The Tripartition Of Humanity | Forum

It's implicit in the post. If you mean specifically what's the point to me referring to as the poster child of what I was getting at here, it's also implicit in the post, to be precise here specifically in regards to the latter: "Though Satanists as they are commonly understood tend to claim they are outside of the social norm, something other than the sheep, the herd, the masses is actually the flip side of the very ones they deride, negate and deny; they are the left hand of the right hand, meaning they are merely the tails to the masses head in that they too belong in the first class of social humanity".

In the case of you being the poster child, or one of many poster children for this post I was referring to your equating immorality with brainwashing etc the same as any one of the masses would say, think/believe. And as such you fit the social consensus on what immoral is supposed to be, sticking with that correspondents can be drawn to the social, asocial and antisocial types mentioned in my OP. corresponding to the social (consensus) type is morality, clearly where you stand as per your comment "Yes some people are immoral and my explanation for that is brainwash, frustration and fear".  you are clearly espousing morality and by default deriding/negating immorality as something reprehensible. I thought you are supposed to be a Satanist/Luciferian? isn't Both Satanism and Luciferianism outside of the social norm? A truly satanic or luciferic person would by nature understand immorality as being the interdependent opposite to morality; they both go hand in hand, you can not have one with the other, you can not know one without the other. So, those of the asocial, amoral pattern (Satanist) would naturally view immorality as just another complimentary extreme and so don't think in terms of moral-immoral at all and instead seeing both as not having any bearing on what's outside of the conflict of the mind characterized by the social human type... in other words, Satanists by nature understand things according to what's practical or impractical, necessary or unnecessary, detrimental or beneficial and son on and not on "is this right, or wrong? I must not do the wrong thing as humans(social type) think of it, instead I must always do the right thing as humans(social types) think of it".

Only you are doing it on the black hand side, the complimentary opposite to the white hand side.  Now do you understand?

Quote from FraterLuciferi

'Satanism is not outside the social norm because social norm is part of human instincts and Instincts are the way of nature to ensure the survival of the species..." Morality is relative to those who play the human social game, in this case equated with the moral-immoral pole. Morality is of the mind not the instincts, what would  be of the instincts though would be amorality, not to be confused with "moral relativism", if its not understood as RELATIVE to social humans and does not apply to outcastes. Outcastes by nature of instincts recognize that they are both above and below the human game by nature and according to what side predominates and what they are willing to bear in way of their  wyrding act according to what is expedient.

 

'It's my opinion that brainwash, fear and frustration can cause immoral acts" 

Opinion based on consensus, not on reality outside of the mind, aka ultimate reality, what is transjective and only the transjective is really being beyond good(morality) and evil (immorality). In fact, didn't AL say, " Good is what you like, evil is what you don't like"?

'because it can leads to mentally illness"

Mental illness is to be trapped in the mind, with no seeming way out. Mindless they mat well be, but ill they are not, ignorant yes, but not ill. The truly ill as I have said are those in the mind, the social human type both on the left and the right, by the way in another degree of ignorance each think themselves right and their opposite misunderstood as their opposition being themselves wrong. Society belongs to the mind and so have nothing to do with what lies outside of the mind, the latter is not of society, not of the conflicts of the mind and so knows what IS and how it IS in all cases and flows according to it's nature, or instincts if you prefer.

 

 "As for concepts of LHP and RHP then it seems you don't get what they mean..."

I understand they belong to social humanity, from the asocial human perspective they are merely interdependent opposites, nothing more, they are maya; temporary, the have a bwginning and an end, they stretch from one of time to the other, Satanist being outside of the mind, is outside of society and so is outside of the human game of conflict and though seeing black and what as what is and knowing their interdependent nature see all as perfect and in paradoxical wholeness and this is why being outside the mind is not illness of any kind.

 

"LHP and RHP belongs into occult practices. RHP seeks to be united with God while RHP seeks to realise God in man."

two fingers pointing to the same destination, neither one the one true way, nor the false way, both are only ways to the same goal; RHP to realize God only outside their being, LHP to realize only God in their beings and each negating the whole picture for only their myopic view/understanding of things and of the universe, most especially themselves.  Satanists don't play chess, they play another game altogether, they play the game of Life. 

Quote from Joshua Noctis My head began to spin as I was reading that. Punctuation would be nice.

I typed it as it was flowing, I was in the zone typing it and instead of proof reading/editing every time I decided to post as is. That has nothing to do with anything. Like the post implies you have a tendency to focus on the trivial, like your RHP counterparts, just as I stated in the OP by pointing out LHPers tendency to be the mirror reflection of the RHP. The implied point isn't trivial.

In other words,  both Satanists and Christians will beat their chest claiming that their way is the right way,  and everyone else is wrong.

I would argue that many, but not all,  Satanists are very different from Christians,  in that while Christians feel obligated to spread their ideology to anyone who will listen to them,  as well as those who don't want to listen to them,  and then happily accept anyone into their "flock,"  who wishes to be apart of it,  Satanists are not at all inclined to do the same.

I can't tell you what percentage exactly,  but I would say a large number of Satanists have no inclination or desire to make an argument in favor of Satanism against those who would speak against it,  nor would they attempt to recruit anyone into Satanism.

Although occasionally, many Satanists are willing to discuss the "nuts and bolts," of their philosophy with others, and even argue back and forth on some issues,  most of these people do not get all the excited about opposing views.

Basically,  we "just don't give a shit,"  if someone agrees with us or not and we care even less about attempting to "convert," anyone into Satanism.

Those of us who are social, will banter back and forth among our own and others because on some level we enjoy the interaction.  However, it is only that, enjoyment and not a goal or a calling of any kind.

There are also asocial ones who will lash out at anyone just for the sake of arguing, but any ideology has those types, not just Satanists.

Then there are the ones, who prefer just to keep to themselves and not to interact at all.

In other words,  both Satanists and Christians will beat their chest claiming that their way is the right way,  and everyone else is wrong."

Exactly. Though not just Christians but the herd also, in that Satanists while claiming exclusivity from the herd, they are none the less the other side of the herd mentality just as much as the former if not more than while claiming to not be mindless conforming herd. In one example, the herd tendency to only parrot, albeit in a paraphrased version memorized source material from their chosen/favorite authoritative experts so called, with no apparent understanding of the material in that they are incapable of forming their own conclusions on the material and what not. For example there is the law of thelema, based on their receiving and memorizing of the information they store in their bank they parrot or regurgitate it back in paraphrased form. So to the masses of the right and the left, thelema is not independently understood, it's only "understood" in terms of the stored information, but again, no real independent understanding, instead they were told the story and they stick to it without knowing what it mean or could mean apart from what they were told it means or could mean. The "nuts and bolts" you mentioned have been giving them, they didn't find them themselves, if you know what I mean.

Of course, that's why the OP is called the 3x human, meaning humans come in basically three nice little classifications I mention in the post. Sticking with that you confuse asocial with antisocial.  The ones lashing out for the sake of arguing is characterized as an aspect of the antisocial human, asocial humans are of the aspect of keeping to themselves preferring not to interact at all as far as that goes.

Merely sharing my immediate reaction at cursory glance.

Eleanor Roosevelt rents space in my head with this quote:

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."

Hey Joshua Noctis, it ain't the punctuation, it's the lack of oxygen that made your head spin, just say'n.

"ol'grimey" I would continue, albeit your vapid-vernacular-vortex has depleted the oxygen in this thread.... stepping out for air, peace & pander \m/

I actually admired what you stated regarding Stephen Flowers work, I am familiar with his work and exchanged dialogue in the late 1980's with him during my decade membership in the Temple of Set. I had hoped this may be segue into conversation.

Everything aside, I merely desired to get to know you Joshua... and still do.

How about you and I begin again..?

"No such thing as a stupid question, except the one you don't ask."

...learned that phrase in the military while on instructor duty.

Why be shy now..?

when either one of you can demonstrate your successful application of MagicK we will have a level field to exchange dialogue.

I expect to hear from "ol' grimey", albeit not so with "Joshua Noctis" who maintains an elusive presence, least his charade become exposed.

thank you both for participating in my reality today.

eye enjoy'd this opportunity of profiling your behavioral personality, it speaks volumes to me. peace & pander

I'm interested in hearing your assessment based on what your precious authoritative "experts" have told you in their own words what means what.

The image may not fit the reality. Here's my assessment of myself in no particular order. I am self centered/egocentric; yet I go beyond self centrism/egocentrism at once. I'm grandiose, as it naturally goes with egocentrism. I'm un empathetic my conscience is centered on myself, in that what I don't do to others is so because I find anything that goes against my authenticity reprehensible. In other words,  for example if I give my word, only to break it my conscience would bother me, I don't like the feeling of a bothered conscience, so I as much as I can keep my word.   I don't have the bones for automatic imitation and such as that.

I am indifferent to all around me, except for that which directly relates to me and my satisfaction. I'm not duplicitous. That's just a few things of my self assessment. Tell me, is that part of the volumes speaking to you?

The only thing speaking to you is your own thoughts of know it allism based on the infallible words of pundits who aren't so punditful, just say'n. necessarily,  I rely more on my understanding not the understanding of others, though I may hear what those others are saying, I reference it with my own experience, based on my knowledge of my experience and either those words would augment my already existing understanding, or the words of those who came before may stimulate understanding in me. I don't have to consume everything any one of them may have said or written, only a phrase may trigger an AHA! moment with in me. Oh, and sometimes all I have to do is put myself in the headspace of the pundit to gain some understanding. After all what's science if not a deconstructing of things down to the bare essential and therefore knowing what? and how? What things are, how they work and so on. is any of that in your myopic assessment of me? The new Il Pape's words you memorized like so much scripture speak of such a paradox as Life and in particular as me?

I simply see you as winded to impress, none-the-less.

If you feel you have it all figured out than why must you drone on in meticulous microscopic detail like an intellectual Olympian competing in some cerebral dick measuring contest..? Perhaps it works to pick^up chicks at coffee shops but whats the sense of such nonsense..? You are obviously very well read, I'll give ya that much but it has a tediously short shelf life, just say'n.

It is also the behavior of an age-group just over the hump of when the human brain reaches adult maturation, choice of syntax tips your hand along with an excruciating winded argument to clarify & convince others if not yourself alone.

I call it like I see it, because I've seen it all before... just say'n dude, take a breath it's all good and it's all your reality and I respect that.

perhaps a revisitation of Rudyard Kipling's "If" may mellow yer 'tude dude.

peace not provocation for clarification.