaning of our language (of course, the Tower of Babel is basically the myth that explains how our language HAD a divine sense but lost it... but it is also the myth that explains why we do not understand each other, why we do not get along).

I remembered then how Llull created a logical system of permutations which he believed could restore the SENSE of the Divine... whilst Abulafia created his "prophetic Qabalah" based on permutations too as to arrive to the Divine.

I thought of the experiments with language by Kircher (who was, after all, the inspiration of this work that my friend had created) and how he influenced Leibniz. How the two of them did several attempts to create a Universal Language (which is very related to the myth of Babel).

I remembered Jorge Luis Borges' "Library of Babel", which was completely filled with permutations and the BIG question there was if they made sense or not.

And I finally thought of the ideas of Brion Gysin and William Burroughs with their attempts to use language as a way to transcend language... almost replicating an alchemical process but using language as a "matter".

I finally came to terms with RICHKER and I wrote the essay. I understood that it had a value, that it was uniting all these ideas... and our history as "apes of Thoth" trying to understand the Divine. It suddenly became fascinating.

So... how can we bring back this "derailed" thread to its course?

I do not really see much worth in the "emotional" side of the Orders... BUT I see a LOT of worth in something that is VERY similar to what happened to me with RICHKER.
An Order that works WELL (which is a rare exception) will force you to discuss ideas with persons who will give you "RICHKERS"... things that you don't find worthy at all, but then you can do the exercise of finding a way of not just "liking" them, but making them USEFUL to you... which involves thinking a lot.

It is because of this same reason that I do not give any value to Crowley and all the nonsense of systems which are simply based on repeating like a parrot what someone else said or did. What do you get from such thing? That eating shit is good and a big Arcanum (and with Crowley this is literal).

In an individual level, "RICHKER" (and now I mean my essay) is quite similar to what happens in an Order that works well (the Orders in which some idiots who believe that they are enlightened talk and the others who are assumed to be asses listen have no value to me either).

So rather that going deep into the pit of the emotions, quite often it is about putting the emotions aside and simply doing the exercise of thinking... This "air" becomes a "water" later, but it has to be an "air" first. This process is quite interesting for me and I do give it a value.

Of course that if you are "too temperamental" and unable to use ideas that in a first sight do not make a lot of sense and you simply think how to crush them, then you can't do it.

Does that make sense to you? If not, then assume that I meant the opposite.