LHP and RHP

[1137]

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

It's biased based on your subjective definitions...

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

Really? So a Christian might see a Satanist as negative but Satanism is just fine?

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

I'm pretty sure it was $80 last time I checked. Must have changed it, awesome you can now join for free.

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.

LaVey didn't tell you how you need to embrace your animal side, need to accept this or that, etc? That's news to me.

Where do Christians use torture devices and advocate human sacrifice?

A brief study of history would allow you to know the cross was a Roman torture device used to slowly kill people through crucifixion. Also, probably one trip to church would inform you the religion is based around sacrifice.

 

[1137]

I, personally, find it worrysome that a self-labled LHPer is trying to make the symbolism seem darker than other symbolism and enforce objectivity onto religion. The LHP isn't about having the evilest symbolism or being objectively better. To me, it's about the individuality and almost nothing more. Couldn't care less if it is wrong for others or my symbolism doesn't disturb anyone. Their symbolism bothers me also, good for both sides.

 

[Orias]

It's biased based on your subjective definitions...

No its biased based on thats your argument.

The statement above doesn't make literary sense, if what your interpreting is subjective how can it be bias?

Really? So a Christian might see a Satanist as negative but Satanism is just fine?

No, what you described are both concepts.

LaVey didn't tell you how you need to embrace your animal side, need to accept this or that, etc? That's news to me.

What does this statement have to do with the part you quoted?

A brief study of history would allow you to know the cross was a Roman torture device used to slowly kill people through crucifixion. Also, probably one trip to church would inform you the religion is based around sacrifice.

I'll ask again, where do Christians advocate the use of torture devices and human sacrifices?

 

[1137]

No its biased based on thats your argument.

I'm a little confused here. I was saying that however we subjectively define these terms they are bias. We naturally lean RHP if we are Christian, so we see the LHP in a certain, bias light straight from the start. Why do you see subjectivity and bias as mutually exclusive?

No, what you described are both concepts.

A Satanist is a partaker in Satanism.

What does this statement have to do with the part you quoted?

What you are saying is LHP, like LaVey, is the same as what you were speaking down on RHP about. They tell you what to do and how to do it. Perhaps you skipped the book of Belial and Leviathan in the Satanic Bible?

I'll ask again, where do Christians advocate the use of torture devices and human sacrifices?

Never said they did, so why would I have an answer to this? They use the symbol of the cross and stories of human sacrifice and blood ritual as the basis of their religion. I don't think they advocate torture and murder.

 

[Orias]

I, personally, find it worrysome that a self-labled LHPer is trying to make the symbolism seem darker than other symbolism and enforce objectivity onto religion.

Then why are you doing it?

The LHP isn't about having the evilest symbolism or being objectively better.

Who's trying to make it that?

To me, it's about the individuality and almost nothing more. Couldn't care less if it is wrong for others or my symbolism doesn't disturb anyone. Their symbolism bothers me also, good for both sides.

Whatever this is supposed to mean

 

[1137]

Don't even start this again. If all I'm going to get is the "I am rubber you are glue" crap I'm finished here. You know very well what I was referring to, are you going to address it or just turn it around and say I am saying things I specifically said the opposite of? If you could pull up where I ever said the LHP is about being more evil and objectively true in this thread, you would have. No, you are specifically arguing against how Christian symbolism can be seen as dark so that we have objectively light and dark symbolism.

 

[Orias]

I'm a little confused here. I was saying that however we subjectively define these terms they are bias. We naturally lean RHP if we are Christian, so we see the LHP in a certain, bias light straight from the start.

I agree with this, but it wasn't the original goal post.

Why do you see subjectivity and bias as mutually exclusive?

Because its subjective, excluding mutual establishment. Besides that subjective is objectively characteristic.

A Satanist is a partaker in Satanism.

They are both concepts.

What you are saying is LHP, like LaVey, is the same as what you were speaking down on RHP about. They tell you what to do and how to do it. Perhaps you skipped the book of Belial and Leviathan in the Satanic Bible?

Actually no, LaVey doesn't tell anyone how to do anything and nor does Satanism, Christianity demand that you repent.

Never said they did, so why would I have an answer to this? They use the symbol of the cross and stories of human sacrifice and blood ritual as the basis of their religion. I don't think they advocate torture and murder.

You did actually, the first time I asked you the question.

And how convenient you change advocation of human sacrifice to murder. Now its something they willingly give, which wasn't the original goal post.

 

[Orias]

Don't even start this again. If all I'm going to get is the "I am rubber you are glue" crap I'm finished here. You know very well what I was referring to, are you going to address it or just turn it around and say I am saying things I specifically said the opposite of? If you could pull up where I ever said the LHP is about being more evil and objectively true in this thread, you would have. No, you are specifically arguing against how Christian symbolism can be seen as dark so that we have objectively light and dark symbolism.

I'm not sure what you're referring too, or even what the point of you saying that Satanism and Setianism is apart of the RHP.

I'm not specifically arguing against anything besides what you propose as being evident to your position.

 

[1137]

They are both concepts.

Apart from trying to seem deeper than one is, I disagree. Satanism is a concept the Satanist follows. Individually and subjectively defined concept that is individually and subjectively follwed but still.

Actually no, LaVey doesn't tell anyone how to do anything and nor does Satanism, Christianity demand that you repent.

Strange, your copy must have had ripped out pages where ritual needs and how to do them were laid out. Buy a new copy and lets talk.

You did actually, the first time I asked you the question.

And how convenient you change advocation of human sacrifice to murder. Now its something they willingly give, which wasn't the original goal post.

Can you quote where I said it? I sure don't remember saying it. And human sacrifice is murder, so what does it matter if I changed the word?

 

[1137]

I'm not sure what you're referring too, or even what the point of you saying that Satanism and Setianism is apart of the RHP.

The point is to try and help you realize it's subjective. What are the LHP and RHP? Whatever you define them as.

 

[Orias]

Apart from trying to seem deeper than one is, I disagree. Satanism is a concept the Satanist follows. Individually and subjectively defined concept that is individually and subjectively follwed but still.

They are both concepts, we could throw any number depths under the bus to reach a consensus but the end result is that they are both concepts.

Strange, your copy must have had ripped out pages where ritual needs and how to do them were laid out. Buy a new copy and lets talk.

Where in the book does he say you have to do them?

Can you quote where I said it? I sure don't remember saying it. And human sacrifice is murder, so what does it matter if I changed the word?

I asked the question, you answered certainly. Thats good enough for me.

The point is to try and help you realize it's subjective. What are the LHP and RHP? Whatever you define them as.

Thats redundant.

 

[1137]

They are both concepts, we could throw any number depths under the bus to reach a consensus but the end result is that they are both concepts.

Perhaps you could PM about this Orias? I still disagree but feel we would be better off discussing it separate of this thread. I know how our debates go

Where in the book does he say you have to do them?

Perhaps he does not tell you that you must do them. However, he definitely tells you how to do them and that they should be done. He also sets up rules, statements, all sorts of dogma.

I asked the question, you answered certainly. Thats good enough for me.

Are you talking about where I said "But wait, those Christian fellows I mentioned use torture devices, dying men, human sacrifice..."? Perhaps you misread. They do not use torture devices to torture them, they use them as a symbol of their religion. They do not perform human sacrifices, it is the basis of their beliefs. Perhaps we need a thread on how confusing language is haha.

 

[Orias]

Perhaps you could PM about this Orias? I still disagree but feel we would be better off discussing it separate of this thread. I know how our debates go

I'm not sure what the disagreement is about, they are both concepts as they both involve conceptual steps. Same goes with Christianity and Christians, the processes involved in determining what is what is conceptual.

Perhaps he does not tell you that you must do them. However, he definitely tells you how to do them and that they should be done. He also sets up rules, statements, all sorts of dogma.

So what?

He's not telling you its necessary for your saving.

Are you talking about where I said "But wait, those Christian fellows I mentioned use torture devices, dying men, human sacrifice..."? Perhaps you misread. They do not use torture devices to torture them, they use them as a symbol of their religion. They do not perform human sacrifices, it is the basis of their beliefs. Perhaps we need a thread on how confusing language is haha.

Maybe

 

[1137]

I'm not sure what the disagreement is about, they are both concepts as they both involve conceptual steps. Same goes with Christianity and Christians, the processes involved in determining what is what is conceptual.

Hmm, perhaps I see your point. But a Christian follws the concept of Christianity. While "Christian" may be a concept, a Christian partakes in Christian concepts.

 

[Orias]

I'm still somewhat disappointed in the response generation from this thread. I'm satisfied that I could help some friends understand my perspective a bit more, sometimes debate can help with that

I'd still appreciate the other sides input though

 

[Cassiopia]

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.

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

True

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,

The RHP may be more community based but the LHP does not have to lack a sense of community or minimize the importance of community. (I'm not saying that you implied that but I am just giving another perspective which you didn't). My personality type is that which you suggest fits best with the RHP and yet I worship Satan and am partly guided by LaVey's description of Satanic values.
My personal values are very communal because I believe a healthy and happy community makes life easier and more pleasurable for myself.

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.

I tend to agree with this. We are each individuals. For me that is a key element of Satanism. There would be something wrong with the concept of Satanism if we all fit neatly into the same categories.

I share Orias's disappointment that few RHPers have so far participated in this thread. I think Satanism and the Left Hand Path as a whole tend to be misunderstood. However, I think many of those who we would think of as RHP maybe unaware of the way we tend to use those labels, since they don't tend to use them much themselves.

 

[Informare]

I'm just going to copy/paste my opinions from the other thread. Though I think that certain backgrounds and personality types lend themselves to one school of though or another, I don't think that is what qualifies them as such. I think most are making the issue far to complicated regarding what defines each side of the spectrum.

The LHP/RHP is not an all-encompassing dichotomy. It very specifically deals with the treatment of the psyche, and what one considers as the ultimate goal for that psyche/ego/soul/etc. The distinction is quite old (much older than any usage by LaVey), with roots in Hindu terminology.

I think the key difference is what each hopes to gain. In RHP models, the practitioner seeks to erase his/her own will in deferrance to the will of God/Allah/Nirvana/Nature/etc. In return, that is also what God/Allah/Nirvana/etc wants for the worshipper. It essentially seeks submission.

In LHP models, the practitioner seeks to increase his/her own will, and does whatever it takes to further this goal. This includes utilizing and honoring Satan/Set/etc because he/she/it is the supreme teacher and resource for this goal.

It would be similar if I, as a guitar player, took guitar lessons from Steve Vai (look him up). I would honor him reverently because he has done and is doing something I greatly strive for. But I also value him because of what he can teach me in hopes that I can attain that level as well. I don't seek to just let Steve Vai play my guitar for me, but rather seeks his guidance respectfully so I can play guitar to the best of my abilities.

That analogy doesn't quite work perfectly, since Steve Vai didn't invent the guitar, but it's close.

I view the distinction between RHP and LHP in terms of what the goal of the practitioner's soul is. In RHP faiths, the practitioner seeks to have his/her soul dissolve into a higher collective, whether that be nothingness, God (as in the judeo-christian school of thought), nature, the collective souls of the world, etc. In LHP, the practitioner to have his/her soul withdraw from any collective and act separately as it's own supreme arbiter.

 

[NIX]

the one seeks (acts) to deconstruct and reconstruct the psyche (continually and repeatedly)
the other seeks (or aims) to control and hold the psyche in (a 'given') place (long term, for a lifetime)

 

[Quintessence]

I think as this thread probably attests given the people who have responded to it, those who don't self-identify as LHP don't tend to even use the distinction of "LHP vs RHP." I sure don't. I'll respect its usage and meaning according to the LHP folks who want to use it as a religious/spiritual/philosophical designation for themselves. On the whole, I don't find the distinction useful; therefore I don't use it. I'm not going to tell LHP people what they should be defined as. It's not my place. It's their label; they get to define it. I haven't dealt with self-affiliated LHP folks nearly enough to want to shove a definition in your faces, much less read any academic or scholarly treatises studying the demographic.

 

[NIX]

It can be an almost illusive distinction, but I think I'll keep trying just for fun.

-the one views the world as intrinsically amoral, and as such rather enjoys 'playing with' taboos on a personal level, as sort of a study of the psyche (not taking the taboos so seriously in and of themselves).
-the other views the world through an imperative and absolute moral lense, with a much greater propensity to avoid all personal contact with what has been deemed (or what they believe to be)'taboo', or 'unholy',
(as if exploring the taboo on a personal level puts them dangerously at odds with morality, or the hand of morality, itself)