Written by IronAngel on 07.06.2012 at 17:50

Written by Stoned Crow on 06.06.2012 at 06:18

Babble

Not that I expect someone who confuses intelligence with poetic eloquence to grasp it.

I take it you listen to strictly instrumentals? To clarify, yes, I write poetry and my writing is often poetic. Sorry, if poesy forces you to contemplate an issue from indifferent perspectives. You call it mysticism, I call it refusing to be defined. By the way, what's the point of lyricism in music if poetic eloquence has no intelligence within and behind it? I also find it quite alluring while reading your comment under the thread of "Theory: Religion Causes War" that your thoughts are quite correspondent to Kierkegaard in regards to religion's role in society. I would imagine you aren't a fan of Wittgenstein. While you claim my response has nothing to do with the topic, neither does your response to my response. Likewise, neither does this response to yours. Your comment under the previously mentioned topic (religion causes war) leaves me with one thought: you are intelligent, now break it and grow. Your mind only becomes your own when you learn that it's been spoiled since the day you came out of the womb. A true scholar is responsible for his own learning, he/she doesn't simply correspond with tradition.

As far as the topic is concerned, as is hinted upon within both responses, Satanism and imposing possession on Christ are one in the same; as in, the past is only alive when you learn to place the remnants from in it in their proper ordering. We can take the fragments and put them together and create an obscure picture, or we can place them where they belong and admit to ourselves that there are always gaps, missing pieces, in what we do know- similar to the gaps in our own memory. We often choose what we want to remember, and subconsciously choose to forget what we don't want to remember, or feel to be irrelevant. As you stated, and I agree with, "History is never that straightforward." Neither is your understanding of the world that "we" live in. It sort of throws a curve into your proposed notion of confronting a "subject" head-on. How can we confront something head-on if our past/history, and understanding from it, isn't straight? Simply repeating what we learn is not intelligence. It corresponds with knowledge, but ignores wisdom. You are probably someone who also views Kierkegaard as the "father of existentialism", while ignoring his infamous quote "once you label me, you negate me". Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "father of existentialism" a label? True philosophy is always personal, a true thinker doesn't need to think like another, only contemplate his/her thoughts.

In order to coincide with the topic, I will simply say- words, their definitions, are mere references to real-world objects, or unseen ideas/concepts. What is real never changes, but words themselves are always in flux. For example- LaVeyan Satanism creates an alternative to traditional Satanism, therefore, the word Satanism refuses to be defined. Is a tree always just a tree? If it is, you're still refusing to see the forest for the trees. So, with respect to the topic, I won't comment further. PM me if you want to argue backward vs forward thinking. You might be one of those people who claim the past presents to us our future, but the only reason the future resonates with the past is because we "deaden" the past by constantly looking backward. You are better off only contemplating the past as it is in your own memory, because history, as we choose to know it, always has an agenda.

**Likewise, if the Staff wants to delete this response, for being off-topic, even though the topic is discussed, I will PM this response to IronAngel. I won't be returning to this topic. My comments aren't needed any further, if they were even needed to begin with. My point is simple- define yourself, and always remember that when you do so with words, those same words indoctrinate you as well as they enable you to express yourself.

That's all fine and dandy, but my point is really this: if you can't say something clearly, in simple terms a layman can understand, it's probably not worth saying. I mean, you go off on a completely surprising tangent that doesn't really have any bearing to the posts you respond to, making out-of-the-blue obscure references to philosophy. To top it off you do it with very unclear language.

Regardless of whether a subject can be thoroughly confronted and emptied with our shared terminology or defintions, every human who really does communicate in everyday life will agree we can at least try, and usually get pretty far. If what you say isn't understood by your audience, it's not language itself, or your audience to blame.