Comments | starchamber007: Sexual Revolution- Snake in the Grass

starchamber007

Sexual Revolution- Snake in the Grass

Aug 21, 2007 17:31

The essence of the Sexual Revolution revolves around the power of blasphemy. Profanity in general, and blasphemy in particular, are functions of the Eden-serpent who is, according to Eliphas Levi, a symbolic representation of the power of attraction. The serpent came forth when the apple of knowledge of good and evil was FORBIDDEN. If we accept ( Read more... )

sexual revolution ii, the invisible war

Comments 4

!!!! schaard August 21 2007, 22:24:20 UTC

This is, without a doubt, one of the best things I have ever read on LJ.

Absolutely fantastic. Thank you!!

Re: !!!! starchamber007 August 22 2007, 18:24:29 UTC

thank YOU

shoeless_wade August 23 2007, 17:34:44 UTC

Okay, a couple of questions:

First, blasphemy and parody are not exactly the same thing, right? I mean blasphemy is inherently malicious. I'd say that a lot of the Mutant children are almost more blasphemy than parody. You know what I mean? You can have a parody that's almost an "homage". I think your point still stands with this, of course, but it's almost kinda "not that new an thing" historically, right? I mean, parodies have been the most popular media since... err... like, forever actually.

Also, about bangin' a dude so that dude-banging doesn't gross you out: you gotta concede that there are some things that humans (Kings or no) SHOULD be shocked and upset by, right?

hmm... starchamber007 August 23 2007, 20:54:12 UTC

While I agree that blasphemy and parody are not the same thing, I think it is correct to assert that all blasphemy necessarily involves some sort of image derived from parody. Blasphemy is parody, but parody is not necessarily blasphemy.

What things should kings be shocked and upset by? Who decides this? I think that people SHOULD be upset when their "Gods," as I've defined that word above, are attacked. At the same time, if this upset interferes with their judgement, we have a problem.

I should be clear that I'm not talking about a supression of emotion, per se, but removing uncritical emotional responses that interfere with one's rational mind. Does that mean that there is no shock and no disgust? Well, if you follow the system of attainment that I've been working with, the end goal is a state at which one perceives every object, person, and phenomenon as a part of oneself. Maybe there is still shock and disgust of some kind in that state, but it has a very different meaning.