The Social Network for the Occult Community

Semantics, a navigation of the ever twisting river of words; turned out with evolved understanding.

Languages depend upon actual meaning to reach that fine and wonderful stylistic way in which we conjure the things we desire.

From the mundane to spectral.

How do we negotiate understanding intention when ''words" are presented with an alternate nuance?

Things like "social justice", this combining of words; it changes both words to mean something entirely different - and different again to different people.

I come to understand "social justice" as meaning a type of mob rule. It's neither social, and it has nothing to do with justice. Redistribution of resources and privately held aggregate tokens of wealth - that's what I've come to understand.

Unfortunately not everyone see the combined words the same way.

How can people engage in fruitful conversation when they are polarized in understanding the language they speak?

How can a magick maker enchant to success if they don't have the same concept of what they express as the power source they seek out to bring forth that which they desire?

I see chaos in this - which isn't necessarily bad or good, depending on your personal filters and slant on things, it is confusing as heck though - for me.

The semantics of hyphenated words to create new mind paradigms is fascinating, even a tiche scary.

I think of the words joined, "constant change" - and once that was brokered to the world what a vortex we entered!

Do you see the effect of change in meaning for words in your Pagan day to day life?

Has it helped, hindered, or made no difference?

Views: 130

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Very interesting topic, Vegan.  In the German language, for example, there are a number of terms that consist of combined words, such as Schadenfreude and Zeitgeist, which have made their way into the English language.  I don't think there's as much room for ambiguity regarding the meaning of these words, however, as there exists in many of the English language's own word combinations.   But then, the German language tends to be more precise, in my opinion. (Before you ask... No, I do not speak German.  I just have a love of etymology.)


Do you see the effect of change in meaning for words in your Pagan day to day life?


I mostly see semantics problems in online discussion forums (and not necessarily just Pagan ones), where people will argue a point based on their definition of a particular term.   More often than not, such arguments devolve into: "That word means what I say it means! It's not my fault that you're not sufficiently evolved to understand what I'm talking about!"  lol


Has it helped, hindered, or made no difference?


Any obfuscation of language can only hinder an exchange of information. 

Thank you Nephele, I appreciate that.

I know a little German (very little) and I agree.

So much to the point, appearing almost harsh in persuasion.

I think it shapes how people outside the German cultural diaspora view them, intellectually.

They understand each other well, and their societies appear to benefit from that.


So much to the point, appearing almost harsh in persuasion.

Ha! That reminded me of Schmetterling! :)

The late actor Alan Young once, on a tv talk show, gave an example of the "harshness" of the German language in relation to other languages, by comparing the word "butterfly" in each language. Comedian Tim Allen, years later, did a stand up routine on the same theme:

Since I not only speak English , but in a root language

composed of what are now two languages , combined ,

with each symbol of the language having 77 possible

layers of meaning and application , and 44 base symbols

to that language , before combination , and taking into

account the nuances of inflection and vibrational frequency ,

thus creating different meaning...

And not only speaking in that language , yet thinking in it

relatively constantly , I have no problem with the hypertextual

implications of single or combined words , and find their usage

by other humans , a most interesting study...

Ritual , utilizing language , must take into account vibration ,

intent , informational imprinting , context , and harmonic , or

disharmonic interface with this physical world , and possible

interaction with otherworld beings and dimensions...

The process orientation , involved , I would call , in general ,

more fun than a barrel of monkeys playing music with Captain

Beefhart's band , with Abbot and Costello  opening the act

with "Who's On First ?"...

( but then , I did take 200 hits of LSD at one time , in the 1970's )...LOL !

I've read that 'window pane' let's you look into the Universe's soul - only for the brave though, cause sometimes the Universe looks back at you!

English is my first language, with the exception of growing up with Tyke my Yorksher tongue. What your your referring to is Idiom - a group of words established by usage as having a meaning not deducible from those of the individual words (e.g. over the moon, see the light ).

I was introduced to this word by American entertainment media in books, TV, and film, and somewhat defines English for me. It explains the difficulty of understanding English without context. Your 'social Justice' by itself means nothing without it. Your right about using exact terms though, such as when Molder in the X-files asked a Jinni for 'World Peace' and all the people in the world, as far as Molder was concerned seemed to disappear.

Spot on. I've still coin and notes from when I was last in jolly ole John Bull.

Barkeep, a pint for this good man!

I agree with much of what you say, Vegan.   English is a lot like Wicca in that there is not oversight committee or Pontiff to decide what word means what.  Some other languages have official governing bodies.  One result of that lack of control is uncontrolled appropriation and usage of words by political organizations, mostly by leftist political organizations.  Words like "Social Justice" no longer means social or justice.  "Progressive" means a particular Socialist political agenda rather than making progress.  "Gay" means homosexual rather than showing a merry, lively mood.  "Shamanism" now is often means taking drugs to have mental visions rather than ascending to a spirit world.  A list of examples could go on and on.

I am more of a traditionalist. I like words to mean what they mean.  I don't appreciate people who twist words around as a LIE rather than say what they mean.  "Social Justice" is about as bad as it gets though.

Thank you for your considered response Elder - you're kind to share your time.

The most tragic joining of words I believe I've ever heard is 'reeducation camp'.

It ain't camping, and you won't be getting an education.

"I am more of a traditionalist. I like words to mean what they mean."

A true "traditionalist" , Greybeard , would understand many ancient

languages , which by etymology , have evolved into modern languages

had many words , and word phrases with meanings that changed due

to inflection , and semantic field , polysemy , homophony , and many

modern day terms for what was commonly accepted as multiple levels

of meaning to one word , or phrase...

If you mean a modernist , then I would even call attention to the word

"dude" , which dependent on inflection , can convey multiple levels of

meaning , by itself , let alone combined with other words...

Language evolves , is not stagnant , and new words , and memes , are

continually injected into the mass populace , by media , yet some of that

is due to publishers of dictionaries , or even more interesting , colloquialisms

brought back into usage , and by being passed down within nuclear family , or

larger cultural paradigms , find a place in the larger population...

One modern classical example , of how one word may convey multiple levels of meaning :

Or when people who are for "social justice" throws bricks at people, set people on fire, punch people, kick people.  And I'm supposed to be for Social Justice?  And I should want Social Justice taught in college?  I shouldn't sign a petition to try to get rid of this type of Social Justice?  I'm just a mindless airhead for wanting to get rid of something that I find dangerous, divisive, and toxic for society? 

I am an ex-Milo supporter.  I used to be a fan of his until I learned his views on the LBGT community.  Before, I thought they were just jokes.  But when he was when a group of Bill Maher's other guess, I realize that they weren't just jokes.  So, I stopped supporting him.  However, his book Dangerous got cancelled and I don't support that.  I think book banning is WRONG.  Have you heard of a organization called Banned Books Week?  They have a great argument on why banning books is wrong.   And there's a great article on FIRE about the importance of free speech.

And yes, some people think teaching social justice in college as a required course is part of free speech. I view is as part of incitement to violence which isn't protected under free speech.  You could find a shit load of videos of even teachers and professors in Social Justice being part of AntiFa.   It's indoctrination and incitement.  It radicalizes students.  It's like if the KKK or The Nazi Movement had control of the schools.  And your kid comes out of it thinking that Nazism is the only way and starts shooting Jews.  I've seen so many videos on the type of effects that "Social Justice" has on people.  People like Ben Shapiro, Lauren Southern,  random people on videos who's had bricks thrown at them.  Social Justice is turning Trump supporters into martyrs.   The answer to everything is VIOLENCE. 

So, "Why do I talk to Trump supporters?"  Well, when I look at countless videos on who's committing the vast majority of violence.  and who's speaking OUT against violence.  It's the Republicans, Conservatives, that's speaking out against it.  While the left usually makes excuses for the antics of AntiFa.   Even though they're about to get somebody KILLED.  If you're in the side of violence and terror, then it is YOU who's on the wrong side of history.  Esp. when you look at the history of the rhetoric of the Democratic Party.   Where you could see the Democratic Party going from, "Black men are rapist.  Black men are a danger to society. Black men got nothing better to do but rape women and children."  To Now, "Men are rapist. Men are a danger to society.  Men got nothing better to do but rape women and children."  They've just gone from condemning black men to condemning all men or white men.  It's the same rhetoric.   And men are guilty of rape MERELY by being accused of rape.  Reminds me of the Salem Witch Trials where all the Christians were condemn to death as witches.  The Afflicted Children were taken at their word.  Now, a woman could scream rape, go to the media, but not to the police.  and nobody finds that suspicious.  OR when she changes her story.  or retracts her story.  OR when the police finds no DNA evidence to support the claim.  OR when the man has a solid alibi that checks out.  It's the Salem Witch Trials all over again.  Mass Hysteria and the accusation is enough to make you guilty.   I have to agree with Thomas Paine on this one.  If you don't have any evidence, then it's my choice on whether I believe you or not.  And I'm unlikely to believe you unless you're my best friend.  I'll believe any evidence you have, esp. if you have good evidence.   Other people may want to condemn an innocent "witch" (man) to death, but leave me out of it. 

And yes, there are bad people in the right, too.  But I haven't seen many committing violence.  I could name one.  Dylan Roof, but body count matters.  You could see a video by Top Hats And Champagne against Riley Dennis.  Where Riley Dennis went through a list of Far Right extremism and the total body count was 53 deaths.  Then Muslim extremism which the left supports, defends, or excuses. and the body count is under 4k. OR the type of protests.  Usually, the Right does aim for a peaceful protest, but AntiFa brings bricks and explosives.   The number one problem of the left is how violent they are.  How they excuse and ignore violence for the groups they support.   Dylan Roof has been MASSIVELY condemned by the right.  Many of my followers hate the guy.   You don't see the mass condoning of radical Muslim extremists, only excuses and cop outs.  Nor do you see that many people on the left give 2 shits about AntiFa. 

And even though I no longer support Milo. I am against the banning of books.  Banned Books Week has made a great youtube video on it.  It's their newest video on top 10 banned books.  If they're going to support the banned book by alleged rapist Bill Cosby.  I don't see why not support the book Dangerous by Milo.  Milo is a jerk and an asshole.  But no books should be banned.  Even if it's a book that I disagree with.  AntiFa could write a book about how to kill Trump supporters.  and I still think it should be out there.  If you could still by Mein Kapf, then why can't you buy any other kind of book? 


Be still my beating heart - so nice to see you post again.

All right then. I've been processing the Berkley encounters (riot is too generous of a word to apply).

The lack of local intervention is extremely interesting. The Antifa tactics are poorly deployed but I see that they do have a coordinated engagement. They are definitely being coached at some level, I expect their movements within the actual combat theatre will improve. I see they deploy a line of shouting women, some armed with with bottles or small balled fist multipiers - then if they can insult enough to draw in a combatant the women withdraw and a swarm attempts to surround the target and get that person down. After that it's a all on stomp, then run away. Works if it's done well, so far, not done so well. I've also noted on the taped overview that on occasion they attack each other - some grudge stuff possibly or the fog of the street fight.

Anarchist by definition are hard to organize, then to expect them to get into physical altercations and bring into effect sweeping change against their perceived enemy - the fascism catch all - isn't realistic; in my opinion.

The "far right" that lines up to battle them do not in any way represent government. Those cats are looking to bust heads. An example is that fellow, the"Based Stickman". He is behaving criminally and I'm curious why he hasn't been charged with attempted murder or felonious assault with a deadly weapon. It's on YouTube - not hiding it a bit, and his real name is out there too.

Looks like there's a dozen or twenty guys in the dressed up scrum, but they are bad ass, lots of black blocs too, maybe a couple hundred in total.

It looks like all and all a side show to me, entertainment to keep people off the very real issues that need addressing.

Banning books is wrong, even if those books are subversive, perverted, patronizing, or flat out dull.

I have some books in my library that would have me stretched at the end of a rope if the wrong people were to gaze upon their dusty brain frying content!

Radical anything is never an end game - it's a stop gap to fill the frustration felt by the disenfranchised.

The dialectal, is the only way forward towards the negotiated balance of rights and privileged - again in my opinion.

What i see happening is a clash of cultures, same groups, different generation.

The divided plebeians, or proletariat, makes it easy for the uber class to maintain the place of power, authority.

Easy peasy, lemon squeezy - the one percent don't care what's happening outside their pocket books.



© 2017       Powered by

Badges | Privacy Policy  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service