Author Topic: Xol  (Read 4389 times)

Cain

  • Alea iacta est
  • Chekha
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 62917
    • View Profile
Re: Xol
« Reply #15 on: June 05, 2009, 05:58:57 pm »
"There is no Dana Epithemus, only Zuul Xol"

Epimetheus

  • Young, dumb, and stupid.
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 1822
    • View Profile
Re: Xol
« Reply #16 on: June 05, 2009, 09:46:50 pm »
Maybe "Non-Being" is a more accurate name than Death...since all things come from non-being and go back to non-being eventually. It is the only truly eternal...thing, for lack of better terminology.

"There is no Dana Epithemus, only Zuul Xol"
:lulz:
POST-SINGULARITY POCKET ORGASM TOAD OF RIGHTEOUSNESS

Triple Zero

  • DO NOT ABUSE EXCEPT FOR URGENT FURNITURE MOVING EMERGENCIES
  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 25360
  • Horrible and Sexy Queen of Cheese
    • View Profile
    • Random BIP
Re: Xol
« Reply #17 on: June 05, 2009, 10:09:53 pm »
I think you got it partly the wrong way around.

Have you seen non-being?

If you're gonna assume things, it would be much more likely to assume that the things that are are the only eternal things, because all non-being only exists as a representation, a metaphor or symbol made up of things that are.

It's all figure and ground, you know.

Patterns we draw in the chaos. Blink your eyes twice and the vase turns into a face and the hill becomes a hole.
Ex-Soviet Bloc Sexual Attack Swede of Tomorrow™
e-prime disclaimer: let it seem fairly unclear I understand the apparent subjectivity of the above statements. maybe.

INFORMATION SO POWERFUL, YOU ACTUALLY NEED LESS.

Epimetheus

  • Young, dumb, and stupid.
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 1822
    • View Profile
Re: Xol
« Reply #18 on: June 05, 2009, 10:15:31 pm »
I think you got it partly the wrong way around.

Have you seen non-being?

If you're gonna assume things, it would be much more likely to assume that the things that are are the only eternal things, because all non-being only exists as a representation, a metaphor or symbol made up of things that are.

It's all figure and ground, you know.

Patterns we draw in the chaos. Blink your eyes twice and the vase turns into a face and the hill becomes a hole.

Who said Xol wasn't metaphor, wasn't symbol?
We can think about non-being, and we can at least hallucinate the things we think of - so it is possible to see non-being. You might say it would be an inaccurate image of non-being because it would quite clearly be being, but how could you know that - if you have never seen it yourself?
« Last Edit: June 05, 2009, 10:37:31 pm by Epimetheus »
POST-SINGULARITY POCKET ORGASM TOAD OF RIGHTEOUSNESS

Triple Zero

  • DO NOT ABUSE EXCEPT FOR URGENT FURNITURE MOVING EMERGENCIES
  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 25360
  • Horrible and Sexy Queen of Cheese
    • View Profile
    • Random BIP
Re: Xol
« Reply #19 on: June 06, 2009, 01:09:00 am »
Who said Xol wasn't metaphor, wasn't symbol?

well, when you said "It is the only truly eternal...thing".

a metaphor is just a symbol, a sign that signifies something else. no more. so which is your only truly eternal thing, your metaphor or that which it signifies?

Quote
We can think about non-being, and we can at least hallucinate the things we think of - so it is possible to see non-being.

oh yeah? according to that line of reasoning we are able to "see" pink invisible unicorns as well.

Quote
You might say it would be an inaccurate image of non-being because it would quite clearly be being, but how could you know that - if you have never seen it yourself?

well, obviously because it looks exactly like how I hallucinate it to be.



no see this is going exactly nowhere. my point was, if you consider non-being as the ultimate and only truth, because "being" is just a mere blip in the vast sea of non-being, try switching figure and ground. that's what I was trying to explain. "being" is at least as fundamental, and with that quite a bit more useful to reason with. unless you want to make things complex and vague just for the hell of it.
Ex-Soviet Bloc Sexual Attack Swede of Tomorrow™
e-prime disclaimer: let it seem fairly unclear I understand the apparent subjectivity of the above statements. maybe.

INFORMATION SO POWERFUL, YOU ACTUALLY NEED LESS.

Epimetheus

  • Young, dumb, and stupid.
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 1822
    • View Profile
Re: Xol
« Reply #20 on: June 06, 2009, 02:48:22 am »
oh yeah? according to that line of reasoning we are able to "see" pink invisible unicorns as well.
yep.

no see this is going exactly nowhere. my point was, if you consider non-being as the ultimate and only truth, because "being" is just a mere blip in the vast sea of non-being, try switching figure and ground. that's what I was trying to explain. "being" is at least as fundamental, and with that quite a bit more useful to reason with. unless you want to make things complex and vague just for the hell of it.

Fine, then Xol is just a blip. So?
POST-SINGULARITY POCKET ORGASM TOAD OF RIGHTEOUSNESS

Triple Zero

  • DO NOT ABUSE EXCEPT FOR URGENT FURNITURE MOVING EMERGENCIES
  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 25360
  • Horrible and Sexy Queen of Cheese
    • View Profile
    • Random BIP
Re: Xol
« Reply #21 on: June 06, 2009, 03:01:43 am »
I don't know, it's your idea. What were you trying to say or express?
Ex-Soviet Bloc Sexual Attack Swede of Tomorrow™
e-prime disclaimer: let it seem fairly unclear I understand the apparent subjectivity of the above statements. maybe.

INFORMATION SO POWERFUL, YOU ACTUALLY NEED LESS.

LMNO

  • Lubricated and Rabid Lungfish of Impending Sexdoom™
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 62186
  • Internet Fuckweasel of Haunted Pork Dimensions.
    • View Profile
    • Earfatigue Productions: When it has to sound like you give a shit.
Re: Xol
« Reply #22 on: June 06, 2009, 03:47:30 am »
I'm honestly starting to lean towards the smoked salmon bit.

Epimetheus

  • Young, dumb, and stupid.
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 1822
    • View Profile
Re: Xol
« Reply #23 on: June 06, 2009, 04:07:15 am »
I don't know, it's your idea. What were you trying to say or express?

I was trying to express Xol's deeply ineffable nature - trying to reason about Xol and arguing over Xol like we are simply does not work, or shouldn't.
POST-SINGULARITY POCKET ORGASM TOAD OF RIGHTEOUSNESS

Triple Zero

  • DO NOT ABUSE EXCEPT FOR URGENT FURNITURE MOVING EMERGENCIES
  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 25360
  • Horrible and Sexy Queen of Cheese
    • View Profile
    • Random BIP
Re: Xol
« Reply #24 on: June 06, 2009, 02:30:02 pm »
Then what kind of feedback did you want?

Frankly this annoys me a littlebit. You practically beg for us to give you some feedback, any kind. We give it, and now you say we shouldn't reason like that. Cause that's how ineffable it is.

If you want to explore a particular angle of this idea of yours, you have to be quite a bit more explicit and give maybe a bit more background, and just be obvious about the direction you want it to go.

If you just want us to agree and bask in awe of the deep ineffableness of your poem-essay, we're probably not really your crowd.
Ex-Soviet Bloc Sexual Attack Swede of Tomorrow™
e-prime disclaimer: let it seem fairly unclear I understand the apparent subjectivity of the above statements. maybe.

INFORMATION SO POWERFUL, YOU ACTUALLY NEED LESS.

Epimetheus

  • Young, dumb, and stupid.
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 1822
    • View Profile
Re: Xol
« Reply #25 on: June 06, 2009, 05:32:36 pm »
Frankly this annoys me a littlebit. You practically beg for us to give you some feedback, any kind. We give it, and now you say we shouldn't reason like that. Cause that's how ineffable it is.
:lol: True! I didn't realize that...Troof is, I didn't really work very hard on the thing, just wrote what came to mind, which means I didn't intend any Qabalah references, or Cthulhu or anything. Another troof is, after I posted it I wanted to delete it because I didn't like it very much. Anyway, you're right - I'm being idiotic. But I still appreciate the discussion or proposed meanings, and I didn't mean to stop them - I just saw humor in your analyses that had little to do with my intent.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2009, 05:36:29 pm by Epimetheus »
POST-SINGULARITY POCKET ORGASM TOAD OF RIGHTEOUSNESS

Triple Zero

  • DO NOT ABUSE EXCEPT FOR URGENT FURNITURE MOVING EMERGENCIES
  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 25360
  • Horrible and Sexy Queen of Cheese
    • View Profile
    • Random BIP
Re: Xol
« Reply #26 on: June 06, 2009, 10:53:33 pm »
Okay :) It's all good
Ex-Soviet Bloc Sexual Attack Swede of Tomorrow™
e-prime disclaimer: let it seem fairly unclear I understand the apparent subjectivity of the above statements. maybe.

INFORMATION SO POWERFUL, YOU ACTUALLY NEED LESS.

Epimetheus

  • Young, dumb, and stupid.
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 1822
    • View Profile
Re: Xol
« Reply #27 on: June 07, 2009, 09:55:27 pm »
Quote from: Herman Hesse, in his Author's Note in Steppenwolf
Poetic writing can be understood and misunderstood in many ways. In most cases the author is not the right authority to decide on where the reader ceases to understand and the misunderstanding begins. Many an author has found readers to whom his work seemed more lucid than it was to himself. Moreover, misunderstandings may be fruitful under certain circumstances.
...
Of course, I neither can nor intend to tell my readers how they ought to understand my tale. May everyone find in it what strikes a chord in him and is of some use to him!
POST-SINGULARITY POCKET ORGASM TOAD OF RIGHTEOUSNESS

Cainad (dec.)

  • Houseplant Supreme
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 10739
  • The Emperor's Hairy Right Hand
    • View Profile
    • Internet Forum Safari
Re: Xol
« Reply #28 on: June 08, 2009, 12:13:16 am »
This is why, if I ever write a book, I'm going to preface it with the sentence "All interpretations of this book are wrong."

Bu☆ns

  • █ ▀█ ▀ █ ▀█▄ ▀█
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 4743
    • View Profile
Re: Xol
« Reply #29 on: June 08, 2009, 04:49:02 am »
The fortune book is one of my favourite qbl books. Also Ladder of Lights by Gray is well worth a read. Once you're done with them you'll prolly find Crowley and his ilk making a lot more sense.

This is good advice. Though I also find Lon Milo's stuff very readable and a good intro into Crowley's style of esoteric and qabalah thinking.

i think lon milo leads to asking the wrong questions...he seems a bit superficial.....or maybe his prose just annoys me...hard to tell.  Everyone seems to love Dion Fortune's stuff but it's all based on GD stuff...so Israel Regardie, imo, has a clearer writing style...All in all,  I'd go with William R. Gray.  he's practical, not all flourishes, NOT a member of the OTO and doesn't pretend that what he's doing is exclusively objective. i have a collection of his works so if anybody wants, feel free to PM.