Post by Helen on Mar 21, 2004 13:54:50 GMT -5
Cheers, de Sade,
that's clear as crystal.
Just to let you know I wasn't disputing you, I think you know that already.
We sometimes get folks in here who chuck out statements to sound smart and they can't back them up and so I always ask people to disclose their sources, just so I can get some idea of who I'm dealing with. You do get clowns who just try to be controversial and sound clever but when it comes down to it there is no substance to their posturing.
But on the subject of the LHP, what you say about its origins is true and I don't dispute that. However the 'nature' and 'truth' of what it actually IS is something that I feel cannot be so easily defined. To be purists about this we would have to say that the only true LHP is the one to which you refer, but the fact that the label and many of its values has been appropriated throughout the ages by various different philosphers and so on means that the concept has evolved and I'm OK with acknowledging that the LHP is not something that we can easily pin down to just one definition.
The same can be said of Satanism. There are those who will argue til the seas run dry that there is only ONE Satanism ie: that of La Vey, whereas I think it is much more complex than that.
I'm not SO postmodern about this, though, as to suggest that Satanism or the LHP etc. is what you make it, I won't argue that there are NO boundaries - therefore I echo your sentiments regarding the importance of being cautious about the ways in which we use certain terms, and that we should remain mindful that we understand what is meant by them.
But I think that over time these things have come to have different 'meanings' and I'm OK with that evolution.
that's clear as crystal.
Just to let you know I wasn't disputing you, I think you know that already.
We sometimes get folks in here who chuck out statements to sound smart and they can't back them up and so I always ask people to disclose their sources, just so I can get some idea of who I'm dealing with. You do get clowns who just try to be controversial and sound clever but when it comes down to it there is no substance to their posturing.
But on the subject of the LHP, what you say about its origins is true and I don't dispute that. However the 'nature' and 'truth' of what it actually IS is something that I feel cannot be so easily defined. To be purists about this we would have to say that the only true LHP is the one to which you refer, but the fact that the label and many of its values has been appropriated throughout the ages by various different philosphers and so on means that the concept has evolved and I'm OK with acknowledging that the LHP is not something that we can easily pin down to just one definition.
The same can be said of Satanism. There are those who will argue til the seas run dry that there is only ONE Satanism ie: that of La Vey, whereas I think it is much more complex than that.
I'm not SO postmodern about this, though, as to suggest that Satanism or the LHP etc. is what you make it, I won't argue that there are NO boundaries - therefore I echo your sentiments regarding the importance of being cautious about the ways in which we use certain terms, and that we should remain mindful that we understand what is meant by them.
But I think that over time these things have come to have different 'meanings' and I'm OK with that evolution.