|
Post by thejasonsorrell on Dec 27, 2016 20:30:40 GMT -6
It has been a minute since I posted here. Long enough that it would seem appropriate to re-introduce myself.
Jason Sorrell here. I've taken a couple of years off from participation to try to get some things together. A little "me" time. I dabble in a number of activities; drawing, tattooing, fine dining, collecting rare books. I've been known to write a bit now and then. Nothing much really, just an exercise in organizing my thoughts on various topics.
Just another one of the guys.
A good friend of mine reached out to me and let me know he was engaged with this group, and that he was hoping to make some changes here. I am intrigued, and look forward to seeing those changes take shape.
I am a fan of the Lovecraft Mythos, but more than that the idea of Mythos and mythology, the human psyche's ability to make incredible leaps in its attempt to define the undefinable. The inner worlds we create frequently leak out into the "real", and that is when things get exciting for humanity. I like the idea of theology/philosophy/imagination being used as an instrument for change. The Cult of Cthulhu once had the potential to be the vanguard of such an effort.
It would be grand to see it happen.
Change requires Work. Most shirk from work, preferring comfort or safety. Work is most definitely risk. It is human, though, to crave change. It is human to wish to make an impact, to see your ideas have influence. Whether it is writing a story that inspires, creating art that suggests a different perspective, or advancing a philosophy that redefines the parameters of society, work and risk go hand-in-hand.
I am very interested in seeing what Works are wrought here.
Happy hunting.
|
|
|
Post by shawnhartnell on Jan 8, 2017 14:09:26 GMT -6
Welcome back. The inner worlds we create frequently leak out into the "real", and that is when things get exciting for humanity. How so? Isn't that the goal of all theology/philosophy?
|
|
|
Post by thejasonsorrell on Jan 11, 2017 1:45:29 GMT -6
I am not even going to try to do the quote thing...
"How so?" Well, that is a fairly open-ended question, even with the quote you selected. I don't know if you are asking how these inner worlds leak out into reality, or how things get interesting when that happens. I am not even certain what your motivation is. I'll assume it is just to get something going here, because that makes me happy.
Anyhoo. My inner worlds leak out through my creative effort and output, and through my interactions and influence on others. Things get interesting when something that might not have been readily apparent, something novel, or something wholly unexpected happens. Interesting does not alway connote a positive experience, but is often something different.
I am not certain that theology/philosophy has a goal, as despite the numerous times I have asked it, it has yet to respond. In fact, I don't think the goal is to change as much as it is to explain and understand, but that is just me.
That is as entertaining as I feel at the moment. Hope you enjoyed it.
|
|
|
Post by shawnhartnell on Jan 11, 2017 10:23:58 GMT -6
Yeah, I'm trying to start conversations. Anyway... I asked about the first quote to try to understand what it is you're saying. What is an "inner world" as contrasted with an "outer?" one? How does the transfer happen? I asked about the second quote to start a debate. As you pointed out, by assuming that a theology or philosophy could have a goal is to personify it. That's exactly the kind of thing I would point out, however... Would you agree that it's reasonable to assume that they have a purpose, like a wrench, and that the purpose is the intent of it's creator or originator?
|
|
|
Post by thejasonsorrell on Jan 12, 2017 0:24:51 GMT -6
Dammit. Here I go again.
My inner world is my mind. It is where the initial manifestation of my expression in the outer-world, that place that has the appearance of not being entirely of my mind, happens. I freely admit that there is a great deal of give-and-take between the two, the lines are blurry between one and the other, the inner is to a degree a reflection of the outer, and the outer is experienced almost entirely as a manifestation in the inner.
The big difference is that I am convinced I have greater creative latitude in one versus the other. I am willing to allow for being in error in that opinion.
Transfer depends on the medium. Just being can result in truck between the two worlds.
Maybe the inner world is a staging area for the outer. Maybe there are several inner worlds like a matryoshka doll, with only the outermost being the point of interaction. The outer world could also be layered; immediately observed and understood/appreciated> observed but not understood/appreciated> potentially observable but ignored> outside the area of immediate observation but understood> outside the area of observation, not understood but aware of> outside the area of observation, ignorant of (unknown)> outside any current means of being observed, even if awareness of that which could be observed exists> unknowable.
Now that I think of it, maybe my inner world, my program sandbox, is the nexus just beyond the staging area prior to manifestation in the most immediate outer world.
Maybe. I have nothing concrete to offer.
"Really".
A wrench has no purpose. Ask it all day long. It's design was a purpose of its designer, which may or may not be correctly interpreted by one who elects to use the wrench. We might assume that it is for turning a bolt or nut, but really it could be some kind of musical instrument/ marital aid.
Anything is a dildo if you are brave enough.
If you elect to use theology/philosophy as a dildo, I recommend stretching prior and using plenty of lube. I offer this advice not based on personal experience, only observations of the object and a basic understanding of physiology.
Stay safe out there.
|
|
|
Post by shawnhartnell on Jan 12, 2017 2:30:29 GMT -6
I'm getting the idea that you're talking about the creative process and the effect of whatever you create. Does that sum it up? I was speaking of the purpose of the creator / originator. In many cases, like Buddhism and Satanism, we don't have to assume the purpose because it's specifically stated. Christianity's fairly transparent, if you read the gospels in a red letter edition, and even so, I have to admit it's the most misunderstood religion ever devised. The fact that a theology / philosophy can be misinterpreted doesn't mean that it wasn't created for a purpose. This is discussed directly in the Fourth Way when talking about how Man No.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc can all interpret the same religion a different way and ergo, the way someone interprets something says more about them than the theology / philosophy. Heh
|
|
|
Post by thejasonsorrell on Jan 12, 2017 9:37:30 GMT -6
Does it sum it up for you? I don't want to offer a definitive answer. My opinion is mine. Yours should be yours.
I am still leaning toward a theology/philosophy simply being an attempt to explain the way things are. The institutions resulting from a theology/philosophy is where agendas happen.
|
|