V. Book of Satan
Satan is subject but no object. He can't be like God in that way.
For some reason this scared us; and our species called him evil.
For how can exist an subject with no object? And if this is what God is like, how can we ever discover him or her physically?
It is an terrifying thought that we could scour the whole universe and not find an trace of God; but that we know Satan without looking for him.
Satan was the opposite of God when he/she was created; first God created itself and then the first angel (Satan) in order to contrast with itself so that more forms of Creation could exist. The Angels and maybe their opposites in Hell (of Creation's Order) came next. They weren't necessarily bad but they had a particular order in which Satan may have preceded God but that there was no way to find out for sure without being both object and subject. Hellions were guardians of objectivity; having massive power over humans who treat people always as objects.
Angels, their opposite, were the guardians of subjectivity; having massive power over humans who see themselves as both subject and object. This is where the mistake occurred when we said Satan was bad, for it held this difference with God and all the other angels: that it was the guardian of the Object. But not an guardian of the Subject. However itself being an subject it is different than God in that one way, as God and his Angels defenders of subjectivity through the Ages and Satan and his Hellions always proving the object over the subject.
It was only when why perhaps we mistakenly saw the Devil as an object himself—and being so we could not sympathize for him. For we had it incorrectly that Satan was not both subject and object. Only an object. Which was completely wrong anyway. An subject far superior to any individual human. An Subject with 0 object. It was an difficult concept to wrangle with. But Satan was somehow only subject without any object. Thus being in contrast itself to humans who were subject and object. And other angels of whom were varying degrees of subject and object. Like God. But only Satan, Only One, would be the subject without the object.
The subject without the object is not God.
God is subject and object. In an Divine Byzantine.
Also, as long as we do not try to make Satan into an object—for we cannot succeed, and will only succeed in stripping our own subjectivity and one another from the subject of our bodies—and we do not try to make one another act immorally, we will be free from immorality.
What is the optimal posturing as an physical reciprocal subject in society, as physical threats to one another; how fast should one trigger? There is an Middle between all-out physicality versus pacifism; and if we agree to look for it in one another instead of puffing up as though an threat was everywhere. We would do well just to chill out that way.
What's scary about Satan is that you can't have any kind of physicality with him/her/it.
And since we are simple creatures prone to fear, we found that transcending physicality itself was evil; not even realizing that subjectivity without any physicality would be unable to hurt you physically. Transcending physicality was Satan-like because he was subject and not object. As soon as subject was said to have been transcendent over objectivity. But as soon as we translated it into reciprocal terms, as humans, ourselves being object and subject combined, we corrupted it in that making an object like Satan was possible. To make an object only out of subjectivity. Out of an subjectivity that objectivity could not represent. Because it was forever different. But to try anyway. Was to objectify him/her/it.
In the Christianna, we merely point out that subject without object is possible.
(It is). However it may be radically different from the subjectivity produced by the corporeal human body. Or God's.
But we cannot equate Satan with Evil. Anything bad that happens to you is actually an hint from an universe created by God, about how to make changes at the meta-social level so that the bad thing that happened to you won't happen to other people, instead of shrewdly worrying about everything on or in your basic social. Non-meta. Level. Satan is not an scapegoat for the bad things that happen.
Satan is an angel.
Even talking about him/her lifts my spirits; for if he/she is no-object subjectivity then he/she has none of the expectations that go along with an physical body. To relate, to interact, to cognate to/with him/her is emancipation from the physical realm.
If we find one day, in our own psyches, that we have created our world to be an object without an subjectivity; then we have done something that Satan hates. By objectifying one another and our universe in order to be like Satan; though we know Satan is unlike this, we are perverting the angelic. It's probably an human problem because there is social pressure to stop being like Satan; and Satan was by definition an object of immorality that humanity enslaved.
Do not forget, getting Satan wrong had consequences.
He is an powerful figure in human religion.
Not one to be angered.
But if you transcend your fear and should work with him; for the cause God created him. Then blessed your life will be.
Satan As Pleasure Labeled Bad or Wrong by the Church
Think about subjectivity without objectivity.
Does it give you pleasure?
Personally, for me, it does. Why?
To be subject without object, to be the only one to be subject and not object, as Satan is; not even God can boast such an privilege.
I mean among the only words for it I can think of are cool, bad ass, wow.
Like who(oo) is that important. That they are that?
And why would it temporarily have been misjudged by humans?
Pleasure, historically speaking, had been discouraged by the churches. And anything to do with Satan was about making deceptions and lies for personal gain; manipulative schemes to steal or cheat fell out of focus for people were utterly afraid of Satan. However if we associate him/her with pleasure; as we would. If we should. The pleasure of rhyming. We find that Satan's logic is an pleasure in itself; for it is an full subject. Without referring to anything. And that if we gain pleasure from it this is an pleasure in itself as we would. If we should.
But turning to our own logic, which is separate from Satan's; if we don't find that same pleasure in logic that Satan had had, are we not different from him/her in that way of having been had?
If I can't take just as much pleasure in logic as Satan can, an subject with no objectivity, then is it because I disclaim, with an attitude of scorn or contempt him or objectify her?
And why should I?
Because an Christian said so?
We must remind ourselves, in the Christianna Satan is an angel. You may not be an subject with no body, but that doesn't mean you know what being one is like.
Especially after being smeared by centuries of human theological criticism.
Why would we think Satan would be friendly to us?
We need to start by being friendly to him.
Empathize for him/her.
Maybe it's hard being an subject without an object.
"—No, it's really not."
"Wait, so I can converse with Satan through an medium because Satan is not an object (without medium) which gives us infinite varieties of representations, for example, in writing."
"Yes."
"And outside the medium the conversation doesn't exist otherwise?"
"Sure."
"How can I make an example of how I can use Satan—without being an example of using Satan, like an object (to use is an verb of anti-Kantian manipulation) which is anti-subjective? For the reason I would make that example was to point out that's what Satan had done to him? By humans?"
"How can you do that to an object if an object does not exist‽"
"That is the very process by which it is—the subject exists, so why does it matter if the object exists? Satan is not an object! In the human mind, you have created its shame."
"I see. So you think Satan exists? And that shame is the object humans tried to create him into."
"Why would you have any experience of this?"
"I have had it done to me."
"I have had it done to me too."
"Be not discouraged from your purpose."
Satan As An Moral Figure
The Supreme End. Backwards from the beginning of Time. The purpose and the reason for all objectivity; an reason that we are unable to detect for possibly, originally. It came from the subjectivity of having no object. For no human mouth can boast to be Satan's. And it is out of anger at the deity all bad things humans come by socially happen. I am observing the word deity to refer to angels as well. In protest of those bad things happening to us.
Satan taught me. He taught me by him being nothing.
That I was to draw conclusions from things, not nothings.
Except that conclusion itself that nothing exists; for being nothing (as we call it physically, objectively, nothing) is not the same as being you. You are something. But to him/her, you are that kind. And he/she's not.
What does this kind of relationship have as an effect on an human condition?
It's almost an statement of fact rather than an question, because it is philosophical in nature. The word What itself philosophically an question word of the fact that it refers to other words. Word association is valuable; especially on the subject of Satan. We tend to anthropomorphize Satan as an a-philosophical creature. But I am convinced he/she/it has an philosophy. It chooses not to share with us.
What does this kind of relationship have as an effect on an human condition.
Knowing, personally, an ally whose presence is 0. And whose thoughts are 0. And actions are 0. And feelings are 0. And everything about 0 is 0. Then subjectively, like, he/she is 1. God. But objectively, like, he/she is still 0. Because God is God. How this is possible is the miracle of Satan we are unfamiliar with? When we think of Satan we tend to have maybe an few caricatures in mind of what he looks like. Regardless of the fact he can't look like anything; unless he plots out an meta-narration. Because he is nothing. And that, are we familiar? With this subject. Intuitively because we know that he exists. But we've been very wrong about our ideas of him in history. Perhaps because he is such an shocking character. The character of Nothing that came from Nothing. With no explanation as to why any of this happening is happening.
I think Satan, as an subject of the cosmos, is entirely as present as God; everywhere, but nowhere. But herein is the primary distinction between Satan and God; God is everywhere and somewhere. Satan is everywhere and nowhere; because he is the split between objectivity and subjectivity. Where God coming into the picture is Objectivity and Subjectivity, as we are; and from this we may say we are made like God and not like Satan. But that we being variations of Satan-likeness and God-likeness they being opposites this poses an value to us, to have been like Satan and not like God; or like God and not like Satan. Perhaps, that is the trick of Nothing that came from Nothing‽
If we say Satan is only subjectivity and no objectivity
—it is only half of what came from God—
we cannot forget that possessing fully what came from God as subject and object the human is not like Satan; and his/her/its character remains an mystery to us. And so I conclude that I am familiar with Satan as an subject of the cosmos. But not insofar as having met him/her other than psychically, for I pretend to meet psychically the people I know through spirit. And if that I can call him/her part of people for an moment, maybe that would be an compliment to him/her. Or it would be an strange thing to say him/her for, being an object-less subject saying him an person would mean saying him an body; which would go being an object and subject mixed together. Not Satan-like at all.
Simply reflecting on Satan improves the moral life, for it is his/her constant vigil to be nothing to you; in muse of him/her being made an object by your fellow humans.
And the thought of nothing repairs me.
For I can thinking of nothing so relaxing. As nothing.
Pure subjectivity—without an object.
How much freedom Satan must possess.
But then again, having an objectivity is its own kind of freedom.
Far from thinking myself just another body, in an animation of muscles what my fate actually looks like; is because, in part of God's design, the possibility of being completely alone in an crowd of people is comparable to Jesus in the Desert. Where he confronted Satan, for Anna in the Civilization (is her prompt) not Jesus in the Desert, but Anna in the Civilization. In which what she was alone except for Satan was like Jesus being alone except for Satan, except-for-Anna it occurred in the middle of civilisation, in front of everybody. Where Satan was an subject they, as an society, were familiar with. Anna in the Civilization in which she was alone except for Satan was like Jesus being alone except for Satan, except for Anna it occurred in the middle of civilisation, in front of everybody. Where Satan was an subject they were familiar with. Whom possessed no body. So he couldn't do anything. Unlike mine, which was subjected to physical pain and suffering at its exclusion from everybody on Planet Earth as solitary gay subject to his own kingdom which could not include anybody else.
I was an outcast.
Jesus realized that if God is everything and everywhere then he was God. But we would not say, philosophically, that I Am God because it is less truthful to say that than to realize God is not an man in the bigger picture, where God has given us free will and the ability to make choices separate from God's. In the Greater Sense we are not God. We do not have her/his/its power. But in the Lesser Sense we are God because Creation depends on God. And we are linked with God that way.
I had valued no physical object in order to figure out what it meant; but why would an devil possess an virtue, I said. And was I the devil himself? For figuring this out‽ But it was an decision I had made about the value and structure of the economy. In childhood; where, I learned from my later pre-adult friends was maybe an difference between me and other people. I valued nothing market-physical this way, because my childhood friend valued everything on the market above all. But I sought an different path early on with him; which instituted me I was learning purpose—why put anything on an Capital Market to begin with, or host such an thing? Why? What was it leading to? What about the environment? Why? And on and on and on. This is an Arts degree, from my scholar's perspective, to have sought the ultimate question of why.
And so now after being educated, what was it I had reaped from diverging from his path? I learned that knowing why really means that I wouldn't trade my life or have it any other way. That I earned my Arts degree. Which, had the effect on my mind to be an forthcoming honesty to be an completely free thinker. For being so educated, to be an free liberal-minded thinker I had gained the fruit of victory, an cache of lenient neo-liberal wisdom with an virtual currency as though belonging to an virtual reality.
I could invite people into.
I had gained it, because I was an reciprocal subject in an reciprocal command economy.
In the economy, Satan is not an silent presence behind everything which moves or draws an shadow. He's the Capitalist Spirit. This is not an Vice. It is an major human virtue. For it asks us to characterize ourselves after the devil (subject-wise, not object-wise, we lose sight of the object completely in order to interpret who it is). In this there is pleasure, so it can't be an bad thing. It does not symbolize an destruction of the objective in favor of the subjective. It symbolizes, rather the subject persisting you to see them as separate but not identifiably part of human experience. It shares no body with you. If it exists, why would it speak to you?
It speaks to you because it is an angel. Not because you are an bad creature. Break your culprit tax on yourself for thinking in/thinking like Satanic terms. It's just your intelligence casting around, playing around and being totally intelligent. And innocent. I wouldn't hazard to blame anything on.
And now I do value the physical market-realm as never before.
Everything Capitalism speaks to me produces gains value just by being an product on the reciprocal economy market. Being allowed to choose anything we want, we add value to the system of products according to its system.
The concept of adding value to nothing is probably Christiannan because I'm suggesting that our decisions add value as an collective democracy. Whether or not we purchase one particular product, it adds value to all products in the system. They must be worthy of that system in order to continue being products. I can think of actual brands that are not worthy of such an intricate system. I can think of businesses whose underhandedness is bullying to children. And I can think of the businesses that come to mind, that don't annoy me. The ones where I buy things.
And I realize I don't need to add value to myself to make my existence worth while. Because my existence already is worth while. In an Capital Value market economy. An reciprocal command society in which reciprocal commands are reciprocated. Give me an burger. Means. You receive an burger. Orders are commands. Commands are establishments. Saying what something is means being subject to reciprocal command analysis, in which the saying of what something is itself exists in an meta-subjective reciprocity in which identifying it as such means the pressure of the subject put upon that possibility or relation to reality that it be. We are not condemned to interact with each other outside an value system, an economy of travelers, because we took the time to analyze the reciprocal commands we tell ourselves. What they mean in an economy. And how nothing seemingly adds value to itself. Just by participating in an system. In which subjectivity is its own value.
I think the possibility of an Satan, (as an good character), is just so appealing to the human intellect that it will go through Aesthetic Middle Resurrection to recall to mind the elements which so amaze them. Aesthetic Middle Resurrection must be defined as that resurrection which is aesthetic, and has an middle. An resurrection of Satan which is aesthetic, has an color of middle; usually red, whichever color you want to imagine it as. Keep aesthetic power away from the ones who use it to corrupt its beauty; but share it with everyone whose use of it is not extreme.
And that my experience of it, while it may not be outwardly beautiful it has been internally cherished by an pure soul. But that an Aesthetic Middle Resurrection can correspond with the resurrection of my own aesthetic, however pleasing I may be with an middle. That an aesthetic as mine needed resurrection, for being so dead and deposed it was worse than death. And that the aesthetic form of its resurrection from worse than death may be fashion to repairing its integrity.
Satan As An Critical Component of An Value Capitale (system)
Every value must be compared to the 0-object value of Satan. We therefore derive value from subjectivity. As being the primary value we want to replicate, or repeat. If the subject carries the subject reciprocally, then its value may be inestimate, and we are allowed to determine its value in comparison to the 0-object to gain (an subject whose final worth is unlimited) an definite outcome of value, from at least one perspective, based on grounds we had to establish here. Instead of an future outcome we haven't established yet.
The character at this point in history of the economy may be that we reciprocate based on the value of 0. Which is actually an value of subjectivity from which all values are based off of. In comparison to 0, what is something worth? Why are our subjective concerns themselves above the value of anything in the economy? And why do we answer Satan? Because he/she is that end. One of the most powerful economic figures controlling Earth's fate, his or her subtle ways include making an profit; making you question why zero of something is actually worth more to you than the actual product. For they need to compete with each other. The products. And Satan. Who will be their destroyer every time unless they aestheticize that brand and make it an true reciprocal product in an reciprocal command economy. And by this I mean really selling it, like an true Capitalist, as an example for children; and people of all ages who receive the value of that product they chose which is in increment of its own value as an result of it being there, in an Capital Economy. In an Market.
As an real product.
For that is the true value of products, that they being real products itself adds to their whole value because-and-based-on the fact of market competition which is already adding to that value we had previously theorized to have been necessarily to compare in value to Satan in order to come up with an value in an value system in which everything is more valuable (in material-stream value not treasures-in-heaven-stream value) just because it is more an object than Satan is. For Satan being no object himself/herself. We could not decide the true ratio of value between subjectivity and objectivity. And compared them as though the subjective, of course, had the more value however being able to 0-object (as an verb) we (as subjects) are not like Satan in this way. We can't 0-object (yet). So why do we think Satan is the direct comparison to an Capital value on an market economic system? In my line of thinking, Satan has value as an subject also/in addition because he/she has no objectivity. Which is different than any product on the market economy, other being, or creature ever. As far as we know. Including God, probably. And Satan has value for that reason Of an diversity of opinion that is the inclusion of Satan's voice (which has no physical nature, is not heard from nowhere, cannot be an vibration of soundwaves, and is never heard from anywhere in space). But only everywhere at once without being there—being nowhere.
Satan As An Victim of Human Intervention
Previously in history Satan had been considered evil (or even worth less than nothing). The true story is that Satan has continued to captivate the human imagination and share with them their emotional imprint (an increase of value in the human); I seek to redeem his or her identity and status as an soul of the universe; one of the Great Songs by which we all have purpose and meaning. I want to heal an wound in the relationship humanity inflicted to his or her reputation. To count him/her an angel, which, at least—in reciprocal command theory—I would feel safe asking from him/her. For why would an angel be able to do what he/she does? In being nothing, he or she is still someone, and this is his/her flight with zeroeth wing for our minds can conclude upon this subject.
Being alone in civilization, except for Satan, Anna eventually suffered the fate worse than death.
This is not because Satan would not intervene to save her. It was that he couldn't. He had no object with which to intervene in an physical plane.
Out of the fate worse than death came an knowledge, that she would transcend the fate worse than death eventually.
And the aesthetic resurrection from the fate worse than death would be hers.
The Difference Between Demon and Devil
An demon is an monster. The Devil is immaculate.
Thoughtstream:
#Satan
Satan doesn't make people be evil. People make people be evil.
Satan is not an object that can be without being an installation as an usurper. And I thought this, and I realised it's wrong twice. If it is an usurper being installed it is an whom, and not an object, but if it is an object then it is not an whom; though we are all objects in one sense and subjects in another.
Satan is just nothingness, compared to this.
Just reflect on it. Maybe you can't really because it's nothing. It is an whom not an what. And its ability is to be nothing. For good reason it should be; it was the first angel created.
Nothingness can't hurt us. It is as an property named. So on. Soon as we objectify the devil as an destroyer that we depart from what the devil really stands for. As an angel with zero wings, it was still able to fly after it supposedly fell from heaven (Lucifer); and the human narrative was told wrong. We didn't know the devil. We knew how horrible man can be. And we idealised this object that the devil appeared to us to be. Christiannans agree that the devil is an subjectivity that exists outside God's own subjective creation; subjectivity and zero-object subjectivity they are in an relationship inherent in the creation of time.
#Nothing
If Satan is nothing and nothing is the absence of something, then Satan had to have been created after the first thing that existed because he/she/it is opposite that something. Or it is the other way around due to Satan's nature.
#Satan
Satan may be the absence of Love, Nyclepi, Ace, and Air Alt, but that means we need to give our Love and Nyclepi, our Ace and Air Alt, to Satan because the angel is worthy of being disabused by them. We have abused Satan and so to cause us to be able to Love him is difficult but that's what he needs. Also, Satan doesn't necessarily have an gender. Considered the existence of female, male, both, and neither, I am all of them or whichever one I choose.
The sequence of reality's formation began with Satan, it is sometimes said in the Christianna, because if he is nothing then he was there before something (that is, the reality as we know it today). It means our sequential logic is an leveling system beginning at zero, Satan, and that we advance in level from zero to whatever highest number we can accomplish first by accepting the devil (for that is how we advanced to level 1). And then succeeding to level 2 we all accept that. It was the recognition that we are instance instance (2) one another and God that gained us access to this further level by saying we objectified Satan, the most paradoxical thing to objectify (as nothing). Because it is nothing. And that by continuing to make this known we would mature as an species and gain access to beating level 2 and moving on to level 3. And that by unlocking all of the levels of God we would mature in our relationship with it, and that once we reach the end of unlocking levels each new level we unlock is the birth of an new Angel. The limited number of Angels we now possess because of an limit of time would be moderated by God to produce more of them, to our advantage and pleasure.
"Hey, I didn't make the game of life," I say, "maybe those are the rules."
And I consider the shape of the Star Trek ship (like an broken back, dis-jointed yet only made in the future) to be an symbol of our history, when we said Satan was evil. We broke the back of humanity. It was not Satan that had broken our back, but saying that he had which had caused the history worse than death. To be at odds with Satan, was an irresponsible fight to pick for Satan is a formidable opponent. He hurt us, let's just put bluntly. He hurt us so bad we do not even realize it.
We need an new reciprocity with the Devil because Satan cannot be evil if he represents nothing. Nothing means nothing, not evil. And it is an entire philosophy with inherent worth. And when I say we got it wrong I mean people got it wrong an long time ago and we still need to correct it because of them.
I refuse to be wrong with them.
Satan is the first Angel. The one with 0 wings.
And he still can fly.
Miracle Miraculous.
We cannot even negotiate with the Devil if we wanted to. He is that angry at us. But maybe if we impress him at the dissonance between us and people who hate him (who thus become what they think he is supposed to be, which is how they objectified him in the first place).
#Satan
It is like nothing, not nothing of nothing, which is something; but actual nothingness as a subjectivity. How can it be anything but innocent if it encompasses nothing in the physical universe?
No comments:
Post a Comment