Ethereal Discourses

ETHEREAL DISCOURSES

Opiate666: “You’re wrong – Firstly, it’s spelled “Azazel” not “Azazael” – and secondly, Azazel was of the rank Seraphim, not Cherubim.”

Syco82: “Okay smart guy – well first of all “Azazael” is the same thing as “Azazel” – and secondly it clearly states in the Encyclopedia of Angels that all Angels with the prefix “Az” were of the rank Cherubim.”

OneofTHEM: “Interesting sounding discussion. What are you guys arguing about?”

Opiate666 “ We’re not arguing – I’m merely informing Syco that his information is wrong and that Azazel, was of the rank Seraphim not Cherubim – and if only he’d take more time to research his Demonology he’d come to the same conclusion.”

Syco82: “Yeah right – and I’m ‘merely informing’ “jerk-off” here that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Even the Bible says Azazel/Azazael was among the Seraphim who joined Lucifer and was thrown out of Heaven for insubordination following the storming of Hell and so was “chained in an obscure part of the desert to await the final Day of Judgment.”

Opiate666 “Whatever.”

OneofTHEM: “So firstly, you’re arguing over the spelling of the name? And secondly – you’re arguing over the fact that neither of you will agree with the other one about the rank of Azazael?”

Opiate666/Syco82: “Yep.”

OneofTHEM: “You’re arguing about a very old name…”

Opiate666/Syco82: “Yep.”

OneofTHEM: “And there is every possibility that the name recorded had more than one spelling as it passed through thousands of translators over thousands of years… What makes either of you so sure of your information that you believe the other is wrong?”

Syco82: “The Bible and the Encyclopaedia record both the name “Azazael” and “Azazel” and neither makes a differentiation that the two names are two separate angels. Azazel is mentioned in dozens of biblical and occult texts as a Seraphim.”

Opiate666: “For Christ-sakes – He’s a Cherubim! Where in the Bible does it say that he’s a Seraphim, where? Because in Revelations (chapter x verse x) it clearly states that he’s of the rank Cherubim. Go and look it up! I’ll wait right here for you.”

OneofTHEM: “So this hostility the two of you are building – is based on a difference of opinion over the rank of a creature that both of you are referring to/relying on second-hand sources in the first place to even know about – to even be present as something for argument?”

Opiate666: “I know what I know.”

OneofTHEM “Mm, and what you know is that you are right and she is wrong?”

Opiate666 “Yep.”

OneofTHEM: “Aside from the nonsense of spitting out defensive empty rhetoric of “I know what I know” do either of you know much about the development of Language?”

Syco82: “lol. I know a little.”

Opiate666 “Screw you.”

OneofTHEM: “Well then you’d agree that the language and words you use – they’re very old – you both agree on that yes?”

Opiate666/Syco82: “Yes.”

OneofTHEM: “ In my black magical studies I’ve gathered the idea that the reason English is so difficult for others to learn is because it draws from a wide variety of other languages; French, German, Italian, and all manner of other cultures that contributed to various words taken into our language. Almost all of the words used in our terminology for cooking, for instance – boil, fry, sauté, sauce, bake, etc are derived from the French. However – what also seems to be the case is that the English language was itself derived from Latin.”

Opiate666 “Yeah that’s true.”

Syco82 “I’ve heard that too.”

OneofTHEM: “Latin was derived by a similar process of taking from all other languages – however – there was a major difference in Latin cum English and other languages – a difference that still stands today after hundreds, maybe thousands of years. Being the official language of the Church it contained the ethos of that ancient tyrant. That is to say – that just as the Christians believed in only one God and wiped out all who opposed their Holy Word and Divine Belief – attempting to standardize Religion and Suppress Alternate (“Diabolical/Heretical”) Thought. They did the same thing with Language. They took all manner of words from many of the languages of the world and turned them into one language – Latin. That is why the later English language contains so many smatterings of other cultures.”

Opiate666: “No shit?”

Syco82: “Is that true?”

OneofTHEM: “It gets better. Because Latin contains so many different meanings from so many different languages – it is very difficult for English words to express what the original word meant from that culture. Reverse translation of Latin into its root languages is very difficult – and there is often a by-line by authors of translated books that remarks on the lack of an equivalent English words for the original meaning. One word from Latin can mean more than a dozen things. Whilst one word from English can only mean one – at best two things. We call these ‘freaks’ “ambiguities” because we think they venture so far from clear meaning that they are disruptive or even absurd – such is the continuing influential power of the ancient Church’s ethos that its lives through us and through our language which is again – the prodigal son of Latin and an attempt to standardize/suppress culture.”

Syco82 ” That’s fascinating – but what does it have to do with Azazael being a Seraphim?”

Opiate666 “Cherubim!”

OneofTHEM “Well, aside from the arrogance that the English language unconsciously imparts to us when we use it – though in order to use it we can’t help but be arrogant – that is an implicit part of the meme in the language – a remembrance of its core origin, etc. And which arrogance causes both of you to argue over something neither of you have any hope of proving either to each other and only yourselves (as was the righteous attitude of the Church Fathers). You don’t seem to be aware of the vagaries that words embody and both seem to believe to the nth degree that both or at least one of your sources of information is true, and that the name of this Angel somehow survived uncorrupted through the passages of time. You’ve both read the Deofel Quintet have you not?

Opiate666 “ ONA stuff – yeah I read it, didn’t think it was too bad if a bit dated”

Syco82 “I thought they were good.”

OneofTHEM: Well, the Quintet is a fairly modern text. Over the years, it has been copied out from the original texts by hand – which texts are only about 30 years old, (circa 1980?) probably no more than a dozen times by people who sought to keep it’s memory and vehicle alive in the Sinister Tradition. When our Temple got around to finding them in 2006 the original quality of the texts had suffered greatly. There were hundreds of missing words such as ‘him/her’ ‘it/as’ – dozens of awful misspellings, sentences that didn’t make any sense, and even my Order lamented the changes to the Latin that had occurred in ‘Copula Cum Demonae’ (not part of the DQ, but also literature that had suffered damage) as much of the original meaning was lost from the various translatory efforts over the years. The point here being – that this information, like information in the game ‘Chinese Whispers’ (which can change a chosen sentence dramatically in the space of a few minutes) had changed considerably (and to its detriment) as it was copied and re-copied out – losing much of its intended meaning and instruction even over only the space of 30-40 years. THEM – who’ve been reading, and practicing the expressions of the Order for a decade, lovingly repaired the English parts of the texts to the best of our considerable ability – but it took an expert to repair the Latin.”

Opiate666: “What’s your point?”

Syco82: “Yeah I want to know too.”

OneofTHEM: “Well – if the Deofel Quintet’s original meaning and instruction can suffer so greatly in such a short amount of time even though it was preserved ‘religiously’ with as much care as could be afforded to a sacred item: and that since copying/translating is a trait and ability peculiar only to human beings, which human beings are ‘only human’ – my curiosity lies in why is it you think the information that survives for you to read, is accurate enough to swear by as the truth?

As an Occultist, there is a great difference between the actuality of standing in your room within a pentagram with all 6 senses operating: allowing you to feel the folds of the cloak draped over your arms, the gravity pulling the cloth down – the warm carpet or cold floorboards under your feet, the tension or slack of your various muscles – the sight of the objects familiar to you and the comfort or alarm they bring – the adrenaline and serotonin coursing through your body – the audio and idiosyncracy of the sound, inflection, pitch, treble and bass of your voice as its finds the words, speaks them, intones them, chants in its particular way playing on your particular vocal strengths, suffering from its vocal weakenesses that inspire you to fill in those short-comings with intensity and extra effort – filling your nostrils with the smells that permeate the room, the incense, the material of your cloak if new or itself incensesd, your own sweat or perfumes – the infusing nuance of ocular fuzziness and particular sharpness of the shadows as they play out via the position and intensity of your light sources – or whether there was candle heat or lamplight. You alone know how wet or dry your mouth was – whether your hair was tied up and added pressure to the back of your skull, or hung lose and draped over your shoulders tickling your chest – the memories that flashed through your mind and the times those memories belonged to – searching for links to make sense of this act – alive with visions of previous ritual failures or future successes and the nature of both – for instance. But – when you attempt to communicate this Experience to someone else – how far do you go? How much of it can you remember, let alone capture in its entirety? How detailed do you get? How much of the actual experience can you relate to someone else? Or do you only give the barest sketch – that you had this and that tool, drew this or that symbol, stood in such a way, said such a thing, felt a few things, saw a few things, laughed or banished and completed a successful ritual? Yet – this record you make – what is it in comparison to what Really happened for you, to you, with you, around you? How much do you lose when you write it down? How much do you think you would lose if someone else wrote it down for you? Or if five years later, someone else copied out your texts without the diligence and care you took originally to record the experience? Maybe they were tired, hurried, bored, wanted to change or omit parts of the record to suit themselves? So far removed from the actuality of the Occult Experience is the written word – that all that generally survives are those things we are trained by our culture to consider important to retain – things influenced by our culture and ethos – namely a brief annotation of those things we see (for the visual sense is the most highly prized in the West – hence the power of ‘Witness’), and those things we think or feel – usually kept to a brief minimum. What is largely recorded is the ritual itself – that we were in it – that we did this or that – with the intent to do such and such. In short – in writing down the Occult we maintain the dry dusty pathology of the Clergy whose interest is not so much with Life – but in how life should and will appear.”

Opiate666: “Go on.”

Syco82: “Yes go on – what does this have to do with Azazael?”

OneofTHEM: “Well – the same thing as happened with the Deofel Quintet no doubt happened to the Bible – only a thousand times more. And remember – there is only one Deofel Quintet – there are dozens of versions of the Bible, both ecclesiastical and sanctioned by various Religious authorities and those of the secular brands. I am attempting to illustrate to you the weakness inherent in all records made by humans and that absolute reliance on them as being preserved intact or even approximate to the original occult or even world event is dubious at best, naïve at least.”

Opiate666: “I don’t like being called naïve- but you’ve got a point.”

Syco82 : “…”

OneofTHEM: Just as language is a very limited interpretation of the experiences in life – capturing only the fable, myth or barest key points of what happened – thus stripping the numinous from life and imprisoning the idea or interpretation of the original moment in an inaccurate jail of words; Words in their turn do the same – and strip and change and omit aspects of the original experience – handed down as they are over thousands of years from cultures so remote we cannot even fathom them. And if you accept words without any thought running underneath your usage of them as to how they came about – then you can well be excused for creating arguments out of sheer ignorance when there is ambiguity in words that you insist should not be there. Generally – people operate with the tools they inherit (adults especially – children are less prone but eventually have that questioning drive deadened in them) without too much thought as to where they come from or what process constituted the creation of those tools. So they use those tools blindly and place absolute faith that the version of the tool they find themselves with – is the best, most accurate, and up to date version of that tool.

The Bible might be a very different story had it been found with the Dead Sea Scrolls or the omitted Books of Mary Magdelene; World History has been shown to be changed countless times – because World History relies on accepted facts – that is how something becomes a fact: it must be accepted as one. But if the History of the World is captured inaccurately because someone believes (or imposes) that all the evidence points to one conclusion – the evidence to the contrary (when found and if accepted) will cause that version of History to be found incomplete and thus wrong. To this end – people will have believed a completely false version of History as true for as long as it takes for the evidence to the contrary to be found. History is an extremely fragile creature and because we have this maddening shortcoming to presume we now know what really happened (an assumption based on the evidence available at the time) and it is imposed as accepted fact – then we develop this nonsense idea that the name of an Angel can be known with certainty, further that if this can be so, that the existence of Angels –fallen or otherwise – can be known, and that because it can – that someone else’s version of History is wrong.

Opiate666/Syco82: “It’s the best we have though – we use arguments logically to work out the truth”

OneofTHEM: “Truth? Well maybe for you – or maybe for a minute something might be the truth – be the accepted fact – but for how long? The great fear of the answer to that question was what spurred the Church to destroy anything that would change its own perception of History – and in doing so – it admitted to altering World History in its favour – forever denying the World the evidence to the contrary it needed to bring itself out of the Dark Age the Church plunged the World into it with its destruction of other cultures, other truths, other actualities. Now my attempt here is to weaken the arrogant absolutism both of you hold over your ‘version of the truth’ by showing how fragile not only yours are, but how fragile the concept of truth itself is – and that furthermore, since so much has been lost over the millennia that the truth may never be known because it has been covered up, changed, destroyed, re-interpreted, interpreted badly/wrongly or with malice, political or religious bias. That you rely and even believe in the actuality of either of these names as representing some knowledge magically impervious to the ravages of time and human caprice is a testament to the power of the Ethos of the Church to cause you to continue as living expressions of their energies thousands of years after their deaths.”

Opiate666: “So we can’t rely on anything is that what you’re saying?”

Syco82: “Yeah sounds like you’re saying all communication is dodgy bullshit that can’t be trusted?”

OneofTHEM: “Well if you’ve been prompted to question your absolute beliefs enough to ask that then at least there is hope that you won’t return to the same argument. And I have more to say on the communication thing in a minute. But first – do you know the word Vampire?”

Opiate666/Syco82 “Yes.”

OneofTHEM: “There are all manner of theories regarding the origin of these things. But the interesting part for me is the origin of the name. On occasion I’ve seen it spelt ‘Vampyre’ or ‘Wamphyre’. That it can be spelled with a ‘W’ illustrates a good point that as the name is taken from language to language its spelling changes. Thus the contention between you over ‘ae’ and ‘e’ could come to naught if you understand that the spelling of words changes again and again. It’s been said that Vindex, the Destroyer, should properly be spelled with a ‘W’. i.e. be “Windex”. But people are loathe to believe that the Avenger of the Order shares his name with a popular window cleaner. So again you see the omission of certain possible facts for the sake of political or religious bias. But changes to words are not limited to one letter. A while ago I heard that the origin of the word ‘Vampire’ was actually from the word ‘Oupire’ (I’m sorry, I forget in which language) – and that this word came from the word ‘Overseer’. The anecdote relates that the Overseers were the equivalent of Town mayors and had the last  say over the towns in which they resided, garnering great popularity and power amongst their townfolk. All major decisions went through the town Overseer. When the Christians came to spread their Word by fire and sword they found that the resistance of the Overseers to their Gospel would encourage the townsfolk to balk at the religious suggestion. And so the Church realized that they would need to do something about the Overseers. In response they circulated horrific stories about the Overseer in question being a creature of the night who preyed upon the villagers and committed atrocious and unholy acts – of being an ‘Oupire’. Being highly superstitious (and spurred on by the finding of some carefully positioned atrocities) the villagers turned on the Overseer and deposed of him. In this way the Church then took control of the town and imposed their religious law with an iron fist. This nonsense continued because it was effective. As the legend changed through hands and cultures as a political tool, it was not restricted to Overseers – like Witches, the epithet could be applied to anyone. Thus was the ‘Vampire’ born.”

Opiate666: “That’s cool!”

Syco82: “It’s a very cool theory but how do you know this?”

OneofTHEM: “Ah, well that’s just it. What I know – lives on a very temporary shelf of certainty – and has an indeterminate shelf-life. Anything could upset it. If a book of antiquity were unearthed tomorrow and signed by God himself that said “Azazel” sat on the right-hand side of God – what would my theories mean then? What would yours? We do the best we can with the knowledge we have available to us. But Knowledge is not just a matter of categorical slotting. Knowledge can only ever be a study of how knowledge is formed – not what it constitutes. What does it matter if Azazyl was of the Power of Thrones or the Devil Himself? More accurately – How does it matter? To whom does it matter, and if you – what part of you? As for how I know this – I already answered you. But as to why I think like this – approach from the outside – I am one of THEM. I’ve watched people butt heads like this my whole life and never understood why. As a young man I was unable to communicate what I saw. Now I am afforded the luxury of expressing my evidence to the contrary.“

Opiate666 ” What do you mean what part of me?”

Syco82 “Yeah I was interested in that bit too?”

OneofTHEM “The way in which you understand how knowledge is formed has a direct result on your application of it. Opiate here seems to think that insisting someone else is wrong repeatedly is enough to validate his knowledge. Syco – you appear not to think to closely about the vagaries of records kept in books nor the deeper processes that underlie their creation and preservation – and so you believe and trust the records to be preserved truths. And so both of you – based on the way in which you understand knowledge to be formed – bang your heads together ceaselessly trying to form Knowledge by trying to impart to the other your own understanding and method for validating Knowledge. Yet neither of you realize or appear to take into account in your own thought processes that you are limited in your knowledge, and that knowledge itself has been limited to you.”

Opiate666: “I don’t get it.”

Syco82: “I do!”

OneofTHEM: “Then I’m done here. ISS.”

End Discourse.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s