Loading...

Willful self-transgression | Forum

AK Mod
AK Oct 7
It is, in my opinion, not enough to defy social norms or violate laws which one neither had any say in the establishment of nor any particular aversion to breaking in the first place. 


Plenty of social norms and laws are effectively meaningless - speed limits, for example. No one drives the speed limit. Blue laws are another example. Sure, transgressions are taking place, but they have no real character-shaping potency. They're just stupid laws that no one thinks twice about ignoring. 


Extrapolated even further - murder, the ultimate taboo, won't do much for you if that's what you've grown up around. Nor will deliberately causing others to suffer be much of a catalyst for any amount of change or transformation and self-overcoming if sociopathy is inherently in your wiring. There's talk about status-quo and nomos, but *whose* status quo and nomos is being referred to? That of "them"? that of "everyone else"? Society's? That can hardly be controlled. It's arbitrary. Totally dependent on time and locale. No. That won't do. It's Sisyphean to take that approach. Rebellion for rebellion's sake. May as well complain about the weather.


What affects change is to instead take inventory of one's own personal biases and predispositions - whatever they may be - and, as an act of will and with careful deliberation, defy them. Do what needs to be done in spite of one's own aversion to doing so. To do the "wrong" things for the "right" reasons. (and yeah! in this respect, Satan mirrors Christ as the fall and castigation mirrors / shadows the crucifixion - and for the exact same reasons. What is anything without consequence?)


One cannot have value without cost for so long as worthless and priceless mean different things (and where they are equivalent is a level of unity one may do well to avoid here on terra firma)


An easily justifiable example: your favorite dog is now old, sick, and suffering. You're attached to him. You can't bear the thought of putting him down, and yet! You put the bullet in its head, anyway and you bury it. Not because you're a cold-hearted monster that doesn't feel anything - it'd have no impact / no transformative potency if you didn't feel anything - but oh yeah, it hurts, but it had to be done and you have to carry-on not showing the least bit of remorse. You keep that to yourself regardless of what others may think of it. 


It is in violation of conscience, clinging, and aversion that the alchemy takes place. Without conscience, clinging, and aversion one is as good as an automaton - devoid of spirit or soul to sell in the first place. There must first be something internal to transgress and transcend. It can't come from without, either. 


One can go all ways with this. You have the easily defensible, yet none-the-less difficult, culling of toxic relationships: i.e. oh sure it sucks! you'll miss them dearly, and it's going to hurt for a while -  a long while - but that bridge needs to be burned. To the more sketchy and infinitely more dangerous standing up against tyrannical regimes - which you might even be called to do within your life time, and you're going to have to decide if your predisposition towards eeking out a living and remaining comfortable is really the "good" thing / "good life" you thought it was. Wherever you find yourself willing to die for something, you're bound to transgress more than a few presuppositions in the process of finding whatever that is, because most people agree: death is something they are highly averse to. The good news is, there is no one more formidable on this planet than one who has discovered what that is for themselves. It is the Azoth. The universal solvent. Common to the Christ and the Satan alike. The spiritual and physical perfection of pure unadulterated, uncontainable will.

 

I am reminded still, of this clip:




And then I realized they were stronger than we. Because they could stand that these were not monsters. These were men, trained cadres, these men who fought with their hearts, who had families, who had children, who were filled with love, but they had the strength, the strength, to do that. If I had ten divisions of those men our troubles here would be over very quickly. You have to have men who are moral and at the same time who are able to utilize their primordial instincts to kill without feeling, without passion, without judgment, without judgment. Because it’s judgment that defeats us.


For me that's a huge part of it. It's what separates the random sociopath who mimics and apes the function from the genuinely satanic. Because the latter have "souls", or aversions, predispositions etc, that they sacrifice - quite painfully, I might add - in the name and at the altars of will, autonomy, and severity; trumping convention, sentimentality, and mercy. It's not an easy path to follow or carve on your all at all, and if it is, you just might be dead inside... which is a price some people do pay.


There must be love. Love under will.

The Forum post is edited by AK Oct 7
Share:
Dark Enlightenment
This is a fucking great blog that hits on what 9/10 satanists would agree to.


My lonely criticism to this:


Challenging oneself to what?


I once new a little bitch sandnigger (I guess he was my friend) that use to pretend to be a buddhist. He would be like, "We all have flaws of character or limitations that we need to confront or push ourselves past." 


Same criticism. What image of normalcy do you compare yourself to?  If you are Unibomber Boy your normal (or level) is to live in the woods shunning society.  Everything has a karma, and if you are a little bitch pussy that cant get laid because you are afraid of being rejected that is what you are in this go around.


I try to stear clear of these because they always hinge on some intrinsic moral compass that all things should aupposedly have.


However, for the "thelematically" inclined, five stars all the way. 


Late Edit: 


For transparency: My personal view doesn't hold Crowley with any esteem. IMO, love is never worth being your will, and is the furthest thing from establishing will when used as psychodrama.  It actually reminds me more of a christian praying for knight in shining armor.  It has a tendency to be tainted by hormones and/or rose colored glasses.  How many women get beaten on because "he's really a good person at heart?"


The women in Crowley's life found that out first hand. He was the woman with the guys.

Love under will, and also total dominion over the bitch.

The Forum post is edited by Dark Enlightenment Oct 7
AK Mod
AK Oct 7
Crowley is NOT easy to follow. The guy did what I sort of do; which is "write A LOT until I figure out what I wanted to say". It's because, ok, we all have "ideas", right? And these ideas "resonate" until you actually hear yourself say it aloud or put it to pen. Then you review it - somehow or other - and often times it's like "no, wait, that doesn't read as right as I thought it did" 


Crowley did A LOT of that. He had the time to. He got a few things right: Book 4, 777, book of Thoth, book of lies, the Equinox was pretty good, too. Parts of Liber Aleph are neat. And there's a lot of other not-so-memorable garbage. Volumes of that. He made a lot of attempts, and nailed it a few times - as it goes with statistics. 

Which is why if I'm ever going to write a book, I'm not going to do it until I'm 55. And I am never going on YouTube ever. Because holy shit! I've seen the word vomit I've written on 600c - and that was only 3-5 years ago. That embarasses me, but my word! Have you checked out, say E.A. Koeting or VK jehannum lately? I dont' think I could ever forgive myself for getting my mug wrapped up in that unless I were planning to build a case for SSDI payouts on account of my "obvious" craziness. 

Anyway - that's my take on Crowley. He doesn't always get it right, and often times doesn't even seem himself too certain of what it is he's trying to say, but he always says whatever it is it well, and when he gets it right the first time he never mentions it again. 


It's been observed and noted by far smarter people than I: "it's the stuff he says once and only once that is worth paying attention to". The signal to noise ratio leaves a lot to be desired, but it's worth sifting through. I mean, name one among us who is totally indifferent to the guy's works. Can't be done. Wanna know about the ToS, take a look at A.'.A.'... wanna know about the early CoS - do the same. 


Give Crowley a fair shot, he's really kind of on point - and mainly because he shoots with a shot gun. The book of Lies is pretty good. Book 4 is irrefutable - that's really all you need to read by him unless you're into the Tarot - in which case the Book of Thoth is second. The rest___ mmm___  outside of his poetry, it's a crap-shoot. 



"Hail unto Thee who art Ahathoor in Thy triumphing, even unto Thee who art Ahathoor in Thy beauty, who travellest over the Heavens in thy bark at the Mid-course of the Sun. Tahuti standeth in His splendour at the prow, and Ra-Hoor abideth at the helm. Hail unto Thee from the Abodes of Morning!"


Liber-resh. It's the noon-day sun in the south. It is the gesture of fire. South = fire = Satan. 101 stuff. None of this was ever new. 


I get it! Fuck him - fuck that - sure, but it's important to know where this comes from, because there is a history behind it. What inspired it? The muses triangle: who am I? From where have I come? Where am I going? 


And if you can trace it back, there's a lot of neat things to uncover. For example why the ToS isn't and will never be Satanism. It's not just "boo Aquino, fuck that coat tail rider!" It has to do with the demarcation between the "spiritual" and the "material" - that's what it ALL comes down to - the nature of corporeality, sin, suffering, desire, and mortality, that he just glosses over. Aquino wanted an alternate A.'.A.'. - he admits even to gravitating to AMORC (troll that place! it's worth the $15 a month - tell Michael Jon Kell, AK says "hi, faggot!" while you're at it)


To your point:


"How many women get beaten on because ""he's really a good person at heart? "


That's what I'm saying - as Crowley said before 


"Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched and the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world." 



It's worth taking a second look at, is what I'm saying. He got a lot right. (he also got a lot wrong too, and was a bit of a troll himself, but it's nothing a shred of common sense can't avail anyone in working their way through... we're not talking Infinite Jest, here)


What I mean by the above quote is that it's her compassion that's defeating her - or, better stated, justifying that she just "take it". If it's mere routine, sentimentality, convention, compassion, mercy, etc that's keeping you in a bad situation, that's got to go - like Lenny to George or old yeller. Difficult, yes, but necessary. And the more you find yourself doing these sorts of things - necessary figurative culling - the easier it gets until necessity plays less and less of mitigating factor and creative autonomy takes the wheel which, in turn, becomes its own sort of individuation by extricating one's acquired and sub-conscious aversions and proclivities.

The Forum post is edited by AK Oct 8
Anna
Anna Oct 8
I'm highly suspicious of everyone who claims the transformation of character. Usually, it's the old same shit but in a brand new package. The very notion of self-overcoming implies, in my opinion, the existence of some supra-personal and cosmic entity, force or consciousness that is external to the self. Because if you overcome your self then whose self will you become?

Getting rid of useless and harmful things that might halt your progress, that's something I would rather call adaptation. That means it's ever-changing life circumstances that trigger behavior modification. And that means in order to keep up with the changing life, you have to change your habits.

Like the bitch who falls in love with a jerk but once married, the romantic love gives room to disappointment and frustration. In the beginning, she puts up with the toxic relationship for the sake of children or because she hopes her partner will change. But in the course of time, as the conflict escalates and her situation becomes more and more suffocating, she realizes that she has no other reasonable option than either take her kids and leave or punch the motherfucker in the face. In either case the motivation is external. Free will is overrated.
AK Mod
AK Oct 8
Think method-acting where all the world is a stage. There are people who claim the core never changes, but that's "them" and their lack of creativity and self-control. Projecting that on to everyone else is just plain painting with too broad of a brush. 


Sure, old habits die hard, but they do die with effort. The "you" that never changes has no real attributes to begin with. It's purusha. The amalgamate of habituation most non-pedantic types refer to loosely as "self" is totally malleable. It's a matter of you walking the dog vs the dog walking you.

The Forum post is edited by AK Oct 8
Anna
Anna Oct 8
The change of a habit is just the change of a habit. I don't think there is anything more to it, like the transformation of character. Just a little bit sceptical about that.
AK Mod
AK Oct 8
How is self defined but by its habits and characteristics? 


Have you ever known someone who's been to prison or to war? They sure as fuck are never the same after that. People change - and constantly. Believe me, I've heard the whole "people don't change, they only become more so" / the "core doesn't change" - but faults in that are 1) "what do you even mean more so?? more so what?" and 2) the core doesn't exist - it's an emergent lens. 


I don't think you're quite the same person I knew of 2 years ago, and that's a good thing. It proves you're adapting, evolving, that this whole process of being alive leads somewhere other than stagnation. Were it otherwise, one may as well be a plant rooted in the soil.


Hokey cliche, but none-the-less true on at least three levels: "every saint has a past; every sinner has a future" - and by necessity. 

The Forum post is edited by AK Oct 8
T. Volt
T. Volt Oct 9
Being realistic is the challenge, therefore the key. We live in a society programmed to think like children. The modern convenience in living has made it easy for people to replace necessary standards with bullshit. Thus people centrate only on what they want to see and ignore what they don't. Realistic thinking always incorporates challenge.
The Forum post is edited by T. Volt Oct 9
AK Mod
AK Oct 9
Right. And to your point with respect to realism and free-will; I don't think anyone in their right mind assumes free-will implies that, for example, you one day might levitate if you focus hard enough. 


There are the limitations of realism, but that doesn't diminish the thrust of what free-will is driving at, which is essentially volition - the ability to make choices and decisions. To behave in a deliberate manner. To have discretion and intent. 


Is a paraplegic ever going to walk again? No! of course not. Still, within the parameters of the reality in which they live, they absolutely have free will. Freedom of action, however, is a whole separate matter that I agree requires that one be realistic. 

Certain features and pages can only be viewed by registered users.

Join Now

Donate

This site is largely funded by donations. You can show your support by donating. Thanks. Every dollar helps.

Like and Share