From the archive.

Recently I was re-reading an exchange I had with someone in December of 2011, and I have decided to situate it here.  The user went by the name of Apotheosis.

Apotheosis:

As I said in another thread, I found my initial reading of ADM most enjoyable. In fact, I thought it drew from the essence of LaVey’s work and magnified this essence considerably.

I generated some questions based on my reading of ADM. Anything that you would prefer to answer in PM would be most welcome.

I certainly don’t expect you to answer these all immediately. Do what you please. But this seems to be the work of an author who appreciates critical questioning.

You say that knowledge not learned through experience is suspect a priori. To what degree is knowledge learned through experience exempt from this sort of suspicion?

Some Christians, other sorts of religious people, and mystics claim to experience the supernatural directly. Prejudices learned through teaching are causing them to experience an illusion. But experience can equally cause us to form prejudices. And if we do not form prejudices, then how is knowledge serving us?

If we were to place too much weight on our own experience, and not enough on lessons learned by trustworthy experts, we might find ourselves believing that the Earth is flat. We experience it as flat. We also understand that there is someone else whose experience is more relevant to the question “what shape is the Earth?”

So, you make it clear that in your view experiential knowledge is more reliable relative to knowledge that is taught. But how reliable is that? Could you go into more detail about knowledge and the relative value of experience and teaching?

Dan:

We can only ever ‘know’ what we experience, but you are right when you say that we all interpret experience through a subjective lense. All we can know for sure is how these things effect us personally. It’s a matter of knowing yourself. Like, reading a few books by bruce lee or youtube videos of fights won’t tell you how you would react in a violent situation.

Even so, I think all experience should be put to as much self honest scrutiny as can be mustered, after the fact. In fact, one of the reasons for, or effects of, doing should be to realize that we are not our ideas. Nothing like getting knocked the fuck out to realize you ain’t invincible.

That isn’t to belittle the value of teaching, but it can only ever be second class knowledge. No book on skydiving will accurately tell you how it feels to jump out of a plane. The problem is that language can only ever offer an intimation of reality.

Apotheosis:

You describe a process of realization through the refinement or obliteration of abstractions to a base essence or numinous connection to the real world. You say that language has built a barrier between the world and how we apprehend it.

Is ADM the only abstraction that should survive the process? If not, what are some other abstractions worth keeping? Is there ever a point at which the abstractions corresponding to Satanism, the LHP, and ADM should be destroyed?

Are debate, dialectic, and rhetoric impotent to discriminate between helpful abstractions and unhelpful ones? Or do they just not go far enough?

In my experience, I can only symbolically destroy abstractions, through the destruction or inappropriate use of real things that represent them, or I can destroy these real things in imagination. The result of this is that I no longer have the same enthralled reaction to them, but I do not lose the ability to recall them or understand them. Is this a form or part of ADM?

Dan:

We are stuck with abstractions, but it’s a sticky web. It’s just a matter of negotiating them with awareness, or at least trying to, and not getting caught up in them. Much of what we believe about ourselves and the world will always be lies, and the ‘nomos’ will always work to slowly undo any work we do to free ourselves of them. There’s just so much input.. ADM is just an abstraction. An abstraction by design, if you will:

“ADM too is an abstraction. A causal form that exists to cannibalize and run rampant upon other causal forms. An abstraction known as an abstraction, a tool known for what it is that it may be sharpened with awareness. A form that to remain vectored as an obsidian blade must shift as I shift, allowing for replacement of abstractions as they fall, as they fail, as the fire burns them away. A defragmentation for the mind, built on a foundation of exeatic experience and neuro-iconoclasm. A foundation of conflict and direct and merciless opposition to all ideas, traditions, and beliefs until only what is true, what is real, remains. A distillation of reality. To breath life into the whitewashed husk that the devil has become, through sinister deeds, through fire.”

(And yes I do feel like a bit of a douchebag for quoting myself, before you ask)

And as for the latter part of this second question (or questions lol) only you know what helpful or non helpful abstractions are, and even that is probably gonna be contextual. I don’t think the path pushes towards greatness, or even anything most would even desire. Unlike someone else around here that likes to quote himself, I aint selling anything. All this has to offer is a certain sort of view of the world, that largely fosters contempt more than anything 😛 Still, I have found that some , like myself, are just drawn to it for whatever reason.

As far as abstractions go, as per beliefs or ideas that might filter how you see things or believe or act, destroying them is just destroying their hold on you. The belief that you are Casanova will be dispelled when your dick can’t even get hard when it counts, surely. ;\)

Apotheosis:

Doing forbidden things to destroy/refine abstraction. This sounds to me like doing things that we forbid to ourselves, because they have either been forbidden to us by society, or they have been forbidden by beliefs about our own limitations. Does that mean we should do forbidden things that we have no desire to do? In theory, should every forbidden thing be done if possible? If not, how do we determine which ones we ought to do? Is there a “line” at all?

Dan:

As far as doing sinister shit goes, it’s just a matter of confronting your own limitations. We are all eyeball deep in these, instilled from birth into us by everyone else similarly conditioned. That which is outside of the list of ‘approved’ action will also generally be outside of your own list of ‘ approved’ actions, by proxy of being plugged into the nomos and running ‘magian software’ if you will. Thus, what is outside of this are where your limits are. But are they? Do they have to be?

I have found the only way to break this mental apparatus built on a foundation of backwards values is to confront the limits and break them first hand. This isn’t to say do shit you aren’t supposed to for it’s own sake, once you have erased a border there’s no need to keep crossing where it used to be, it’s just a matter of establishing greater autonomy by not having to worry about that phantom line in the sand that was only ever arbitrary anyway; if that makes any sense to you.

Advertisements

One response to “From the archive.

  1. I enjoy this post quite a bit , Dan. I approach the topic in terms of exposing the fruitless, but rather common Satanic practice of moral undermining of ‘enemy paradigms’, rather than actual focus upon exeatic deconstruction of the self. Of course, few are able to decern the difference. Ill respond to your return to years past, with one one my own. This excerpt is from my first book “The Mythos Commenaries”.

    “Moral undermining’ is another New Age Satanic idea which basically equates to doing the opposite of what is considered right, in the context of an enemy paradigm. For example, within terms of Christianity, taking drugs or watching pornography would be considered morally wrong. As thus, some Satanist have come to the illogical conclusion that doing the opposite of what that paradigm views as right, will somehow undermine that moral system. In reality, many mundane systems share common ground with reasonable systems, thus doing the opposite of everything the Christian system considers just or moral, would be illogical, in that it would imply doing the opposite of ones own ideas, such as not being a drug addict, or becoming obsessed with pornography. Not to mention the fact that doing what is (wrong), in no way equates to amorality. Amorality indicates that ones motivations are based on logical thinking alone. Amorality has nothing to do with a point of view which says something is right or wrong, thus doing what is (wrong) in terms of the Christian paradigm, is still, however inadvertently, a moral basses which guilds ones thinking and actions, and indeed, equates to another (moral) Satanic epic fail.”