World and Self | Forum

Topic location: Forum home » Main Forum » Philosophy
Interrogist
Interrogist Oct 18 '13

If there is nothing wrong with the world (it isn’t broken, thus I don’t need to fix it), then, in what regard do you justify the philosophy by which you seek to improve yourself via profound experience (surpassing personal limitations, purging indoctrination, willful endurance of suffering), and in what way are the two concepts (outside/fuck it vs. inside/fix it) divided? Sure, you might say that such actions are not necessarily a desire to alter one’s self, merely a natural expression of ones ‘nature’, even so, your presence in any given environment will change that environment if only inadvertently (inadvertently applying your standard to the world you didn’t feel the need to change. That which we are as individuals (whatever that happens to be) is a direct product of our environment (that which isn’t broken, needing not to be fixed), however, it is commonly accepted amongst ‘us’ that one’s personal pursuit of autonomy, liberation, and honor, is not only appropriate, but the very trait by which we recognize our own.

 

What I would like is for each of you to express your thoughts pertaining to the above question. Also, if the above question does not represent your point of view, feel free to expand upon or omit whatever necessary. Naturally I have my own views, and in terms of I.M. this is expressed ‘Interrogisma’ (internal pursuits) and ‘Interrogismi’ (external pursuits). These are opposite sides of the same proverbial coin, and of course, the nature of my question lies in that most lhp’ers of any credit (I decide who) maintain ideas of esoteric and exoteric as though they are foreign or unrelated entities. Many of you may recognize this question as Dan and I have been playing a game of ‘philosophical catch’ with this for a few years now. Why no drag everyone else in to it and see what the might put on the table.

SIN_JONES
SIN_JONES Oct 19 '13
Seeing the world as broken and in need of fixing is just another way of saying: I want to design the world to fit my personal Utopia. Just another angle to take to vet out the Utopians. 


Describing the LHP as some sort of self-help paradigm isn't quite accurate. Don't people improve continually as they acquire more knowledge and experience? Maybe they decide to eat better, or take up a class to learn something new, it doesn't mean they move about like Devils. 


How much of an effect each person has on their environment is only as good as a steadfast infection. For example, if I stood out in the middle of the street screaming at the traffic cameras, they don't just magically disappear; if fact they most likely pop off shots to capture my namesake. Even if I started a grass-roots movement against them, revel against the 'Authority' that justifies them, the environment is only temporarily disrupted by my presence. This would be the 'fix-it' approach. Instead I say 'fuck-it', just another thing to get around. 


There will always be obstacles, challenges, and opponents to take on, along side compliance, contentment and stagnation (Nature & Nurture/ Order & Chaos). Some see the world as a binary system, maybe they feel trapped by their own perceptions and believe it needs to be corrected. I never have. If the environment is my architect then it only seems natural to interrogate it to understand the blueprint. If my life circumstance is responsible for what I am and what I am becoming (causal determinism), then I appear to be the embodiment of inter-determinism and that theory is in flux with the result.

XiaoGui17
XiaoGui17 Oct 21 '13
Quote from Interrogist If there is nothing wrong with the world (it isn’t broken, thus I don’t need to fix it), then, in what regard do you justify the philosophy by which you seek to improve yourself via profound experience (surpassing personal limitations, purging indoctrination, willful endurance of suffering), and in what way are the two concepts (outside/fuck it vs. inside/fix it) divided?

The antecedent of this question implies what I perceive to be a false dichotomy.  You present the world as either "broken" or "fixed".  But 
whether there is anything wrong with the world is entirely a matter of perspective.  The world may be peachy-keen for one man and an absolute disaster for another.  And neither one is correct or incorrect, because there is no objective measure.  Evil is all a matter of perspective.


That being the case, I don't seek to improve the world in an objective way, because there's no such thing.  Rather, I seek to impose my Will both internally and externally, making myself and my world a little more to my liking.  But I'm not arrogant enough to believe I'm some sort of hero that is improving or saving the world by doing so.  And really, I'm not doing anything particularly special.  The way of the world always has been, and always will be, a gumbo of the combined wills of all its inhabitants.

LeDeluge
LeDeluge Oct 21 '13
@I: I'm happy to answer the question, but I first have one for you. It may seem obvious, but I don't view as such. How do you view/scale the world? Are we dealing with human affairs, the natural world, the universe? Elements of all three? I also noticed the dichotomy XG mentioned. Broken or fixed. To me, it would depend on the definition of "world" being employed.
Interrogist
Interrogist Oct 21 '13

Quote from XiaoGui17

The antecedent of this question implies what I perceive to be a false dichotomy.  You present the world as either "broken" or "fixed". 
No, I present this issue to a crowd in which I have witnessed many to utter the phrase "I don't view the world as broken" yet also maintain "I strive to constantly improve myself". It seems a bit of a contradiction to me, as we are part of the world. I offer no dichotomy.
Quote from XiaoGui17
 
But 
whether there is anything wrong with the world is entirely a matter of perspective.
Well sure, but you could say the same of  the self, and just sit on your ass for the rest of your life, after all, you are not broken, right?
Quote from XiaoGui17

The world may be peachy-keen for one man and an absolute disaster for another.  And neither one is correct or incorrect, because there is no objective measure.
Of course, however, I am specifically addressing those individuals who hold both the idea that the world doesn't need to be fixed, and also that the self need be constantly improved. I seek the root of the divide between self and world. It would seem that the self need not be broken in order to qualify for improvement, while the world itself at no time qualifies for improvement/fixing.
Quote from XiaoGui17


That being the case, I don't seek to improve the world in an objective way, because there's no such thing.  Rather, I seek to impose my Will both internally and externally, making myself and my world a little more to my liking.  But I'm not arrogant enough to believe I'm some sort of hero that is improving or saving the world by doing so.  And really, I'm not doing anything particularly special.  The way of the world always has been, and always will be, a gumbo of the combined wills of all its inhabitants.

Thank you Xiao.



Interrogist
Interrogist Oct 21 '13

Quote from LeDeluge @I: I'm happy to answer the question, but I first have one for you. It may seem obvious, but I don't view as such. How do you view/scale the world? Are we dealing with human affairs, the natural world, the universe? Elements of all three? I also noticed the dichotomy XG mentioned. Broken or fixed. To me, it would depend on the definition of "world" being employed.
Thank you LD. As I explained to Xiao, this dichotomy is not something that I believe in personally. I have witnessed many others utter these words, and honestly, its always bothered me a bit. I created this topic in order to collect our communities opinion of the concept, not to defend it. Id simply like to know how it adds up in eyes other than my own.

Personally, I recognize the desire to improve the self. To many of us that comes naturally. The division in this concept lies not in some false dichotomy, but in the nature of how one defines the self. If one expands the concept of self out into the world, perhaps aspects of the world could be improved (without the idea of the world being broken) as well. The extent would be defined by practicality of course. No one can manifest all of their ideas, but I think you get the point.

For some strange reason I have always viewed the idea of self a bit differently than most. While most seek to be an "individual" and separate from society, I see it the other way around. I see society as having become unnecessarily 'individuated' from the world/universe, and if anything I seek to become less of an individual and plug back in to the natural universe. I reject societies individuation.
DivineMonkey
DivineMonkey Oct 21 '13
The world is not broken, it is fluid, any attempt at describing a certain kind of world would be erroneous, but in the same time according to the nature of all things.

All is perfectly fine.

Interrogist
Interrogist Oct 21 '13

Quote from jack_macleod

In addition, I would note that a thing does not need to be broken in order to be improved.
Inadvertently, that is the underlying response I would offer to those uttering such a statement. My opinion however, is not the goal of this thread, so much as collecting the opinions of my peers. Thank you.
Quote from jack_macleod

Perhaps those who believe that the world is not "broken" seek to improve it through themselves in the spirit of innovation rather than in the spirit of repair.
That is possible, however, if one does in fact improve themselves, their environments are improved via their presence. Their belief and/or reason matters little outside of what it is they deem improvement to be. In that regard, both improvement and failure are inadvertently impressed upon ones environment when present in ones self.
Quote from jack_macleod


I agree with other respondents that it would be important to nail down exactly what is meant by world and by improvement in order to meaningfully address the question, which to be fair each respondent can define for themselves.
Indeed. I did not attempt to define these terms, as I have heard many utter the words world/broken in this context, and I heard as many definitions. Again, this thread stands to allow them the opportunity to do so, should they wish.
LeDeluge
LeDeluge Oct 22 '13
Quote from Interrogist
Thank you LD. As I explained to Xiao, this dichotomy is not something that I believe in personally. I have witnessed many others utter these words, and honestly, its always bothered me a bit. I created this topic in order to collect our communities opinion of the concept, not to defend it. Id simply like to know how it adds up in eyes other than my own. 

Personally, I recognize the desire to improve the self. To many of us that comes naturally. The division in this concept lies not in some false dichotomy, but in the nature of how one defines the self. If one expands the concept of self out into the world, perhaps aspects of the world could be improved (without the idea of the world being broken) as well. The extent would be defined by practicality of course. No one can manifest all of their ideas, but I think you get the point.

For some strange reason I have always viewed the idea of self a bit differently than most. While most seek to be an "individual" and separate from society, I see it the other way around. I see society as having become unnecessarily 'individuated' from the world/universe, and if anything I seek to become less of an individual and plug back in to the natural universe. I reject societies individuation.
Ok. I hear you. I don't believe there is a dichotomy either. I believe in lifelong learning and refinement of praxis. In so doing, I can manifest change in both myself and the outside world through action. This comes through both success and learning from falling short of one's goals. I also experience it more in the spirit of innovation. The apparent dichotomy is thus irrelevant. Societal individuation will tend to be something sold back. I believe you have find either a workable symbiosis or true solitude.


Broad Overview, but roughly a being-in-the-world.

The Forum post is edited by LeDeluge Oct 22 '13
Interrogist
Interrogist Oct 22 '13
Indeed. Your reply opens the door to a discussion on human beings representing the nexion by which (supposedly personal) pathie mathos actually takes place on a much larger universal scale than (most of) those having the experience are able to realize.
Ghostly1
Ghostly1 Oct 24 '13
I was writing a blog about something which troubled me last night and this post sort of indirectly hits upon a similar thread of consciousness.  


To be brief, presently I am in the process of rebuilding my own world.  Such is the state of affairs globally that it would make no difference if I actively participated in what the world has to offer at the present time or not.  Tackling world issues while my issues are clearly staring me in the face is philosophically spreading myself too thinly.  If my current goals coincide with local, or world events it will be purely coincidental as I am looking at short term goals with possible long term appeal.  My opinion, and viewpoint will have no bearing on world events.  The world is too concerned about the world to worry about one person, so my obvious focus is on the One.  Humans are panicky little animals with the majority having no vision, fear of the unknown and the penchant for violence when they don't fully understand anything.  Attempting to explain why things happen will bear no fruit, and aggravation to you for making the attempt.

Interrogist
Interrogist Oct 24 '13
Indeed Ghostly1. The thing about being "the one" is that everyone is "the one".
Ghostly1
Ghostly1 Oct 24 '13
Until they align under a banner of God.... and group morality kicks in.  They push aside their own needs when they feel they are sacrificing for the greater good....even if they don't always believe what they hear.  Dogmatic programming.
Interrogist
Interrogist Oct 24 '13
I'm not out to pick a fight here, but I don't think you see what I am getting at. Even group think and herd mentality permits "the one" idealism. You can make a dogma out of individuality or the ONA or Satanism in general, just look at these forums lol.

Anything can be dogmatized. Anyone can be "the one".

God created you for his purpose, and who did he create but you? You are elected by God (or qualify under substitution depending on your doctrine) to work his will. Your brotherhood aids you. You are "the one".

vs.

You are the lone Satanist. You are not subject to societal trends, religion, or cultural influence. You make your own way, you think for your self. You are independent. You are "the one".
Ghostly1
Ghostly1 Oct 24 '13
Correct, I did not read that far into it.  Interesting comparison thank you.
Interrogist
Interrogist Oct 24 '13
Thank you. If you have links to blogs or whatever, Id love to check them out.

Issue Reporting

Report any issues to satanhimself@circleofdescent.com. He may, or may not, get back to you in a timely manner.