Me in Metaphysics

Discussion in 'Φ v.1THE COCKNEY TRANSLATER!' started by Shezbeth, Apr 5, 2015.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. Shezbeth

    Shezbeth Zonbi Ninshu

    Aside from the mention of the word, there will be no porn.

    Having said,... Colors Pt. 3.

    When applying colors (and indeed, the prismatic spectrum is only ONE spectrum one SHOULD draw on in metaphysics,... others include music/sound, smells, etc.) I have found that the most significant effects occur when there are BOTH objective AND subjective correlations and associations.

    Take me for example; among the colors I use with greatest frequency is yellow/gold. This is both a subjective choice, as I am partial to many of the subjective associations that can generally (or personally) be applied, as well as an objective/aesthetics choice; my hair is strikingly blond, and is in very close hue to yellow/gold. In a conceptual sense, the attributed 'characteristics' of both 'Yellow' and of the literal metal 'gold' can be considered (I also use brass, copper, silver, etc.).

    Stepping a bit away from colors for a moment, I'd like to identify a few aspects to precious metals that alot of people aren't aware of.

    Have you ever taken a Neodymium magnet and placed it on a block of gold, silver, copper, etc? Its a most curious phenomenon! The magnet will suspend its self barely a hair's breadth over the metal! Additionally, if you tilt the metal, the magnet will slide off, but slowly as though slowed by friction even though the magnet isn't making contact!

    I threw that out there just to crack the box on the idea that 'precious' metals do not respond 'normally' to magnetic fields, which is a MOST useful characteristic to both observe and account for in metaphysics.

    Returning to colors. In entirety, the metaphysical tools, adornments, etc. (the Do Gi for anyone who's read my 'non-Inphinet' work) utilize the following colors: Black, Yellow, Gold(m), Silver(m), Copper(m), Nickel(M), Brown-Rawhide, Brushed Steel, and Gunmetal.

    (to be continued,... maybe,....)
    • LOL LOL x 1
  2. First he's jesus,
    then he's lunch.

    I was gone,
    missed you a bunch.

    And where is the meanie
    who's name is Houdini?

    For darkness, not scorn,
    please....leave out the porn.

    I'm reading the cack.
    I'm so glad I'm back.
    • agree agree x 1
  3. Shezbeth

    Shezbeth Zonbi Ninshu

    When I was younger, I played a great deal of 1st-person shooting games. Amongst my favorite was a WWII themed mod for Half-Life (a ridiculously popular and industry revolutionizing game if you're unfamiliar) called Day of Defeat.

    Unlike Counter-Strike which used modern weaponry (with ridiculous accuracy if you knew the functions of the gun), Day of Defeat weapons were less accurate, kicked more, and had a poorer rate of fire. This allowed me utilize years of paintball tactics with brutal efficiency.

    I spent a goodly amount of time under various aliases (depending on my mood and how brutally I was slaughtering that day) including 30.2 (which is 1/5 of 151,... get it? ^_^), Mr. Bob, and - my personal favorite - So Much Porn.

    The reason I preferred the latter (and was reserved only for days in which the slaughter was relentless and unavoidable) is because it invoked images of a giant pile of dirty magazines (non-gender-specific) that was so massive that - like the Blob in the classic movie - would envelop and suffocate unwary n0oBs.

    Picture it if you will, a squad of grizzled WWII soldiers creeping through trenches, prepared to face the enemy,... when suddenly they round a corner and find themselves facing a 50-foot mound of dirty magazines speeding toward them. What do you do? You can't shoot it, you can't run from it,... you can only be devoured.

    Anyway, one day I wandered into a server run by a Catholic Clan (squad). Perhaps because I laid waste to them - single-handedly at times - or perhaps from genuine offense, they insisted that my handle was inappropriate and that if I didn't change it immediately I would be banned.

    I scoffed at the idea, but out of curiosity I decided to change it after all; I changed it to So Much Murder. The leader said that that was better.

    I told them all to fuck off and never went back.

    (you can guess what happened at a Colorado (IIRC) Police department server w/ the name "So Much Weed")
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2015
  4. Shezbeth

    Shezbeth Zonbi Ninshu

    Continuing, the tail statement is entirely true and absolutely viable,... in a subjective context, but what of objectivity? Well, let's return to our friend Red.

    The color Red (and indeed, the term 'color' is likewise a description ^_~) occurs naturally in a multitude of contexts and both consistencies and variances. The color can signify both health and decline in an organism or system, also signifying the presence of disparate, inconsistent, and divergent types of nutrients, chemicals, and compounds,.... Obviously, there are things which do not cause a natural occurrence of the color - teeth for example - but by and large the color is found in some shape or form just about anywhere. How then to determine objective characteristics?

    Here's an easy one for you as far as determining the objective properties of, if not the color red than definitely one of the most significant natural 'reds'; Blood.

    Now in observing Blood as Red OR Red as Blood, the subjectivity of the thing - the correlated perceptions and ideas that involve the concept and associations of blood - merges with the objectivity of the thing; that blood in its oxygenated state carries nutrients to the body and aids in disposal of excess gas (C02).

    These are just a few thoughts from the top of my head as pertains to color and the properties of. I mean, anyone can say anything about the properties and - assuming that what they have said is consistent with their experience - and be making an accurate statement. An individual may find that certain colors work for particular affects and other likewise; yellow - I am told - is good for healing.

    But personally: Yellow, Blue, Green, Red,... etc,... what do they mean IMO?

    Whatever I goddamn say they do.
  5. Shezbeth

    Shezbeth Zonbi Ninshu

    As always Rose, you affect class with your very words. ^_^

    To quote the limey bard in A Knight's Tale:

    Good people! I have missed my introduction!
    (complete with foppish coat!)

    (skip to 3:03)

    <clears his throat>






    To start off my re-emergence, I will begin by addressing the inquiry and topic of color; initially so at least, because it is quite a hefty topic.

    To start that off I will detail a story, a shared experience between myself and one other; for while I have told a great many people about the exchange, there were only two who actually experienced it,... and that is a clue. I will refer to the counter-party as Leo.

    Leo: Describe the color red.
    FA: Which shade?
    (I never said it was a long story,....)

    The reason I bring this up - and apologies if I have already mentioned this previously - is for a variety of reasons, namely objectivity and subjectivity.

    In addressing the metaphysical properties or aspects of color, one must equally apply the context from/in/to that color is applied. For example, the yellow of a sunflower petal will have vastly different metaphysical properties than the yellow of an amber stone. The 'why' of 'what shade' alludes to the fact that the color red - or any color for that matter - appears in a variety of shades, varieties, etc. When one says the word 'red' they are not supplying the imagery, I am; as such if I am to attempt to describe what the inquirer was inquiring about I would need to be certain of the type of 'red' they were inquiring.

    I once posed this query to a fellow who responded by listing a frequency spectrum; very cold and scientific that one. Now, while I stand by my answer (one's ignorance of the question is an aspect of the question; you're not supposed to get an 'educated second guess') I realize another answer of equal value that was illustrated as something of an antithesis of the scientific answer; the fact is, the term 'red' is a description.

    Which is to say, that the colors that one uses in metaphysics can and do - by will of the metaphysicist alone if need be - whatever is needed/desired. It can help to correlate, associate, connect, harmonize, etc., but it is by no means required. Still, it is often beneficial to work in as many associations - or perhaps a particular number of associations - can have significant effects. Think of it like 'distilling the essence/meaning' from a thing.

    Last edited: Dec 27, 2015
  6. Rose

    Rose InPHInet Rose Φ Administrator

    Welcome Back, Shezbeth. cupa

    I look forward to the continuation of your thread.
    • Winner Winner x 1
  7. monkeyman

    monkeyman Monkey see monkey do

    Perhaps we had better start from the beginning...

    Back to colour.

    Colour is emitted or reflected - a wavelength that we pick up through our eyes that is interpreted by our brain that changes depending on the arrangement of electrons.

    How do we interact with colour, how does that wavelength make us feel or think or act or does it have no influence at all.

    Can sound have a colour? Does a minor chord sound grey or does a major chord sound yellow?

    We all know how we relate the vast spectrum of colour to vast spectrum of human emotion.

    We feel blue, we are green with envy, red with anger.

    Recent studies show that the shades of a colour are more important than the colour itself.

    Does dark blue feel sadder than light blue? Does blue feel sad at all?

    Is blue cold, red warm, yellow loud?

    What do colours mean to you?

    Red Blue Green (as previously suggested)

    I would like to ask you all what these three colours represent to you all.

    Use your gut instinct , think about it before you post your answers. Think about the shades and tints too.

    If you are interested in taking part, pm your list to me and I will compile answers here for us to look at.
    • Hmm Hmm x 1
  8. Rose

    Rose InPHInet Rose Φ Administrator

  9. How come the threads shuttin rose , has toodles knocked it on the head then , who is taking over then?
    It would have to be someone less sensative.or more sensative , anyway.

    Allotment for rent , grow anything you you like onions , potatoes . Etc.
    • Like Like x 1
  10. ϟ...

    ϟ... Member

    Unless anyone has additional comments?
  11. Shezbeth

    Shezbeth Zonbi Ninshu

    For today, I'm assigning a word list.

    Those thinking something like "Fuck off, where does,..." etc., fuck off you're still reading the shit. ^_~

    1. Progenerative
    2. Regenerative
    3. Nongenerative

    And when ur finished, pick one.

    That's all. Tks bye! pppaaarrrttttio
  12. Shezbeth

    Shezbeth Zonbi Ninshu

    Shezbeth's Psychic Rule and Guidebook

    Develop amazing abilities in just 3 easy steps!

    Sound good?


    There 'ain't gon' be no guidebooks, or any such nonsense. If one is laboring under the delusion that I am here to help you 'do the same things as me' or whatever, you're wasting your time. For one, I couldn't convince a jury that it isn't all in my head, and for two even if I could I wouldn't go about making a spectacle nor promoting (selling?) the idea.

    All I am doing – all I intend to do – is to make available useful tools, ideas, and perceptions; and, even the 'useful' is arguable. Still, what I present has been of benefit to me, and since for the moment I have the digital floor, I will continue to illustrate/iterate.

    If one finds themselves having 'other-worldly' experience as a result, super-dooper! If not, sooper-duper!

    To be frank, I couldn't give a shit. (I much prefer being FA, but I'll be frank when it suits my purpose Xp)

    Metaphysical pursuit/operation – at least the 'flavor' which I find apt – involves a deliberate degree of cognitive dissonance. One is best suited in that regard to maintain two polarized perspectives; in one perspective everything I am saying is fantasy, and in another perspective it is reality. Somewhere in between the two is the truth. I'm not going to tell you what the truth 'is' even if I could, nor (unless contextually relevant) will I tell you what I perceive the truth to be.

    Perceptions of truth are none of my business; I'm here to suggest possibilities.

    • Thanks Thanks x 1
    • Poignant Poignant x 1
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2015
  13. Shezbeth

    Shezbeth Zonbi Ninshu


    I'll assume that is a word that needs no further definition/elaboration,... ^_~

    … though don't misconstrue the word as being the salient point of this post!

    Recently I have had a number of experiences I would share. Naturally, I am going to share far less than I had intended to. Xp

    Today is (was, it's 2:50a ATM) friday, and every friday the word of the day is 'rage' at my job (oh what, you thought I only evoked a word of the day here?).

    There is reason I chose Rage to be the word of the day on friday; one rarely works at a lumber mill without incurring or fostering a degree of rage (whether implicit or explicit). Surely most get by without engaging such rage, while others make an effort to sequester and not express this rage.

    I actively engage my rage on a weekly basis, much like a pressure-relief system, and it has caught on. The rage is used to push ourselves (myself and those who prescribe to the idea) to work harder and more effectively, and obviously there is more than a modicum of cheek to it as well.

    But seriously,... rage!

    While some traditions encourage a stifling or repression of rage (among other things), I have found that rage is a necessary, endemic, natural, and most appropriate element to one's experience. I'll allow that I could be mistaken, but that's yet to be determined.

    And it isn't just me! Atheists, Gnostics, and even Abrahamics have – when all is laid bare – have unilaterally agreed with my position; whether permissive or no, they admit that whether one calls it 'rage' or not, there is a natural element to wrath, murderous aggression, or whatever other term is used. This is not to say that I or any other theory are particularly authoritative on rage et al., but it does beg the question; which is truly more useful/vital to the emergent individual? Is repression and suppression the more conducive motivator, or is (moderated, of course) expression/ventation the way? Perhaps a mix of the two; everything in its time and place?

    While you ponder that, allow me to divert your attention with an anecdote that is wholly on a different tangent.

    A few days ago I was observing a clock (again, at work). I observe this clock regularly, as it sits positioned adjacent to my work-station. The clock, which had been there for 10+ years by estimates, had spent the last few years stuck at 12:12.

    For kicks I contemplated setting the clock at 4:20, both for my amusement and to see if anyone would notice. Literally as I was mentally voicing these thoughts, the clock – which as I indicated had sat there for ten+ years without incident including all manner of inclement weather above and beyond what follows – was caught in a gust of wind and thrown from the wall to crash against the floor, spilling fragmented pieces everywhere (which of course, I had to clean up, but that's an aside).

    Now, one could readily assert that what I observed was a random coincidence. It is certainly within the realm of possibility, especially as pertains to a logical frame of mind.

    But enough of that shit.


    So tell me something. Have you shut the fuck up yet?

    I don't mean all the time, but often? I word it callously and tactlessly because it amuses me, but in all seriousness and respect there is a positive reason I suggest it.

    When one is speaking, they are not listening. To that end, I have found that the universe, the whole of the sensation of individuated feeling and experience including light, sound, thought, etc. has far more to convey to me than I do to it.

    For example, do you listen with your eyes? Do you feel the sound and light vibrating against the threshold of the skin? Do you see your body breathing?

    I am fully aware of the irony that I must communicate this point; as I said, one doesn't always shut the fuck up.

    Oh, and when you do talk/communicate, please try not to sound like a knob. ^_~
    • Like Like x 1
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2015
  14. Shezbeth

    Shezbeth Zonbi Ninshu

    A new opponent? Oh bully! (in the good sense)

    Seriously though, that is a common perception. People will read something (incl. the 48) and think "Oh, I've got it" and then move on. Perhaps they have 'got it', from their 'right now' perspective, but Robert Greene himself attests to re-reading the 48 Laws (and others) once a year because with new experience comes new insight, comprehension, inspiration, etc.

    No one, and I mean no one has ever fully 'got it',... not in this lifetime at least. ^_~

    P.S. Can I get a hint as to who the tosser individual might be? ^_~
    • Like Like x 1
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2015
  15. I hope you do , the guy I'm talking about is a total knob..
    He thinks he is an expert on lots of things of this nature , and he isn't..
    I have handed him his arse a few times , I suspect that's why he is here , also , he don't like you , Hahahahahahahahaha.
  16. Shezbeth

    Shezbeth Zonbi Ninshu

    Pshh, I've spent far more time in my life being 'unpopular' than being 'popular' so par for the course on that one.

    As for your inquiry, there are several laws which brush the idea you are referring to, most notably Laws 19 and 48:
    "Know Who You're Dealing With – Do Not Offend the Wrong Person", and "Assume Formlessness".

    While the titles do not directly reference assumptions, etc., law 19 in particular has alot to say about adequately and astutely interpreting individuals and circumstances (and the consequences of not doing so!). Law 48 is in many ways a continuation of Law 3 (and most others for that matter) in that no matter the methods, routines, practices, etc. one adopts, incorporates, etc. that one has never 'finished' learning the laws, that there are layers of subtlety that can only be learned through experience; as such one is never in a position of 'knowing' or 'having the whole truth/picture'. The keyword: adaptability (do I smell a word of the day to come?). ^_~

    So to directly answer, nothing direct (IIRC there's plenty on it in the 33 Strategies of War though) but plenty of it is implicit.

    One thing to be aware of is that in my ridiculously short summaries - and I do mean ridiculously! - of these Laws there is literally volumes of information, historical account, fables, stories, anecdotes, etc. that supply a depth that I cannot in these short spiels (nor would I want to; I'm not trying to camp on Mr. Greene's efforts and work, more trying to pique the reader's curiosity and interest). To me the 48 Laws have become an invaluable tool, and I would share (a taste) those tools with those who can use them. I would also share those tools with those who might hurt themselves with them 'cuz I'm a dick. ^_~

    And, should it ever get to 'that' point, I personally have purchased 6 copies of the book and have since given them all away; its a curious habit of mine, where every couple years I will buy a copy, read through it for about 6 months or so, and then stumble across a 'worthy' individual and will summarily give them my copy. If any feathers have been or are (at a later time) ruffled by way of this thread, it was not my intention. Indeed if anything, I am actively pursuing Law #39. ^_~
  17. You have to , be able to adapt any of this to a framework.
    Your envirament..
    To me this rather akin to body language , it's fine and dandy , unless the other person(s) are fully aware and use the same language , this can of course become a tool.(if the other dosent know you are an expert)

    For instance.

    If you go on a roof , a very high one.
    I have watched this in people VERY closely.
    I watched what happens to there bodies physicaly.
    It dosent matter how exsperianced you are...for a short time the body goes thru a phase.

    Maybe if you have been up high you will recognise this.
    Maybe it's your job.

    But you still recognise as you first walk out with no safety or guidelines , that you are for this moment in total control of your life and death...
    The knees go first...they get that wobbly unsure feeling , is it real?
    Could you fall more easily ?
    Well after a few minutes people that do not suffer from a clinical reaction to heights , well , they will normalise.
    Until , someone runs towards them grabs there shoulders jolts there body and says "save ya life" look deep into there eyes when you do will see them , in
    No lies...just them , sitting there , you will cause adrenalin to release , the body is amazingly quick at's almost instant..

    So where are the rules?

    When you are here..

    I do not contradict what your saying or why , I totaly understand what your doing..
    Do you understand what I'm doing..?

    Is there a law in there , pertaining to being very careful about your asumptions , about , not judging a book by its cover etc...
    This is very useful..
    I like to let people do that..
    I like to let people think I do that...
    It makes no difference to write these things down...
    It gives no advantage...

    Because , you never know what envirament you could be in , like a roof.

    You could be forced into a situation , that changes everything.

    It's all very interesting isn't it.

    Sorry to interupt , that was for someone else who is reading your thread , then reporting it back to his owner.

    You know , you could become as unpopular/popular as me...

    A new guilty secret for the weird to source material from.

    Nice one.
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  18. Shezbeth

    Shezbeth Zonbi Ninshu

    And now for a continuation of my paraphrasing of the 48 Laws!

    Quick Recap:

    Law #1 – Never Outshine the Master
    Do not be a threat or an obstacle to the bigger fish, instead be a resource,... or else be food.

    Law #2 – Never Put Too Much Trust in Friends, Learn How to Use Enemies
    The closer another fish is to you, the more likely they are to see an opportunity that comes at one's expense; avoid mixing business with friendship.

    Law #3 – Conceal Your Intentions
    A fish who's strategy that can be interpreted can be likewise countered, where a fish who's strategy cannot be entirely interpreted cannot.

    Law #4 – Always Say Less Than Necessary
    If a fish has nothing to say, they should say nothing. If they have something to say, it is better to say more with less than less with more.


    Law #5 – So Much Depends on Reputation – Guard it With Your Life

    A fish's sound reputation alone can intimidate, discourage, and ultimately defeat other fish. A fish's poor reputation leaves them open to scrutiny. There is a fine line between 'reputation' and 'truth' insomuch as how a fish 'is'; the former refers to the fish's perception by those around them, whereas the latter refers to what is accurate and consistent. To this end, a fish is well suited to avoiding associability with occurrences that would malign their standing and social perception.

    The 33 Strategies of War – another of Robert Greene's excellent works – advises 'Assume/Maintain the Moral High Ground'. This is an example of the type of thinking in this law, as in this case the 'Moral High Ground' (as perceived by one's observers) lends one a degree of unassailability that is both useful and prudent. There are other forms of having/maintaining one's reputation of course, but a sound reputation is FAR easier to maintain than it is to repair.

    Law #6 – Court Attention at All Cost

    Attention is a commodity, a resource, and a currency. Regardless the type of attention, attention its self creates/presents an opportunity that can be utilized advantageously.

    The current (2015) Republican Debates are doing a marvelous job of depicting one individual in particular who knows the value of this law. I won't name names (if you don't know who I'm talking about, well,....) but amongst the contenders there is (IMO) a very obvious exemplar of this Law.

    This law in particular has a fine line to it however, as there is a certain threshold – and one that is likely not observable until after it has been crossed – which after crossing subjects one to the consequences of abiding the previous law.

    Law #7 – Get Others to Do the Work For You, But Always Take the Credit

    This is the first of the laws which in practice I refuse to abide. In my experience, the dynamic described in this law (pretty self-explanatory IMO) is in direct violation of Law #5. Taking credit for another+ fish's work strikes me as something that would malign one's reputation, especially with the increasing methods and degrees of scrutiny brought upon by technology and digital communication.

    IMO, one is best suited to observe this Law by recognizing the propensity of other fish to affect this strategy and see to it that they cannot credibly take credit for one's work (or else draw negative scrutiny from bigger fish). That other fish can be/are want to take credit is something to be particularly wary of when one fish seeks to advance themselves and their agendas. To this end, affecting a 'signature' of sorts – an idiosyncrasy, tell, or other obvious indicator that removes another fish's ability to claim responsibility – is useful. Furthermore (and I'm sure there will be more on this in later laws), a healthy relationship with the larger fish with whom other fish might attempt to take credit to can do wonders in this direction.

    I know of few more damaging occurrences to a fish's reputation. A fish who attempts to take credit for another fish's work/effort to a larger fish (that is aware of the reality of the situation) is in for a world of hurt, and is in direct transgression of many (above and to follow) of the Laws.

    Law #8 – Make Other People Come to You – Use Bait if Necessary

    I'll come back to this one. ^_~

    Law #9 – Win Through Your Actions, Never Through Argument

    In a contest of ideas, it is better to make the more conducive course of action readily apparent than to argue on its behalf. Fish can be fickle, biased, and otherwise predisposed, even in the face of compelling reason, logic, or experience. No matter how 'correct' a fish is, they are 'wrong' in the mind of their opposition, and while winning a disagreement may result in a temporary gain there is little that can be done to correct or diminish the offense of proving another fish wrong.

    Law #10 – Infection: Avoid the Unhappy and Unlucky

    There are innumerable fish in the sea, of all manner of predispositions, practices, and penchants. Some fish are inclined to act conducively – to emerge as it were – while others are want to act in a manner which brings adversity upon themselves (and others). In observance of this, a fish stands to benefit by associating with and connecting with fish who display a propensity for conducive activity. If interactions and associations can be said to have something of an osmosis-effect amidst the associates, it is better to identify and connect with those who's pursuits are productive; fish who create unnecessary obstacles for themselves are as likely to create obstacles for their associates (whether knowingly or unknowingly). Further, even if such fish do not bring adversity on one's self, there is always the concept of 'guilt/fault by association'.
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2015
  19. Shezbeth

    Shezbeth Zonbi Ninshu

    I would like to share a realization that came as the fruit of a secular discussion I had earlier this evening. I'll have to frame it a bit, so please excuse the introduction. I have to jump around a bit but I'll tie it all together, don't you worry. ^_~

    Baptize - I'm pretty sure I don't have to define that one for you,....

    Baptism - the process by which one is baptized.​

    From these two examples, one can hopefully observe that the Greek bapt - the word from which these terms are derived - refers to something of a sanctification.

    -ism/-ize - different english conjugation based on greek origins, but not differentiating from the source word/concept.

    Womanize - To make effeminate or to engage in habitual pursuit of women
    That's what says. I say,....
    To frequently engage in predatory, disingenuous, artificial, or otherwise self-gratifying behavior against women.

    Womanism - believing in or acknowledging the viability, contribution, and requisite nature of the female (in a variety of forms)
    Again, that's the dictionary response.

    Yet - referring to the previous indication of suffixes - one would reasonably conclude that a womanist is comparable (but not identical) to a womanizer. Yet, contemporary experience AND cursory research indicates that there is a divide - antithetical even - between the terms.

    NOW, if one were to observe the consistent linguistics, one might erroneously (but not surprisingly given the aggregate) assume that the act of engaging in predatory (etc.) behavior against a woman is part of the process of making 'a woman'.

    Think about it. If bapt - ize means to cause to be santified (simplified), then doesn't woman - ize means to be made womanly? But - and I'm going off what I've observed - all the womanizers I've known or seen evidence of are either callous, dismissive, derisive, (et al) toward women. This implies that the process of being callous, etc. toward women makes a woman out of them. Is a woman a female who has been fooled, led, tricked, guided, etc. by a man (not exclusively, I'm sure there are lesbian 'womanizers', though I'd wager they're the gross minority compared to their masculine counterpart)?

    This illustrates only one of the idiosyncrasy's of the english language, but it serves to indicate the value - if not the necessity - of becoming, if not a wordsmith than having the ability to break apart words and individually validate and/or qualify their meaning.

    Using myself as an example - and I'm only stating this as an example, otherwise I wouldn't state - I cannot in all reason-ability continue to utilize the term 'womanize'. The word its self runs at cross purposes and sends mixed signals (and IMO none of them are conducive). The implication is that predation is a natural cause/catalyst for the flowering/maturity/development of a female graduating from 'young girl' to 'woman'.

    Basically, the idea is that a 'woman' is a 'woman' when she has been taken advantage of,... or at least that is one extreme of the interpretive spectrum.

    However,... looking at the animal kingdom (cats in particular since for me they are prevalent) I can't contest the validity of the idea! Male cats don't exactly ask for consent!

    It goes both ways (interpretation and perception, not,... the previous implication), and one should be very careful that they observe that distinction.

    And,... if anyone wants to know how that pertains to metaphysics, please let me know so I can bitch-slap the shit outta you.

    Seriously, the Feminine and the Masculine,... the two that are one,... I'll assume (hope!) you know where I'm going with that one.
    • listening listening x 1
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2015
  20. Shezbeth

    Shezbeth Zonbi Ninshu


    A lot of talk is bandied about – particularly amongst the Alt crowd – with regards to discernment. Hold the phone,... does that definition say 'discriminate'? <gasp> I thought discrimination was 'bad'!

    The term 'discernment' is often used to validate, qualify, or otherwise justify perceptions and/or positions which,... 'can't always be said to be valid, qualified, or justified' (to put it mildly). Oh sure, there are individuals who adequately and properly utilize the word (both grammatically and conceptually) but as with oh so many things (and again, this is just my perception, drawn on an irrevocably limited experience) the overwhelming majority use it however they wish.

    The simple version is this: Discernment is only as good as the due diligence applied to it.

    Unfortunately, the term is often used to accompany initial and/or 'gut' reactions to stimuli, which in a roundabout way is something of an antithesis of the term. Discernment is a capacity of (and synonymous with) the Reason, and yet it so often (in contradiction) accompanies individual bias, logical fallacy, and all manner of,... well anything but Reason.

    One of my personal favorites is when an individual observes a video, interview, or some such, and bases their perception of viability on their feelings (cuz no one ever manipulates the ecstatic consciousness! facepalm ). I won't name names, to be a sport. ^_~

    Having said, I would like to segue for a bit.

    While perusing Manga (Japanese comics, or Manhua in Korean), I stumbled across yet another dialogue that caught my attention, because it adequately refers to a concept which I have only discussed with one individual previously. The dialogue spans page 15 & 16 of the Manga “Red Storm” - chapter 97, and involves two individuals; one a warrior (Julian), the other an exalted sorcerer/magic-user (Winnie). The salient point is indicated.

    Julian observes Winnie – not for the first time – 'working to repair a massive seal', but only sees him walking and occasionally stomping on the ground.

    J: … Mr. Winnie. I've always been curious. By just walking,... I mean,.... [a half-assed inquiry]

    W: I can do magic like this.

    J: Yes. I thought that magic was when you're,....

    W: Brandishing staves, making wild hand gestures, and murmuring spells?

    J: Yes, from what I know.

    W: You could do it that way. Magic is taught that way after all. But I've learned everything already. I've surpassed and am creating. That's why just walking like this is fine. Every single move I make is magic.

    The dialogue continues with some self-aggrandizement, and shifts away from that topic never to return, but it still bears consideration IMO.

    Metaphysics – or magic if you will – can go either way; it could be as simple as the act of breathing, or it can be as complex and exhaustively detailed as one can imagine. There is no 'right' way of doing things,... but there are more and less conducive methods.

    And, in the event that there are Abrahamics (Christians, Hebrews, and Islamics) in the periphery that are considering (even just by thought) denouncing or refusing the previous idea (whether 'sin' or any of the other choice criticisms which have no basis outside of rhetoric), you should be quite careful before denouncing. I can point to a number of individuals (and their YouTube channels) that do a wonderful job of indicating the multitude of metaphysical stories/accounts, instruction and subliminal direction, and deliberate exaltation of metaphysics that can be found in every Abrahamic text.

    Oh, they call it 'from God' (probably the most loaded term in contemporary history), prophesy, and a wealth of others,... but that's just a particular group's chosen terminology.

    Much is lost in divergent terminology and therefore in translation, but anyway,....

    The word occult means 'hidden', and there are a great many things occulted in 'traditional' and/or 'sacred' texts.

    But then,... one would need a modicum of discernment to pick that out,.... ^_~
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2015
  21. Shezbeth

    Shezbeth Zonbi Ninshu


    The word that appears above has a particular significance, as aided by my individuated experience. I do not expect it to be given any degree of respect, consideration, or appreciation.

    “Who is the villain?”

    “That is determined by who is the protagonist.”

    “Who is the protagonist?”

    “Who is the protagonist?”

    Now, it is likely that the thought has occurred that villains are known for some of the most reprehensible shit. I counter by indicating (suggesting mostly, I doubt any evidence remains ^_~) that both hero and villain are responsible for some of the most reprehensible shit regardless which way the propaganda blows.

    In every hero is a villain, and vice versa; this is not morality, this is polarity.

    Recognize the mindset that the self-serving use of the term villain (on or toward another) operates under. To dub/deem another a villain is a blatant expression of contempt, which could be said to be the antithesis of 'respect'. REMEMBER: You are not required to like, be kind to, or otherwise accommodate your opponent, but you damn-well better respect them (and I don't say 'better' in the context of 'Or else', I say it in the context of 'for your own good').

    Let me give another, slightly less obvious depiction of the type of mental laziness (oh yes, laziness!) that I'm trying to point out.

    Picture a child. The child is offered a red (cherry) popsicle and a green (lime) posicle. The child says "Cherry! Lime is nasty!"

    What I'm getting at with expressions and phrases like this is to indicate the degree to which individuals are - both consciously and not - deliberately expressing themselves in a manner that is logically inaccurate, and only serves the purpose of preventing the flow of information from nescience to science.

    If another child was standing next to that first child and had never tasted either popsicle, might they have adopted the perceptual bias and disinterest in the lime one?

    Now, a child is obviously not resolved to be impeccable with their words (unless for some reason they are, which would be awesome).

    Words such as love/hate, good/evil, hero/villain, etc. are just simply lazy, and the use of them is circumstantially indicative of the direction/reception to the information which they want the individual to have. Simply, you can tell what another person wants/would prefer you think based on the words they use to describe things.

    And if you ask me, the far greatest 'culprit' for this type of activity?

    The fucking T.V. (more specifically, the broadcast signals from the networks ^_~).

    In fact, I would venture to suggest that the more and more an individual could benefit from either a general or particular practice, behavior, or disposition, the more such things will be distracted from, discredited, and otherwise obfuscated by the T.V.,... but you knew that already.
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2015
  22. Shezbeth

    Shezbeth Zonbi Ninshu

    The scene was Burning Man, year 2006. The theme, Hope and Fear; the Future.

    Some asshole - with his associates of course - decided to build himself a wooden tower. It wasn't enormous, but it was 3 floors. Oh, he put an impressive sound system on that there tower.

    Every day, at regular intervals, for at least a half-mile radius (which was damn near half of the entirety) could be hear "Final Countdown" by Europe.

    I shake my fist at that asshole. To this day I cannot hear said song without - part at least - being transported back to said adventure (and if Burning Man is anything but an adventure, one is simply not doing it right).

    P.S. Yes, that was deliberately vague and the point of which was not readily apparent; get used to it. If I have to spell it out at every step then the reader hasn't been paying adequate attention. ^_~

    P.P.S. It was Gantz; chapter 369 (whoa!) which can be found at
    • Like Like x 1
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2015
  23. Shezbeth

    Shezbeth Zonbi Ninshu


    For today, I would like you to sit in on an interview/conversation. I'll gladly detail the source,... later. Its not a secret, (anyone with a vague idea of my hobbies could easily guess) but for now I would prefer the dialogue stand on its own.

    I for Interviewer (multiple), and R for Respondent (singular). Parenthesis following responses indicates what the respondent's face (F) and torso (T) displays at the time its uttered (yeah ^_~), though this all appears on the body of a stationary hairless female. Parenthesis following questions will note the language that is being spoken, as it is not english by default; responses are in the same language they were issued in, and lapses between indication signify the consistent use of a language.


    I: Why can't people live without sacrificing others? (French)

    R: That's how things are. (T - baby, child, androgyne)

    I: Why is there such a huge gap between the rich and poor people? (Spanish)

    R: Existence is like this. (T - child, androgyne, old man)

    I: Is "that flow" the only way you can answer? (English)

    R: It's because it is the most important shot. (F - baby)

    I: What have we been doing all this time?! What was the point?! We want to know why! Why are we being forced [into conflict]?! (Japanese)

    R: I shall tell you why you have been summoned [...] and forced [in opposition to those] with whom you have no quarrel. (T - diseased old man)

    A certain star system was on the verge of annihilation. The immigrants set their sights on Earth and slowly began arriving there over 30 years ago. (F - Chupacabra; T - miasma of eyes, mouths, and facial features framing a young woman's face)

    I: So you're saying those immigrants are the ones we've been [opposing] all this time? What about [redacted]? Are they immigrants too?

    R: The ones [...] are a supremely powerful race. Their cultural advancement and military power far exceeds that of Earth. (F - Pug; T - Joseph and Mary the Abrahamics)

    I: Then maybe we were prepared as a counter for them? But by who? Why? And how?

    R: We are the inhabitants of a planet they chose for migration before Earth. We drove them out and they chose Earth as their new destination. (F - middle-aged asian man; T - Horse)
    We sent information to Earth in the form of technology capable of fighting against them. (F - middle-aged caucasian man)

    I: What about [redacted]? Is he an alien too? One of your buddies maybe?

    R: He is merely an interpretation. Simply a copy of a randomly selected human.

    I: [slough of gratitude, exalting praise, and subjective deification]

    R: We do not need your thanks. (F - middle-aged european man; T - sideways young, european man)
    We did not send information out of sympathy for earthlings. We harbor no special feelings for your kind. (F - Ghandi; T - sideways woman)

    Humans are an arrogant race. You believe you hold a special place among the creatures of earth, but this is not so. (F - young black man)

    We made a choice that was left to us to restore order balance to the Earth its self. Not to save your human race. (F - 1/2 previous black man, 1/2 David Rockefeller {interpreted})

    From our point of view, you are microscopic. No more than insects. Even if hundreds or millions of you were to die, it would be of no importance to us. (F - young David Rockefeller {interpreted})

    As a child, you likely killed thousands of ants by spraying an anthill with a garden hose. (F - Einstein)

    Humans believe their lives and ants' are weighted differently. This is profound arrogance. (F - Marilyn Monroe)

    The so-called "God" you cling to does not exist. Human life is but dust and detritus. (F - young Karl Marx; T - Hitler)

    The so-called "God" you cling to does not exist. (young balding man)

    I: [all sorts of multi-language denials]

    R: Fundamentally, you are no different from dust floating in the wind. Simply matter and nothing more. (Steven Hawking)

    I: You're wrong. Humans have feelings,....

    R: Thoughts and emotions are merely products of minor electrical currents. You're no different than your own electronic devices, just a bit more complex. (Bill Gates)

    I: No,... you're wrong,.... Do dust and bugs have the power to destroy the world a dozen times over? Humans are the most powerful species on Earth.

    R: Destroying the Earth changes nothing. Merely matter exchanging places. (F - Putin)

    I: Didn't you just say you want to protect order on the Earth? What happened to that? (English)

    R: Don't read too much into it. We just chose to do so. We could just as easily have chose not to. (young man)

    I: [individual-specific dialogue and exchange]

    R: Now you should understand. Humans are no more than "things". (F - pekingese; T - Beethoven)

    I: I've got one question for you and I want an answer. Are human beings nothing more than "things"? [...] Are bloody chunks all there is to them? [...] Human souls!! Do they really not exist?! (Japanese)

    R: When humans die, approximately 21 grams of data detaches and migrates to a separate dimension. Is this data what you refer to? (F - Nelson Mandela)

    I: So [individual names], their souls are,... those 21 grams of data? But what happens then?

    R: Each set of data reenters this dimension within a new individual. And once that individual is destroyed, it migrates to the separate dimension once again. (F - young BB King {interpreted}.

    Two months from now [contextual female] will be reborn as an american woman. And in 20 years [contextual male] will be born as that woman's child. (F - young Rick James {bitch})

    Two years after that, [contextual female] will be born as his sister. Objects that were related in this dimension will maintain those relationships in perpetuity.

    That concludes this discussion. From this point forward we will no longer interfere with earthling affairs. (F - hole; T - hole)


    In presenting this exchange, I am neither confirming/supporting the ideas inherent, but neither am I denying/refuting. I present them simply as food for thought.

    Now, regardless of one's reception to the previous, I would like to suggest an exercise. First a question; what is true?

    Think of it - whatever it is - and hold it in your mind. Having done so, I would like you to recognize - while maintaining the perception of 'truth' - that what you perceive to be true is likewise and equally false. What makes something true or false? Perspective! Admittedly, some perspectives are more consistent with the observable evidence of the secular world, but I trust I needn't refute the 'viability' of that,....

    P.S. I'll think up a code or cypher to indicate the source in time. ^_^

    P.P.S. I lied (gasp!), I'll source it in the next post.
    • Applause Applause x 1
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2015
  24. Shezbeth

    Shezbeth Zonbi Ninshu

    Fuck the audience yes, but recognize the relationship one shares with the audience while doing so. In general, a greater awareness of how the individual merges with, borders, or corresponds to the world around them (and vice versa) is the crux of the issue. This awareness rightly would result in no observable changes in the individual (except perhaps for an observable increase in theatrics and artistry ^_~) and for the most part would lend a degree of conviction to one's previously exhibited MO.

    I could go on, but this is the point at which my own personal MO divides from some of the more 'classically acknowledged' metaphysical traditions. To keep with the flow,....

    As far as the 'fuck the audience' mentality is concerned, it basically boils down to assertiveness.

    Recognize, the term 'assert' is all-but antonymous to the term 'defer'. Assertiveness has taken a bad rap, particularly amongst the loaf and flighty 'love-and-light'-y crowd. Such feel that any form of aggression or offensive behavior (read: strategic offensive, not 'being offensive', as in to deliberately offend/upset) is atavistic. They are entitled to their opinion.

    What's more, the term defer is also quite antithetical to the term 'humble'. I don't know about you, but I chuckle to myself any time (and it's quite often!) I see individuals state "IMHO" and then proceed to assert their position. Meh, I could beat that dead horse for days on end. ^_~

    Just a tip to anyone reading; if you're asserting, humble is the last thing you're actually doing/being. The only truly humble opinions are those that have to be asked for (otherwise they are maintained by the humility of not being said). One doesn't legitimately say "IMHO" and then proceed to write a multi-page editorial/opinion!

    From a personal position, I rather like my audience (assuming there is one! I can't be certain! ^_~), but neither do I give a rats ass what they think, like, or prefer. If I could be said to have any lingering 'audience members', it is precisely because of my penchant for chucking aces at them. If they didn't like it after all, they could always watch 'another show'. This show is about establishing, maintaining, and developing autonomy, sovereignty, and individuated perspective - whether to the world at large or the audience themselves - and is positioned and ready to confront and/or deny positions or ideas that are non-conducive or antithetical.

    Besides, there are plenty of (overly IMO) deferential individuals in the aggregate to satisfy any 'preference' to that type of MO.

    I am told (via Mark Passio) that the highest level of Masonry involves a thorough analysis and overview of the term/concept "No". The general idea is the recognition of the sovereign individual/entity to reject whatever it is that enters their 'atmosphere'. Authoritarians prefer sycophants and the overly obsequious, whereas authorities find assertiveness to be an operant and conducive position. When one has experience, competence, and skill, one can readily state "No" for whatever reason, because they have the where-with-all to state such things with their authority. Authoritarians,... well they really don't like to hear the word 'no',... which is why I am so quick to say it when the circumstances suggest/demand/insist. ^_~

    <there's nuance to be observed in the lyrics ^_~>
    • Like Like x 1
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2015
  25. Fuck the audience , cuppa3
    • agree agree x 1
    • LOL LOL x 1
  26. Shezbeth

    Shezbeth Zonbi Ninshu


    Here's that movie I mentioned recently,... special thanks to Peter Stormare for being a recognizable face and thereby making the movie source-able.

    Okay. Since hearts have been broken WRT the audience, allow me to take that concept a step further. Again, the following are my impressions and conceptions regarding the audience and are specific to my experience; individual results may vary.

    Whether in support of, or in indifference/opposition to the actions and affects of humans (whether individually or en masse), the biggest concern about humans to non-human entities has to do with the effect that humans have on their environment. By 'environment' I mean the context one finds themselves in, be it with their surrounding geography, the individuals and other entities (plants, animals, insects), etc.

    For example – and this is a very basic example – does 'the individual' tend to clean up after themselves, or are they needing to be cleaned up after? This is a very important distinction (and not just IMO), as it rebounds and resounds throughout the individual's secular and non-secular activity.

    Here's another question; in their average dealings, does 'the individual' tend to emerge (if at all!) in cooperation with their surroundings, or at the expense of their surroundings (individuals, plants, animals, insects, geography/resources)? Personally, I suggest that an individual or group that emerges at the expense of their surroundings isn't truly emerging,... but that's just a personal stance.

    Remember that bit about 'naming the machine'? A curiously hued associate of mine recently (and rightly) pointed out that in this instance (the machine) the process I was describing is one in which the individual (me) deliberately and consciously created (via Resolve and Reason) a thought-form and applied/attached/overlaid on my machine. Simply put, the personification which I observe and give name to is actually created in my own experience. This is important because while subjectively true (the machine and personality is named Lucille), it is objectively (logically) false (it is ludicrous to assume that inanimate objects have personalities or behaviors, and any behavior that can be said to be observed is a matter of chaos manifested, rather than a particular entity or individuation).

    How's that for cognitive dissonance? ^_~

    Let's take a more simple example. Does 'the individual' talk to plants, animals,... even inanimate objects?

    I realize I am being particularly general, so I should specify that when I refer to 'talking to', 'naming', or otherwise interacting (in a vocal or communicative sense) with someone/something, what I am referring to is 'expressing generosity', or 'beneficially/conducively involving one's self'.

    So back to the audience. What do they do in all this? Why, watch of course.

    Seeing the above, how do you think they will appreciate (or not!) the individual's behavior?

    Well, for one thing one might recognize that non-human entities tend to be (essentially) autonomous; consequently, they appreciate autonomy and self-reliance. This is not to say that inter-dependence is frowned upon, but if – when given the choice – an individual's first reaction is to draw upon their surroundings (rather than pull from themselves), it is certainly noticed.

    In my perusals of Burning Man, they promote a concept which I carry to this day: Radical Self-Reliance.

    The idea is that, anything you do need (or might need!) is rightfully only tended to by 'you'. If it is important enough to have, it is important enough to see to to completion. Worst-case scenario, what you have can always be bartered/exchanged for what you need.

    That's a pretty important specification to make; barter/exchange vs. appeal/request. One scenario involves an exchange of goods and/or services, where the other involves beseeching and dependence. One is sovereign/autonomous, the other woefully (IMO) not.

    So imagine that you're watching two T.V. Shows simultaneously; on one show is a person who consistently and overwhelmingly has their shit together and tends to their own needs, and on the other show is a person who is consistently dependent on their surroundings for their perpetuity and situation.

    More simply, one person has taken control/responsibility, while the other has not. Both get by, but one does so by their own merit/ability.

    Which show/protagonist would you prefer to watch?

    As far as 'conducively talking to things' is concerned, that involves several phenomenon. On the one hand, it is an expression of humility and respect. Humans are not known for their respect for their surroundings (smashing bugs, walking around on plants, and generally disregarding non-human interests), so from a metaphysical standpoint, it is quite surprising and appreciable when they do.

    On the other hand, the energetic expression of benevolence is a particularly interesting and note-worthy phenomenon, again pertaining to human reputation. Again, I'm not at all suggesting that one pander to the audience! Still, one should at least be aware of them, and have a general perception of their disposition.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Applause Applause x 1
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2015
  27. Shezbeth

    Shezbeth Zonbi Ninshu

    I have a question for you today.

    Do you wash your brand-new forks/spoons/knives/etc., plates/bowls/<k, you get the idea and I'll spare you the exhaustive list ^_~> when you first purchase them and bring them home for the first time? How about vegetables/fruit*, clothing, and pretty much anything you buy that won't be in some way ruined if you wash it?

    Today I received a ride from a co-worker to Wal-Mart; among my purchases, a silverware set.

    When we returned from, I invited him inside for a bit (we stopped at the dispensary too ^_~). While medicating, my sworn and I began cleaning the silverware and putting them away.

    “Why are you cleaning them? They're new,” he inquired.

    My sworn and I both stopped and could only stare dumb-founded in awe (my mouth agape).

    Please understand, innerstand, overstand, and exstand (as in, continually refine your –standing)*, the level of responsibility I advocate is just this side (depending on who you ask, tee hee ^_~) of compulsive paranoia.

    (*- there are many more types of standing btw)

    I actually had to explain to the guy the possibility of god knows who putting whatever all over the silverware; 'cuz nothing untoward ever goes on at Wal-Mart, or the industrial facility that mass produced the silverware, 'cuz its nothing but the finest minds and most professional atmosphere amongst industry (myself included!),.... facepalm

    “Do you have any idea what kind of disease you could potentially get if some sick fuck doesn't wash his hands before deciding not to buy these and puts 'em back? Or how about the fine freight-movers who stock the shelves (those fine Wal-Mart employees)? I'm not saying its probable, but its well within the threshold of possible. I ain't even tryin'!” I paraphrastically (as in paraphrase) told him.

    Realize: there is an observable difference between respectable – as in able to be respected and able to express respect – and respectful. First off, respect is not always kind; 'tough-love' as they say. Secondly, there are far more things in life to respect than just social interaction. Life its self 'could do worse than' be respected a modicum or two even beyond the other aspects of it which are specifically respected,....

    For the record, that story about a co-worker was a lie; I did see a co-worker, but he's a smart guy and wouldn't ask a silly question like that. Aside, I didn't ride with a co-worker, I rode with a neighbor who neither came over afterward nor would likewise ask such a silly question. The entire story was fabricated based largely on events that actually occurred. Still, while I am certain (without evidence) that there are such individuals at large, I avoid them at all costs.

    Holy shit, what does that mean about the experience of the story? Did it happen? Was it real, since it was a lie? Perhaps a 'guided delusion' since it occurred in your experience?

    I'm of the mind that everything is a dream. ^_~

    Also, while I'm extra-wary about other people's uncleanliness, I am just that side of lazy (again, depending) about cleaning up after myself (laundry, dishes, etc.); don't think I'm making myself out to be anything I'm not!

    P.S. For any who might wonder why I don't just use my birth name in forums and such: It shouldn't fucking matter who I am. If you want to know, ask (with respect) and I'll tell you. I'd prefer to not associate my tangible existence with my digital, but neither am I opposed to doing so. Having said, there is no value to me to it and IMO renders my,... 'effort' - shall we say - as being less substantial.

    Besides, I could always be lying about that too, I did just lie about the silverware thing,.... Maybe I was the one who had to be told to wash the silverware!

    There is no spoon.

    Last edited: Aug 1, 2015
  28. Shezbeth

    Shezbeth Zonbi Ninshu

    DeMolay Part 3 - Continuation and Conclusion (for now).

    The aspect I will be focusing on for the moment is the political aspect.

    Remember how I referred to the affluent ones as being obvious? That's because they are (quite literally) groomed for higher/more-authorized positions. Alot of the members - not being of families and means can be seen to wear bargain-basement/hand-me-down slacks, jackets, etc. while the kids 'among means' have pressed 3-piece suits, perfect hair, briefcases, and a thorough coaching in how to 'present themselves'. What this amounts to in the long run is an early form of 'buying votes'.

    You see, those who are elected to divisional (county and/or regional) or jurisdictional (State, except California which is divided into Northern and Southern) are very rarely elected based on their qualifications and/or merit. Too often such elections are decided by a well-timed sales pitch, a 'hearty' handshake, and some form of bribe (often a shiny button, or some cupcakes offered by a well-placed and 'attractive' female from one of the affiliated groups). Other times (and I can personally attest to this, having given the nominating speech for one of the jurisdictional officers) the group is more swayed by rhetoric and subtle manipulation; a well-placed 'unintentional' humorous gaffe, distracting or implicit gestures, subconscious cues, etc.

    There was one time where a guy who hadn't even been in the organization for a year successfully ran for higher office; his claim of experience was that he had run a pancake breakfast,... but he came from influence and means. Knowing 'how to be elected' is far more important than 'being qualified', especially amongst an under-developed and easily swayed (read: naive) audience.

    To this end I appreciate the organization as it presented a microscopic - not to mention overt, obvious, and amateur - representation of the more macroscopic political system that infects (yes, infects) society. Additionally, while the organization doesn't promote dictatorial expression amongst the 'higher' offices,... it does happen. One of my chapter members was removed from Jurisdictional office because he disagreed with the intentions of the 'Master' counselor, in a most disgusting and self-serving manner.

    If not for observations such as this, I was this close to towing the line and maintaining the status quo to run for an election (people were quite surprised when I chose not to).
  29. Shezbeth

    Shezbeth Zonbi Ninshu

    So to continue my (for now) bit on DeMolay, allow me to point out where (IMO) they went wrong (or have room for improvement).

    The Precepts:

    Filial Love - Its not a bad idea at its outset, but they're referring to Love of Father and Mother. Exchange the word 'Love' with 'Respect' and I withdraw most of my objection, but I suppose I'll have to do my critical analysis of 'Love' (likewise 'Hate', 'Good'/'Evil', etc.) to go any further with that.
    The basic premise is that "A good son loves his mom and dad." Lovely concept, but a touch naive IMO. Mind you, these precepts were written almost 100 years ago, with wordings and ideas that are,... becoming increasingly antiquated. Moreover, it fails to account for the increasing percent of the population who have either non-existent and/or estranged relationships with either father or mother. Again, lovely sentiment but not universally applicable nor feasible IMO.

    Reverence for Sacred Things - Ha ha ha. What is sacred? Do I determine what is sacred? Do you? Sorry, but this one strikes me as bollux. I'm not saying one shouldn't show consideration for those things which are deemed 'sacred' by others, but 'Reverence'? THAT'S a 2-ton weighted term if I've ever seen one! Besides, consideration/respect is both practical and conducive in a interactive sense and in a strategic sense. No need to take a simple concept and build it into something abstract.

    Courtesy - Yes and no. Politeness? Absolutely*! Consideration? By all means*! The problem starts because Courtesy is prescribed to all individuals regardless of context. Dignity and/or propriety would have been a far more actionable prescription, given that it allows for more cross-spectrum interaction. Ex: If someone is acting insufferably, while it 'pays' to maintain one's decorum, there are times where 'assertive' is a more appropriate response than 'courteous'. I'd wager there are some who are thinking 'assertive can be courteous', to which I reply "In your eyes, sure; what about the eyes and minds of the person(s) you're being assertive to?"

    * - Within reason and context!

    Comradeship - Again, yes and no. I'm all for team/group cohesion, but one is best suited to tailoring the degree to which they will engage in comarderie to appropriate recipients. Just because 2 people operate in/among the same groups or structures doesn't make them 'comrades'. Clearly the author hasn't read Law #2 (or any because the Laws have only been published in the last 30 years). So, it is good to engage in comraderie amongst those who are suitable and apt comrades, I would not be so quick to ideologically prescribe it in the manner it has been done.

    Fidelity - Ha ha ha again. This one is probably the most blatant and glaring example of the endemic hypocrisy that infects DeMolay in particular, and similar groups in general. Leaving out my early one (in the thread) assertion that "Everybody Lies", have you ever tried to get a young person to be 100% honest and consistent? It is good to advocate and prescribe in this direction, but eventually reality must (or rather ought) kick in.

    Cleanness - Here we go again. This is the one I mentioned that talks about 'the uncleanness that defiles and debauches youth'. The whole precept is about 'cleanness in thought, word, and deed'. This one (they all have a degree of subjectivity to them) is probably the most biased toward a particular perception, and leads into my criticisms of the affiliation between DeMolay and Masonry. Basically, while promoting another 'lofty ideal', this one attempts to authorize a particular perception as being 'correct'. I'll share an anecdote later about this one.

    Patriotism - Oh shit, can't go anywhere without any nationalistic grandstanding can we? This is more of the same white-washed, propogandized, "our country (specific to the US, the home of the order) is the Shit! Ppl DIED to make it so, so you better get in line!" BS that kids are constantly bombarded with from the moment they enter school. A thorough analysis of history should be sufficient to deflate this concept,....

    Now for the artifacts! Mind you, there is no direct reference to these being associable with the Body, Mind, Will,... but come on.

    The Bible - Touted as the 'word of the one living and true god'. facepalm To their credit, there is no particular faith or religion that one must prescribe to or practice to participate in DeMolay, YET a belief in 'God' IS. Obviously, I fudged that bit (ha! I was in violation of oaths before I even joined!), and any/all are welcome to do so (their line is "I do"). Still, the implicit/direct claims are galling and atrocious IMO, and while I never pushed this issue, I was indicated that there would be no compromise on it. "The Bible is the word of god, and that's that."

    As a symbolic representation of the Spirit/Resolve, go for it! But let's call a spade a spade shall we and cease with the over-the-top references and symbols.

    The Flag - Ugh. This is supposed to represent the body? There's a choice phrase that I would like to share (from public ceremonies, so I'm not in violation):
    "... and never to meet, save beneath its 'protecting' folds."
    Whoa. WHOA. Beneath? Protecting? This is where that 'thorough analysis of history' comes in. Remember back when the US openly embraced Eugenics (as just ONE example).

    Like, if the country 'ceased to organizationally exist' we'd suddenly be inundated with all kinds of pirates, marauders, invasions, etc. Please,.... Recent history has shown (through a variety of analyses) that the biggest threat to humanity is government. As such, the term 'protecting' is base, inappropriate, and out of line.

    Of all the things to use to represent the body, this is what they came up with? Nothing like reinforcing divisive nationalistic identities. How about maintaining/asserting the individuality of all? How about we're all part of the same planet? Naw,....

    The School-Books - This one is particularly interesting given the sordid state of affairs the public school system is in (and yes, they directly mention that these books represent particularly the public school system). They claim this represents "Intellectual Freedom",... and that's where that thorough analysis comes back into focus. Pardon me for suggesting, but the public school is not an adequate or appropriate emblem of Intellectual Freedom. Maybe back when the Ritual (the book is called the Ritual) was written, but again, that's about 100 years ago when the US had a laudable school system.

    All three together overtly represent "Civil, religious, and intellectual liberties", and I can perceive why it is felt necessary to present such a watered-down ideological framework, but IMO that's bollux. That's not dissimilar to maintaining the story of 'Santa Claus' because one is either/both disinclined or unable to explain the thorough chain of events (spanning centuries) that involved the Abrahamic occupation of previously existing 'holy' days, or the ridiculous fascination with tradition that is displayed by the multitude. What happened to fidelity eh?

    Now. While I choose to abide by the spirit (though not the letter) of the oaths I took way back when, allow me to make something perfectly clear (this bit reaches into almost every aspect of metaphysical practice):

    I do not recognize the authority of any individual or group to bind me into an agreement or contract, now or previously. Any agreements which I choose to abide are a matter of personal choice rather than obligation or requirement. Further, I do not recognize the legitimacy of any of the oaths I have taken, given that they were enacted at a time when I was not sufficiently developed in my awareness and consciousness (13) and could not lawfully enter into such an agreement and that such agreements were entered into without full disclosure of the dynamic (re: the Disney-version of everything).

    There can be no 'agreements' except between equal sovereign and conscious individuals (corporeal or otherwise); anything beyond that is artificial, non-genuine, and unbalanced (dare I say, coerced?).

    That I choose to play nice (yeah, this is nice!) on the internet is a depiction of the fact that I'm not trying to ruffle feathers or rattle cages. BUT I will be more than happy to if reproached. ^_~

    P.S. That last 'sovereign' bit is especially important to a metaphysicist IMO. Such a declaration and the resolve to maintain it must (at some point) be made unequivocally and distinctly, not dissimilar to how one serves 'another' with papers in Legal disagreements. Otherwise one is quite likely to be 'taken for a ride',... as the horse.
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2015
  30. Shezbeth

    Shezbeth Zonbi Ninshu

    And now for something completely different. By request,....

    I'd like to share some of my experiences WRT the Order of DeMolay. I will have to be careful, as I did take certain oaths (not that I haven't broken them, but anecdotally and not broadcast via the internet), but here goes. I'll give the background first,....

    On the surface, DeMolay is a young men's youth group – affiliated with and subsequent (perhaps obsequent?) to the Masonic Lodge – geared toward all sorts of 'good' things. The seven basic tenets Precepts – which I will critically assess in a later post – are as follows:

    1. Filial Love
    2. Reverence for Sacred Things
    3. Courtesy
    4. Comradeship
    5. Fidelity
    6. Cleanness
    7. Patriotism

    Beyond these tenets, there are three 'artifacts' which are prominently featured and are at least given token respect. Again, more to follow.

    A. The Bible
    B. The National Flag
    C. The School-books

    Beyond that, there are particular offices (some elected, but most appointed) which have their various literal or figurative duties and obligations. Elected positions are called Counselors (Master, Senior, Junior), with 2 Deacons (Senior & Junior), 2 Stewards (Senior & Junior), a Marshall, a Chaplain, a Standard Bearer, a Sentinel, a Treasurer/Scribe, and 7 Preceptors (re: the above Precepts/tenets). I think I recall a position relating to voting and such,....

    The Stewards are in charge of the Bible and the School-books, the Standard Bearer; the flag, the Chaplain; prayer leading, the Marshall; escorts, the Deacons; general to-do'ing, etc. Pretty basic stuff.

    NOW, while the Order is pledged to this and that, first off there is a fine line between intention and result. Within my first 2 weeks in the order (I was 13) I was invited to go to a kegger hosted by one of the guys who gave me the sales pitch. Additionally, the stories (many embellished and/or fabricated) of debauchery (which is sardonically fitting, given that they literally speak about debauchery in the 6th Precept) and underage sex et al. makes the whole organization about on par with most churches (without the butt-sex,... AFAIK); lip service to the 'good' stuff, but 'as you will' by and large.

    There's two young women's groups who affiliate BTW.

    Given its 'official'-type (Robert's Rules of Order,... remember that one time on Atticus1? ^_~) structure, the organization is prime priming grounds (see what I did there? ^_~) for those with political/organizational (Masonry and the 'others') aspiration, as well as a neo-feudalistic structure (the affluent kids are pretty obvious) that – whether intentional or consequent – has a conditioning effect on most/all. Admittedly, this is endemic to the social hierarchies that are both extant and predatory (as in 'pre-date').

    Basically, it is not dissimilar to the dynamics, scope, structure, and product of many different organizations; some 'good' folks, some 'bad' folks, some motivated, some apathetic, some social butterflies, some socially inept,....

    Personally, I find some of the oaths associated with the organization to be on this side of the border with 'dangerous'. To join one must recite an oath pertaining to secrecy, the precepts (assuming the individual – at 12 years old! – has any idea the ramifications of any of these concepts aside from the short paragraph uttered by an endemically bored and apathetic Preceptor,... don't worry, I'll get into that too), and later swear an oath pertaining to self-sacrifice (yeah) based on a liberal historical account and a short play.

    The precepts themselves aren't bad by any means, but their depiction is rather 'ivory-tower'-ish. It is openly admitted that these are ideals, but the implication (and again, inconsistently adhered to) is that this is the 'rule-of-thumb'. Beyond the 'Disney'-style depiction of the Precepts (Walt Disney was a DeMolay BTW), and that pertains to Ritual. I'll get into that shortly.

    Now, there is all sorts of metaphysical artifacts, to the well-trained eye (I wasn't at the time, but in the years hence). The Bible, the Flag, and the School-books represent – to a juvenile degree – the Resolve, the Body, and the Mind (respectively). Additionally, the Seven Precepts (I haven't yet mentioned the dynamic of 7, but it is significant), the Three Counselors,... there's lots to read into if one is looking for it (especially surrounded by Masonic artifacts).

    Ritual. Hoo boy do I have a lot to say about ritual! First off, the Ritual – aside from being the means of ceremonially proceeding and/or expressing all this – is simply the process. I have neither seen nor heard of anything 'dark-occult' going on in, around, or associated with any DeMolays or chapters. Critical as I am about the org., I'll put that one to bed (from my experience; I'm not saying it doesn't happen) right myah.

    So anyhow, everyone is responsible for their Ritual part, which is more or less depending on position. Everyone has a ritual part in at least one of the chapter functions, though the Master Counselor is pretty much the MC.

    Remember how I mentioned the bored and apathetic Preceptors? This is where it applies. Since Ritual memorization is almost universally considered a chore, it comes across in the display. Most of the members of DeMolay only want to do the 'fun' stuff and fuck the 'official/regular' stuff. So – except at a few particular events (my experience is exclusive to Northern California BTW) – the initiates are greeted with a rote-memory, dull expression of what everything is about. When I was a Ritual advisor (many moons) I hosted a Master-Class about not looking like a drone/zombie when performing Ritual (including a reading of one of the 48 Laws ^_~). It is particularly important because in the first chapter function an initiate participates in, the first thing they see is Ritual. A lack of inspiration or interest is clearly displayed by most of the individuals' body language, which subconsciously communicates to the initiate that 'this part is kinda BS', which creates a self-perpetuating cycle; not the most onerous cycle of course, but not conducive either.

    But, in that sense Ritual is not dissimilar to many of the philosophies I've been on about elsewhere in the thread; the 'artistic and well-performed' Ritual – being the 'doing' – is neglected by the vast majority. In this sense, Ritual is a depiction of the individual; their psychology, personality, aspirations, etc.

    I'll give you 3 guesses who won multiple Ritual competitions (undefeated 'Reverent 3' - Chaplain Prayers for 7 years straight bizznatches!),.... ^_~

    On the plus side, the org. does an effective job of giving a cursory overview/experience with social networking, leadership, and other communitive pursuits. Personally – in spite of my critical assessments – if I had a son I would encourage him to join (though, I'd be quite frank about certain aspects if asked ^_~). While I would amend the org. if I were foisted the opportunity, I can think of few better places for a young man to spend their developing/growing years.

    And hey, every 6 months there is a mandatory "No Butt-Sex" video, required to be seen by all members and adult advisors; they're pretty good about curtailing any 'Man/Boy love', regardless of the circumstances. You won't get that from the Catholic church! ^_~

    Oooh! I did!
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2015