|
|
|
|
|
kalisubmits
|
|
|
|
hgielyak
|
|
|
|
jukejointjezabel
|
|
|
Those of you who have me saved, for reasons unfathomable to human comprehension, should probably know that I've set up a new profile. No great drama. I was bored.
RIP kidwithknife. Long live Apocalypso!
I'll probably paste the deity entries over there at some point. Haven't decided whether to keep using this profile for the forums or not. But, in essence, you should follow me over there. Unless you've been looking for a convenient excuse to unsave me in which case run for the hills while you can!
When we're all there I shall lead us to war. Against Heaven. ITSELF!
|
|
|
|
|
WE HAS RECENT JOURNALS FEATURE!
Sadly I don't have anything worth saying today. Sorry to anybody reading this.
|
|
|
|
|
It's funny because it's true. (I stole this off Libcom. But they won't mind. Because they're anarchists and don't believe in copyright).
A guide on talking like a Situationist.
1. Learn French. No self-respecting situationist would dream of not knowing it.
2. Always use the most obscure language possible. Get lots of big scholarly words from a dictionary and use them often.
Poor: "Things are bad."
Better: "The formative mechanism of culture amounts to a reification of
human activities which fixates the living and models the transmission
of experience from one generation to another on the transmission of
commodities; a reification which strives to ensure the past's
domination over the future."
3. In particular, the words
"boredom" (as in "there's nothing they won't do to raise the standard
of boredom"), "poverty" (of the university, of art), and "pleasure" are
important tools in the young situationist's kit, and use of them will
greatly enhance your standing in the situationist community.
4. Make frequent reference
to seventy year-old art movements like Dada and Surrealism. Work the
subject into your conversations as often as possible, however
irrelevant.
5. Vehemently attack "The
University" and "Art" whenever possible (phrases like "the scrap-heap
of Art" or "the stench of Art" are particularly effective). Attend as
prestigious a school as possible and make sure your circle of friends
contains no less than 85% artists.
6. Cultivate a conceit and
self-importance bordering on megalomania. Take credit for spontaneous
uprisings in far-flung corners of the world, sneer at those who oppose
or disagree with you.
7. Denounce and exclude
people often. Keep your group very small and exclusive — but take it
for granted that every man, woman, and child in the Western Hemisphere
is intimately familiar with your work, even if no more than ten people
actually are.
8. Detournement: Cut a comic
strip out of the paper (serious strips like 'Terry and the Pirates' and
'Mary Worth' are preferred), and change the dialogue. Use lots of
situationist language. What fun!
9. Use Marxian reverse-talk.
This is a sure-fire way of alerting people to the fact that you are a
situationist or are eager to become one: "the irrationality of the
spectacle spectacularises rationality," "separate production as
production of the separate."
10. Invoke "the
proletariat," factories, and other blue-collar imagery as often as
possible, but do not under any circumstances associate with or work
with real proletarians. (Some acceptable situationist jobs are:
student, professor, artist.)
11. By all means avoid such
repugnant proletarian accoutrements as: novelty baseball hats, rock
group T-shirts, 'Garfield' or 'Snoopy' posters (no matter how
"political"), and vulgar American cigarettes like 'Kent' or 'Tareyton'.
|
|
|
|
|
Deity and Emotion
While this is, in my view, often overstated, there is a school of dominance technique that suggests that doms shouldn't show or possibly have mortal emotions, foibles or weaknesses. Those that simply try not to show it don't concern me. (Lo, what fools these mortals be). But the thankfully tiny minority who manage this completely fall into a very different dynamic. That of the fae.
The fae are beautiful, intriguing, alluring, magical. And utterly fucking sociopathic. Whereas the deity may commit immoral acts, that is not possibly for the fae. Because morality is a concept they simply cannot grasp. All that matters to the fae is amusement. They may act protective or noble. For as long as to do so interests them. But they can no more feel genuine emotion than a swarm of hornets. If you ever run into someone who genuinely fits into the fae archetype all I can suggest is you walk (don't run, that runs the risk of amusing them) away as quickly as possible. Without looking back. You won't of course. Neither would I. But it will be the most sensible option to take.
The deity dynamic takes a very different approach to this issue. The Greco-Roman archetypical deity isn't an emotionaless robot. The reverse is true. I've mentioned before how the type of deities in question are mortals writ large. The same applies to their emotions. Deities hate, love, lust, rage in the extreme. Intensity is their natural state of being.
Interestingly, the same applies to the mortals they favour. Even those not part divine themselves are traditionally more then human before they get divine attention. It seems to be one of the things that attracts that attention in the first place. Despite misconception, those that the gods favour do not die young. They merely live more extreme lives in the first place.
On the other hand, one thing deities aren't good at is perspective. Think back on your legends It is rare to find a deity with a good understanding of shades of grey. Deities see the world in black and white. And, being deities, that is how it is when they're around.
|
|
|
|
|
The Deity Dynamic
In this post I'm going to look in more detail at what the Deity
Dynamic actually entails in a BDSM community. Both because I enjoy
doing so, but also because I'm fully aware this particular concept is
somewhat unusual (I wouldn't say necessarily unique) within BDSM. If
you look at the often used continuum of
slave-submissive-bottom-top-dominant-master it exists at right angles
to that. With the ronin, the lone wolves, the outlaws and the insane.
Company I'm pleased to keep. But, equally, it isn't the same as some
of the other "alternative" dynamics outside that spectrum-
daddy/daughter, pet/owner etc. It exists in a dynamic of its own,
although with some overlaps with other dynamics.
It's worth noting that, for me, I am not looking at the Abrahamic
concept of the omnipotent deity when I talk about this dynamic.
Instead, I'm talking about something far closer to the Greco-Roman
concept. In that mythos, deities are "humans writ large". Not only
are they not all powerful, but they exist within a framework of human
understanding, particularly when you compare that to the transcendent
nature of the Abrahamic model. Including human emotions (both good and
bad) and even human frailties.
So, within that dynamic, an obvious question would be what the specific
role of the submissive is. You could say "worshipper", but I don't
think that tells the whole story. And is not necessarily specific to
this dynamic. On the other hand, while I've previously used the
Maenads analogy, that's too specific for this piece- it's looking a
particular mythology. Whereas, here, I'm looking for something
slightly more general.
While the term isn't pithy, I think the nearest I can think of to
explain the concept is "favoured of a deity". In the models this
dynamic is based on, that's a very common concept. It's a mortal, but
one who's of special interest or concern to a deity. (Or possibly
deities, though I'm not getting into that can of worms this time).
That isn't necessarily easy. It depends on the deity and their general
personality. Relatively, a mortal interest of Jupiter has it
reasonably easy. Certainly when compared to being a favoured one of
Aphrodite. And pity the poor soul who becomes a "special project" of
Loki. And the dynamic in question is very similar to those examples.
It has some common factors, but the specifics vary greatly depending on
the relationship.
It's interesting to note that, when you compare it to some other
dynamics within BDSM relationships, this is not a dynamic of
micromanagement. Even those deities most prone to heavy involvement in
every part of their chosen's lives are best described as pursuing a
policy of "heavy interference" (Hera is a frankly terrifying example of
that type). But it's absolutely not about completely reshaping the
submissive in question- within the deity dynamic that individuality is
not only prized, but what leads to the favoured status in the first
place. Instead, it's best seen as steering the favoured rather then
directing them. Admittedly you may be talking about being steered down
a fast-flowing river, with jagged rocks. But one thing the deity
dynamic isn't is entirely "safe".
That's not to say that there isn't a strong element of protectiveness
in the way I see this dynamic. Even among the 'darker' deities, there
is a pretty strong element where only they are allowed to heavily fuck
about with theirs. And, furthermore, even that almost certainly has a
definite purpose. Well, ok, apart from old school Eris, where the
strife is quite likely to be the purpose. (Yeah, on reflection, anyone
using a specifically Erisian dynamic for a BDSM relationship is likely
to be absolutely terrifying to get involved with. Interesting. But
terrifying). But apart from that exception, what you're talking about
with the deity dynamic is both taking someone into your world but also
making sure that's a good place for them to be.
And, obviously, this dynamic may involve a certain amount of
punishment. (I'm assuming nobody's stupid enough to misunderstand the
difference between punishment as a fun part of a BDSM dynamic and just
being an utter cock, yeah? Cool). But, interestingly for me, it
doesn't necessarily always look at disobedience. Certainly,
disobedience may lead to a spanking. But, aside from the most parental
versions of this dynamic, it's equally possible that the reason may be
DAMMIT I AM A DEITY AND IF I WANT TO SPANK MY FAVOURED ONE BECAUSE SHE
IS HOT THEN I WILL DO, GOT IT? SERIOUSLY, I COULD DO THUNDERBOLTS IF I
WANTED TO, I JUST DON'T (Being a deity is a damn good excuse for
calling the fulfilment of your desires "divine privilege").
So that's my random thoughts on this for today. Similar, but different
to other dynamics, the deity dynamic essentially has at its heart
this. Deities like special mortals. And being both a deity and a
favoured one is fun and exciting.
|
|
|
|
|
Divinity and All That
(Or how to achieve Godhood in three easy steps)
As mentioned previously, my aim on here is not so much to achieve masterdom etc. My goal is, in the simple possible terms, to become a living godform. Now, that may sound unrealistic to some. (Nasty cynics that they are). But, actually, the process itself is relatively straightforward for me. To qualify as a deity, albeit a small scale one, there are three essential factors that need to be met. When these factors are broken down, ascension is not only possible but entirely achievable.
BELIEF
Much of the theory for this is shameless nicked from Terry Pratchett in his book Small Gods. (Yes, fiction and pop culture are legitimate sources for this subject. That rant will have to wait for another day, however).
In essence, the argument is that divinity is achieved when you have worshippers, or even a single worshipper. Sure, one worshipper doesn't make you a big hard god like Zeus or Jesus or Ziggy Stardust. But it makes you a God, none the less.
If you think over the multitude of godforms over the centuries, this is the one common factor. They all had at least one person who was prepared to worship them as a god.
On the flipside, this also obviously leads me to conclude that divinity is sometimes a transient state of being, rather then being one of permanence. If you only have one worshipper, and you lose them for whatever reason, you are no longer a god.
All reasonably simple so far, I feel.
The other issue is immortality. That is harder to achieve. In fact, it's not a real goal of mine, becaue it's far too reliant on random circumstance. In essence, immortality depends on how long you're remembered. While there is one person alive who remembers your existence, you are conceptually alive, although not physically. Shakespeare is immortal. And being an immortal deity is reliant on how long you're remembered in that context.
As an observation, this also means a tiny minority of people in the world today are conceptually dead, although physically alive. That's a form of freedom I suspect, though not my thing.
REALITY BUSTING
The last factor was very much about what a deity "is". This is about what a deity "does".
And, at its heart, every deity changes the world. Sometimes on a global scale. Sometimes on a very local one.
I think there's a strong argument that purely personal change doesn't qualify. You need to alter the reality of at least one other person. And isn't that what BDSM relationships do?
Actually, it's what all of us do. Our personal realities are subjective and only exist in their entirity for us. And those realities intersect with the realities of others, changing those.
So, every single one of us can be considered to qualify for this factor. Which brings us nicely to my final factor:
Being Identified as a Deity
This is the meta-factor, as it contains both the other factors. The crucial missing link is identification. If you're prepared to identify yourself as a deity (which admittedly takes a certain kind of arrogance to do) and can find at least one other person who's prepared to do the same, at least some of the time, you've achieved godhood. Congratulations! Have a divine cookie!
Conclusion
So that's the piece as a whole. I'm rather pleased with it. I don't claim it as The truth. Merely My truth. Which is more then enough for me. It may not be for you, in which case I can only suggest you find your own truth to play with.
Nothing is true. Everything is permissible.
|
|
|
|
|
Introductions are fun!
Welcome gentle reader.
I should do something with this journal I feel. (Something more then plugs for the Wurzels, marvellous though they are).
So the next series of posts, for as long as I don't get bored, are going to be working along a theme.
At least due in part to some of the positive comments I've received about my previous Maenads piece (thank you for those), I'm going to develop on some of the themes touched there.
So readers of my journal can expect waxing lyrical in a whimsical manner about divinity and my plans to achieve it, random thoughts on relevant philosophical concepts and anything else that takes my fancy.
Obviously, this is all going to be frightfully egotistical and terribly disjointed. The way I see it, one of the advantages of deity is that it always ends up being some other poor sod who ends up having to collect your musings into some kind of order for use as "holy writ". Either for the use of future generations of scholars. Or, as is possibly more likely in my case, for use by the prosecution when one of my followers to be goes crazy and shoots up a school.
Feel free to contact me with comments, criticisms, requests for future topics, suggestions I should receive psychiatric help ASAP etc.
And just for the record, I don't have a "messiah complex". There's nothing in the slightest bit complicated about it.
|
|
|
|
|
(Recent conversation has reminded me that I really haven't written very much in my journal. So this is me doing so. I'm taking the daring step of writing something proper, without hiding behind the Ironictron 2000. And resisting the urge to end with a pithy one-liner).
One interesting question that I think comes up on here when you look at people's profiles is what specifically they're looking for in the BDSM dynamic. If you just take the various permutations of dominants as an example: Some are looking for a submissive girlfriend, others want a slave, one wants a pet, another wants a daughter. And to each their own. But I want none of those things.
I'm looking for maenads.
I'm looking for subs who want to lose themselves in the beautiful madness. I'm looking for those that want to be taken on a mad wild dance of ecstatic frenzy. Who want to dance with hurricanes and swing off stars.
I'm looking for maenads.
I want those who reject the safety of the mundane for the possibility of the utopian. Who want the moon on a stick. Who see glorious failure as more worthwhile then unfeeling success.
I'm looking for maenads.
I want those who want to have their reality shattered and rebuilt into something new. Who want to pour petrol on the world and dance round the flames. Who'd laugh in the face of armageddon itself.
But most of all, I want those who want to be a part of my planned ascension.
I'm looking for maenads.
|
|
|
|
|
Where be yon blackbird?
Don't message me if the Wurzels are a hard limit.
Seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| Age: 22 |
| Philippines |
|
|
|
| | |
