I'm a monotheist again!

I have been working with a god for a while and I have decided to start worshiping this god: The god of the unexpected, probably known also as chaos (but if so, usually misunderstood), god of suspense (also again usually misunderstood). I will be doing random sacrifices throughout my life to thank this god for this god's gifts. Sacrifices will include deliberately wasted oportunities, saying yes instead of no and vice versa when having decided to say the alternative, deliberately placing valuable items in random places, in "unexpected" places. in general, unexpected acts; unexpected even to one's self.

A dark magician in this case would be one that made sacrifices to ask for favors instead of give thanks. The spoils of these acts would also belong to the god, to do with as the god pleased.

Well, here it is: a new god. Respect the gods and you will have an advantage in life!

Not to burst your bubble, but they already have a name for that one.

The Devil ≡ Entropy (father of Chaos).

..and sometimes called "Shiva".



.

James S Saint wrote:

Not to burst your bubble, but they already have a name for that one.

The Devil ≡ Entropy (father of Chaos).

..and sometimes called "Shiva".



.

Quote :

probably known also as chaos (but if so, usually misunderstood)

Pezer wrote:

I have been working with a god for a while and I have decided to start worshiping this god: The god of the unexpected, probably known also as chaos (but if so, usually misunderstood), god of suspense (also again usually misunderstood). I will be doing random sacrifices throughout my life to thank this god for this god's gifts. Sacrifices will include deliberately wasted oportunities, saying yes instead of no and vice versa when having decided to say the alternative, deliberately placing valuable items in random places, in "unexpected" places. in general, unexpected acts; unexpected even to one's self.

A dark magician in this case would be one that made sacrifices to ask for favors instead of give thanks. The spoils of these acts would also belong to the god, to do with as the god pleased.

Well, here it is: a new god. Respect the gods and you will have an advantage in life!

Believe it or not but I do this as well. Although I do not employ the imagery of a god. But the symbolism of sacrifice is interesting here, one I had not really conceptualized fully before - I had conceptualized sacrifice as "sacrificing a component/opportunity of the present moment", but this sacrifice is not really sacrificial since it is not done with a clear end in mind. For me this sort of inserting degrees of chaos or accepting chaotic elements and wasted loss/overflow has become necessary, and nothing more. It has become a part of my necessitated life-actions and acceptance of conditions in life and self, but I have not self-valued this yet. What you propose is not only to accept this sort of "irrational chaos" and its often-detrimental effects but more so to will it, value it directly.

You have done this by conceiving the god-image under which such activities are undertaken, accepted, and this leads to these activities' being submitted under an affective state of love/will-to.

And I think you are right that you cannot, even implicitly or half-consciously desire or look for "favors" or benefit from this sort of sacrificing. To seek such benefit would be to falsify the act itself, at its base. So I suppose the next question is: To what extent do we make use of this sacrificing, where do we apply it and where do we resist it? I doubt we would want to edify this sacrificial acceptance until it becomes an inseparable part of our being, ever-present. Or maybe you disagree, and think we should so edify and heighten it?

Part of this utility of sacrifice/acceptance, what underlies and justifies the love/will-to, is the freedom from impositional constraints that one feels one is powerless over, for one reason or another. So a possible transformative synthesis here would be to attempt a direct confrontation, under the heading of valuation and self-value potential, with the intermediary terrain/s mapped and outlined in relief by the coming-together of a two-stage but simultaneous awareness: of how we affectively orient toward and experience these impositional constraints, and of to what extent we affectively orient toward and experience (this treads directly into raw potentiality contra the actual, as a condition for the actualizing here) our powerlessness over these constraints. (Of course the conceptualizing of this powerlessness in this manner tends to undermine the powerlessness itself, which makes this a tricky back-and-forth sort of understanding, never "finished"). What might emerge from this forced juxtaposition could be a higher becoming-conscious of the sacrificial act and thus an increase in personal freedom/s (from). It seems likely that this would then lead to an overflow of personal self-valuing capacity with respect to that which motivates the need for sacrifice in the first place, in a way making the sacrificial act itself less necessary (rationalizing, cognizing, making-conscious the sacrificial act), and sublimating it.

Perhaps you're aware of this, but there is the meta-church of Discordia who worship Eris, goddess of chaos fnord. Their text is the Principia Discordia, which is non-linear (as if one had composed the full text, lost half of it, scribbled notes on the rest and then shuffled), simultaneously a massive joke and deadly serious, and available to be read online in one sitting. Perhaps you'd be interested. Click here.

Capable wrote:

Pezer wrote:

I have been working with a god for a while and I have decided to start worshiping this god: The god of the unexpected, probably known also as chaos (but if so, usually misunderstood), god of suspense (also again usually misunderstood). I will be doing random sacrifices throughout my life to thank this god for this god's gifts. Sacrifices will include deliberately wasted oportunities, saying yes instead of no and vice versa when having decided to say the alternative, deliberately placing valuable items in random places, in "unexpected" places. in general, unexpected acts; unexpected even to one's self.

A dark magician in this case would be one that made sacrifices to ask for favors instead of give thanks. The spoils of these acts would also belong to the god, to do with as the god pleased.

Well, here it is: a new god. Respect the gods and you will have an advantage in life!

Believe it or not but I do this as well. Although I do not employ the imagery of a god. But the symbolism of sacrifice is interesting here, one I had not really conceptualized fully before - I had conceptualized sacrifice as "sacrificing a component/opportunity of the present moment", but this sacrifice is not really sacrificial since it is not done with a clear end in mind. For me this sort of inserting degrees of chaos or accepting chaotic elements and wasted loss/overflow has become necessary, and nothing more. It has become a part of my necessitated life-actions and acceptance of conditions in life and self, but I have not self-valued this yet. What you propose is not only to accept this sort of "irrational chaos" and its often-detrimental effects but more so to will it, value it directly.

You have done this by conceiving the god-image under which such activities are undertaken, accepted, and this leads to these activities' being submitted under an affective state of love/will-to.

And I think you are right that you cannot, even implicitly or half-consciously desire or look for "favors" or benefit from this sort of sacrificing. To seek such benefit would be to falsify the act itself, at its base. So I suppose the next question is: To what extent do we make use of this sacrificing, where do we apply it and where do we resist it? I doubt we would want to edify this sacrificial acceptance until it becomes an inseparable part of our being, ever-present. Or maybe you disagree, and think we should so edify and heighten it?

Part of this utility of sacrifice/acceptance, what underlies and justifies the love/will-to, is the freedom from impositional constraints that one feels one is powerless over, for one reason or another. So a possible transformative synthesis here would be to attempt a direct confrontation, under the heading of valuation and self-value potential, with the intermediary terrain/s mapped and outlined in relief by the coming-together of a two-stage but simultaneous awareness: of how we affectively orient toward and experience these impositional constraints, and of to what extent we affectively orient toward and experience (this treads directly into raw potentiality contra the actual, as a condition for the actualizing here) our powerlessness over these constraints. (Of course the conceptualizing of this powerlessness in this manner tends to undermine the powerlessness itself, which makes this a tricky back-and-forth sort of understanding, never "finished"). What might emerge from this forced juxtaposition could be a higher becoming-conscious of the sacrificial act and thus an increase in personal freedom/s (from). It seems likely that this would then lead to an overflow of personal self-valuing capacity with respect to that which motivates the need for sacrifice in the first place, in a way making the sacrificial act itself less necessary (rationalizing, cognizing, making-conscious the sacrificial act), and sublimating it.

Again, you have considerably classed up a theory. Perfectly spot on. Even though "powerlessness" in fact has nothing to be with power, power is included in the designation. Like calling a bathroom "non-orthopedic." In any case, I would agree that it is the best word to use, but I just wanted to point out that possible mistake ahead of time: To will a situation of powerless is a work of power itself! And so it is that we establish a relationship with the God of the Unpredictable, the god can help us understand that powerlessness in one area is not powerlessness in another or in general. To not know what is coming does not mean not being able to effect will on a situation, it means not exercising or not being able to exercise willing into the future. This is not a god of the realm of the present or the past but of the future.

Such a God or practice is useful as a means to separate the concepts power and control. In kung fu, especially in chi kung, we let loose of our rational intention in which members are tools, but radiate outward in now this, then that, a constant flow of adapting the ways in which the body, as a singular instrument, aligns itself with time-space.

Energies are evoked and controlled in this way far beyond muscular power and electromagnetic currents are created between entities, so energy is tapped and understood. By abandoning control of that which is there to be valued, and focussing entirely on the willingness of our capacity to value to exert itself newly, originally, in the moment - in this way a new life is born - a life without direct intent, a life that is wholly a representation of a singular "aesthetics", the unifying ethics of the actualized, conscious self-valuing.

There is no bliss greater than this, and it warrants much suffering and relinquishing of power, because in it is the eternal and constantly resounding certainty that this being is this being. Control of the factors in the moment disables control over the occurrences as they will align and reproduce into / throughout time.

Fixed Cross wrote:

Such a God or practice is useful as a means to separate the concepts power and control. In kung fu, especially in chi kung, we let loose of our rational intention in which members are tools, but radiate outward in now this, then that, a constant flow of adapting the ways in which the body, as a singular instrument, aligns itself with time-space.

Energies are evoked and controlled in this way far beyond muscular power and electromagnetic currents are created between entities, so energy is tapped and understood. By abandoning control of that which is there to be valued, and focussing entirely on the willingness of our capacity to value to exert itself newly, originally, in the moment - in this way a new life is born - a life without direct intent, a life that is wholly a representation of a singular "aesthetics", the unifying ethics of the actualized, conscious self-valuing.

There is no bliss greater than this, and it warrants much suffering and relinquishing of power, because in it is the eternal and constantly resounding certainty that this being is this being. Control of the factors in the moment disables control over the occurrences as they will align and reproduce into / throughout time.

Good to know this is possible.

Sometimes respecting the gods means allowing them to throw you into a fiery pit.
You do not do the sacrificing - you become the sacrifice.
Time will tell.
Make sure you've thought this out.

I have made a mistake with this God, I have sought chaos through obscurity. To obscure is the opposite, however, it is order. Chaos is the obscurity to chase, and nothing is more important to this chase than light and clarity, explicitness. One might say, in value ontological terms, that this religion demands that those things be valued which best serve the value of chasing obscurity. Darkness requires sacrifice, but not wanton sacrifice as perhaps pagan Gods (Christian included) might claim to need. Or, rather, that it is purposefully wanton takes it from that level. One might even speculate that those fake blood sacrifice relationships, the instincts that drive to them derive from this one actual relationship with a deity (whose sacrifices always produce effect).

I may be wrong, but take the chaos religion to be about forging ones own path, about freedom. Indeed, this is not possible without being absolutely clear what one is doing, at least on one level.

Order obfuscates everything that does not belong to that order. It interprets, forces man to interpret, all that it includes in terms of it, even if things that are included are part of other things which may have nothing in common with that order.

But clarity itself requires a minimal order within the perspective who is being clear.  It'd be required to develop modi of, techniques for evoking and sustaining such a minimal order from which one may approach the world as chaos, without falling prey to entropy and thus, alien orders.

I've been putting off the use of value ontology as such a practical, behavioral tool, content to analyze and explain in terms of it. But I know it can be done.

It's good philosophy, I use it like Zizek might use psychoanalysis.

Indeed, that's how I see it. Chaos incorporates even order, but this constant hierarchical di/fference/stance determines order itself from out of itself. A philosopher God, perhaps, or evolution, conjuring up all the forces of order and destruction as a shifting, make-shift structure to facilitate chasing the obsucrity. Because we know the obscurity brings the new, and the way we get to it determines what new things we find, we feel... uneasy! The void calls and it's good to know how to expect the unexpected, the second of two movements.

Chaos is the principle of excess and disunity within forms, which parts of itself cannot be more fully contained and 'logicized'. To value this excessiveness itself bring valuing closer to a root of its own power over its excesses, by allowing it more opportunities to enfold its own excess within itself.

Valuing chaos as a means to order, yes, and valuing order as a means to chaos. The same issue as with subject and object, self and other, existence and non-existence, god and devil, played out in new ways. The psyche (indeed to a lesser extent all materiality-as-such) is a machine for establishing harmonies, oppositions and relations, and for abstracting these into "language". With factual (rational, objective-izing) ideation humans are able to more directly value all this on "its own terms".. and of course we wish to rather value it also on our own terms, too, whatever that might mean.

I do not believe we will truly begin philosophy until we stop thinking that we know what thinking is, and until we stop feeling that we know what feelings are.

Pezer wrote:

Because we know the obscurity brings the new, and the way we get to it determines what new things we find, we feel... uneasy! The void calls and it's good to know how to expect the unexpected, the second of two movements.

The Daemonic.

Capable wrote:

Chaos is the principle of excess and disunity within forms, which parts of itself cannot be more fully contained and 'logicized'. To value this excessiveness itself bring valuing closer to a root of its own power over its excesses, by allowing it more opportunities to enfold its own excess within itself.

Valuing chaos as a means to order, yes, and valuing order as a means to chaos. The same issue as with subject and object, self and other, existence and non-existence, god and devil, played out in new ways. The psyche (indeed to a lesser extent all materiality-as-such) is a machine for establishing harmonies, oppositions and relations, and for abstracting these into "language". With factual (rational, objective-izing) ideation humans are able to more directly value all this on "its own terms".. and of course we wish to rather value it also on our own terms, too, whatever that might mean.

I do not believe we will truly begin philosophy until we stop thinking that we know what thinking is, and until we stop feeling that we know what feelings are.

Do you mean ones own feelings, or those of others? I think philosophers are often in a certain sense 'autistic', in their experiments with their own feelings they often completely misestimate those of others. It's the unvertainty principle at play - high velocity, no precision in correspondence. The daemonic is a difficult thing to distinguish from a certain common madness, and many lower attempts at alechmizing, merging meaning with force, form with change, obscure the view of the daemonic in real life.

I was just thinking that the superman and the last man are only two different types in Nietzsche's head - one good and one bad, whereas we have no choice but to step even beyond good and bad, which is a far more radical step than beyond good and evil, to explain what we have become.

In a Jungian sense, the beyond man, master of the Earth, might have integrated the dark instincts of his pre-Adamic, animal self. Represented by the dark moon, astrologically the shadow-gravity point in the moons orbit. So actually it's more the Black Earth.

Maybe that's what we should be cultivating. The point of being that corresponds to us in terms of the momentum it represents, but is excluded from the literal "equation" - that between Earth and Moon - movement in water, life.

There is a silent partner in all this. It's force is not a force but an absence of non-force.

Beyond good and bad... Only a lord could be that, relying on a structure under him where good and bad is still respected. I think I would call that the actual philosophical moment, the elimination of the separation between perception and need. A tiger simply gazing at a herd, perhaps giving chase here and there to accentuate perception.

I had it a couple of times, it's cool. What I think our task is is to guide the right forces to form the material structures that can allow that moment to be consciously conjured and maintained. As things are, as soon as my drugs' effects end and my biological needs remind me that my feeding structures are not philosophical, the moment becomes untenable and I return to my particular balance of good and bad.

The meta-philosopher's task is a thankless one: to force philosophical awareness, one might just say good human awareness, upon that which is considered inherently non-philosophical. To eliminate the contradiction between the daemonic and the every-day.