LHP and RHP

[Orias]

So I want to get the gist of this out.

How do followers of the RHP describe the RHP and LHP, and how do followers of the LHP describe the LHP and RHP.

There was a thread about this in the LHP DIR, but since it was only the LHP DIR the response was limited to LHP perception and not necessarily that of the RHP.

For the most part, this is not for me, but to those who are a little confused to the concrete definitions of the matter.

 

[Erebus]

Honestly the more I think about the two labels, the less useful I find them except as a shorthand for a particular set of goals. I'd roughly describe them like this:

RHP: Following a set path, submission to higher authority, upholding traditional values, orthodox.

LHP: Finding one's own path, veneration of the self, breaking taboos, heterodox.

I would argue that nobody is purely RHP or LHP and that instead we all simply lean more heavily one way than the other. Still, I doubt anybody fully embodies either path all the time. It wouldn't have been a good idea for me to break taboos during my graduation ceremony for example, no matter how silly I found it all

 

[Breathe]

I personally see them as two different ways to the same destination, although if asked to give a definition of the differences between them I would say I agree with Shyanekh's post above.

 

[Orias]

In my opinion you guys are both LHP, I'd like to generate a stronger response

 

[Breathe]

In my opinion you guys are both LHP, I'd like to generate a stronger response

Hee, thanks; I certainly don't object to being considered LHP.

 

[Orias]

I'm not sure if you guys saw how I defined the two, I attempted to apply the psychological personality types.

LHP generally posses more intuits while the RHP generally posses more sensors. Though of course every person has a little bit of both, though typically one is more dominate than the other.

 

[Breathe]

I saw it

 

[Cassiopia]

Honestly the more I think about the two labels, the less useful I find them except as a shorthand for a particular set of goals. I'd roughly describe them like this:

RHP: Following a set path, submission to higher authority, upholding traditional values, orthodox.

LHP: Finding one's own path, veneration of the self, breaking taboos, heterodox.

I would argue that nobody is purely RHP or LHP and that instead we all simply lean more heavily one way than the other. Still, I doubt anybody fully embodies either path all the time. It wouldn't have been a good idea for me to break taboos during my graduation ceremony for example, no matter how silly I found it all

I personally see them as two different ways to the same destination, although if asked to give a definition of the differences between them I would say I agree with Shyanekh's post above.

In my opinion you guys are both LHP, I'd like to generate a stronger response

Sadly I am not contributing much to Orias's desire to generate a stronger response because I am a Left Hander myself and I agree with what has been said above.

My perception however is that many who identify themselves as RHP, view the LHP very negatively and see it as a dangerous, corrupting influence, primarily associated with evil and selfishness.
Am I wrong?

 

[Breathe]

Am I wrong?

In my opinion? Not really; many do hold LHP in low esteem, unfortunately.

I'm fine with LHP myself, though I can understand why some LHPers would oppose the RHP (there are plenty of RHPers who follow blindly), and I can understand why some RHPers oppose LHPers (some LHPers can appear quite, for lack of a better word, 'angsty').

 

[Orias]

Very true.

I wonder what we could do to get some honest input here (from other people). If you have to bash either side in the process I'm ok with that, its how we learn.

 

[Octavia156]

RHP: Following a set path, submission to higher authority, upholding traditional values, orthodox.

LHP: Finding one's own path, veneration of the self, breaking taboos, heterodox.

Even though I do agree with your definitions, there are religions such as Thelema (which I follow) that could be definied by both your definitions

THELEMA involves: Following a set path, which IS your own path (Your Will); submission to a high authority (YOU) thus venerating the Self; upholding traditional values (Disciplined Will) which may inevitably involve breaking taboos; orthodox in the the belief there is One path, but Heterodox in that it could take infinte forms.


It comes down to perspective.
From a say Judeo-Christian POW we are LHP (because we are essentially Atheist and anti-dogma) from a Satanic POV we are RHP (because we are very disciplined and believe in the idea of higher purpose).
tough one. Even i don't really know what to call myself under these definitions

 

[1137]

I don't really know anymore. I would probably say

RHP: It is about community, about following specific beliefs, having obvious leaders as well as holy texts, a central Church or something. The way I view it, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are as RHP as LaVeyan Satanism and Setianism.

LHP: Obviously the opposite. I don't really consider dark symbolism or anything into the equation. I mean, the symbol of Catholicism is a man suffering and a torture device, and I would in no way say that religion is LHP. The LHP is individual, perhaps taking ideas from texts and groups but not constantly citing them or basing their beliefs on one text or group of texts. Community does not matter because LHP realizes and accepts what the Right perceives as negative. This includes that we are all alone in our minds.

 

[Anatta]

...The LHP is individual, perhaps taking ideas from texts and groups but not constantly citing them or basing their beliefs on one text or group of texts. Community does not matter because LHP realizes and accepts what the Right perceives as negative. This includes that we are all alone in our minds.

Cold & heat, hunger & thirst,
wind & sun, horseflies & snakes:
enduring all these, without exception,
wander alone like a rhinoceros.

Transcending the contortion of views,
the sure way attained,
the path gained,
"Unled by others, I have knowledge arisen,"
wander alone like a rhinoceros.

Shattering fetters,
like a fish in the water tearing a net,
like a fire not coming back to what's burnt,
wander alone
like a rhinoceros.

 

[Orias]

I think the more religious or spiritual groups that are thrown into the bundle is where the definitions become a bit sloppy, and albeit, false.

Satanism and Setianism for sure, are not apart of the RHP, even more specifically those who quote LaVey and Aquino (which does not infer one is LaVeyan nor Setian). This is because LaVey practically coined the term "LHP" (which can be found almost all of his writings ranging from the Devil's Notebook, the Satanic Bible, and Letters From the Devil). Also considering that Setianism, for the most part, was birthed from the CoS.

Now, LaVey and Aquino do not necessarily encompass the entirety of Satanism or Setianism, though they both played a large role in its development.

Which refers me back to my psychological standpoint, if RHP is definitely more community based the psychological personality type that would best fit it would be sensing, along with a strong flavor of extrovert and judging.

Whereas among the Satanic and Setian community, any unnecessary interaction is typically avoided, which contrasts to the Christian community (going to Church because it makes you a good person, following social mores like going to barbecues and etc etc.).

 

[Tonix]

In my personal opinion, the LHP is more experimentation and open to personal experience while RHP is the opposite. That's honestly what it boils down to: two different approaches, each with arguable validity

 

[Quagmire]

If you're a monkey you have four choices.

 

[1137]

It seems that wherever you stand you see the opposite as evil. Being left or right is neither positive or negative, I actually hate the labels. Nobody is purely left or right and everyone is an individual. The terms were outdated before LaVey even made them popular.

 

[Orias]

If you had read the material you would see the distinction. And no, opposite does not equate to evil, and nor does RHP or LHP equate to positive or negative.

No one here said anything about that, its just that two, RHP and LHP, are binary dichotomies. Generally speaking, LHP tends to be more oppositional.

 

[1137]

You mean if I had read the completely subjective and unavoidably bias interpretations of the definitions of labels I would see some objective distinction? I don't think so, and I don't think that matters. Many do see RHP and LHP as positive / negative. The RHP is as oppositional as thr Left, they think they are fighting a spiritual war with us!

I just previously proved my point. You said Temple of Set, with set leadership, gatherings, website, membership fees, holy texts for members only, etc is not RHP. Yet you would agree that Christianity is RHP with their set leadership, gatheringa, websites, fees, holy texts... Wouldn't you?

Well maybe it's the imagery. Well, we LHPers use skulls, pentagrams, dark Gods, all very "taboo". But wait, those Christian fellows I mentioned use torture devices, dying men, human sacrifice... Both seem dark. Although, the Pentagram is natural, death is unavoidable, and dark Gods are necessary and not truly "evil". On the other hand, the crucifix is a beautiful symbol representing humanity's salvation. So perhaps both seem bright?

 

[Orias]

You mean if I had read the completely subjective and unavoidably bias interpretations of the definitions of labels I would see some objective distinction?

How can something be completely subjective then continue to have bias, if in fact the definitions support the ultimate subjectivity of the opposer?

I don't think so, and I don't think that matters. Many do see RHP and LHP as positive / negative. The RHP is as oppositional as thr Left, they think they are fighting a spiritual war with us!

No, many people see the partaker as positive or negative, not the concept itself.

I could fit in with Christians easily, if I kept my mouth shut. But this isn't a preposition for your argument.

I just previously proved my point. You said Temple of Set, with set leadership, gatherings, website, membership fees, holy texts for members only, etc is not RHP. Yet you would agree that Christianity is RHP with their set leadership, gatheringa, websites, fees, holy texts... Wouldn't you?

Well the Temple of Set doesn't have membership fees.

I would agree that Christianity is RHP because they tell what it means to "be a good person" and "what you need to do to get your soul saved". These means are un-holisitc, whereas the LHP will do what he can to convince you, that you are wrong.

By sticking to his argument, while arguing in a way that is open to change.

Well maybe it's the imagery. Well, we LHPers use skulls, pentagrams, dark Gods, all very "taboo". But wait, those Christian fellows I mentioned use torture devices, dying men, human sacrifice... Both seem dark. Although, the Pentagram is natural, death is unavoidable, and dark Gods are necessary and not truly "evil". On the other hand, the crucifix is a beautiful symbol representing humanity's salvation. So perhaps both seem bright?

Where do Christians use torture devices and advocate human sacrifice?