• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Kapalika vs Crossfire, Heterodoxy and Antinomianism in the Left Hand Path

Kapalika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Me and @crossfire have been discussing it, and we have agreed to debate here in the one on one section.

@crossfire's will argue her position, summed up as:

Crossfire said:
Antinomianism: bringing the cultural nomos into consciousness and logically critiquing them. Strengthens intellect and discernment.

Heterodoxy: breaking cultural nomos as a practice in order to break emotional attachment to it. Tends to dull intellect and discernment.

Nomos (sociology) - Wikipedia

I will argue for Heterodoxy as tradition and a positive force and antinomianism as a rejection of socially established morality and a problematic term.

We will debate not just on what qualifies as these terms but the merits of what the other considers to be those terms and their involvement / importance in the Left Hand Path.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
Both antinomianism and heterodoxy are related to cultural nomos, which in sociology are the habits, customs, and traditions that govern social behavior, morality, and the way the people under the influence of the set of nomos view reality. Nomos usually lie just below the conscioiusness of those under their influence, and are treated as assumed truths. Bringing these nomos into consciousness can be quite unsettling for many people, possibly due to the fear that society will fall apart if the nomos are examinined and critiqued, and breaking a nomos can cause people's minds to be overcome by anger, disgust, fear, and other defensive emotions, inparing or disabling their ability to think rationally, or at the other extreme, can cause people to feel quite uncomfortable. Taboos are one form of nomos/

more here:
Nomos (sociology) - Wikipedia

Antinomianism is identifying these nomos, bringing them into consciousness, describing them, critiquing them, and trying to understand how they came to be, and how they might have served as a benefit or a detriment to society in the past, and applying logical reasoning as to whether the particular nomos in question needs to be changed, enhanced, or left alone in order to better society. The sense of discerning between beneficial, neutral, and harmful is generally preserved with antinomianism when rational though is preserved.
Feminism is the most well developed antinomian movement, and refers to the nomos that it critiques and seeks to transform as "The Patriarchy."

Heterodoxy is the breaking of the cultural nomos for various reasons, which may include, but not inclusively:
  • an attempt to break and free oneself to the emotional tie to the nomos/taboo in question
  • an attempt to start an (antinomian) conversation about the nomos/taboo in question
  • to strike fear, terror, or anger into the people of the culture in order to disable their rational thinking ability and get them to do something they normally wouldn't do if they were thinking rationally
Sometimes, heterodox practices can also interfere with ones ability to discern between benefical, neutral, or harmful practices or outcomes, especially if care is not taken to logically think everything through, and also when someone slips from mindfulness into habitual thought patterns, as there is no longer the unconscious support the nomos suppled. However, heterodoxy can be quite useful and effective in breaking emotional ties to unproductive nomos if intelligently applied and followed up with rational contemplation to provide more productive, intelligently thought out unconscious support for those unmindful moments.


I'll chose a nomos that is of interest to feminists to provide examples of the Antinomian approach and an intelligent heterodox approach to it: the stigma and shame that has been attached to menstruation, particularly in India.
Article:

Indian Women Fight Menstruation Stigmas With #HappyToBleed Campaign

An antinomian approach would include investigating and contemplating the cultural practices surrounding the nomos, and postulating what benefit the nomos might have had in the past.

Cultural practices surrounding the nomos:

Menstuating Indian women generally do no work and hide away during their menses. There are fears attached to them making water unclean to the family during this time if they do their regular job of hauing water from the water source to the house, and a stigma of shame is attached to their possibly bring harm to their family at this time due to their unclean state.

Personal observations and experiences regarding menstruation:

I would often have lower back pain during my period, and it can be difficult to discern between the back pain associated with menstruation and the back pain that serves as a warning that you are lifting too much and may injury yourself. I have injured my back while menstruating lifting heavy objects because I assumed the warning pain of potential injury was just the menstrual-related back pain.

Theories as to why and how the nomos came to be

If a menstruating woman hurts her back doing the daily routine of hauling water from the water source to the family, she may not be able to haul water for quite a while, which may lead to unsanitary conditions and potential illness for her family. Not having her haul water during menstruation would obviously be beneficial, as she would be less likely to be injured and disabled. A taboo against menstuating women hauling water would safeguard her from being compelled to haul water by those who don't want to take up the slack during that time, so would be beneficial in that respect. However, resentment at having to take up the slack at that time might lead to shame surrounding menstruation, which would intensify as the nomos sinks into the collective cultural unconscious nomos, bringing us to where we are today.

Plan of action to raise consciousness and change the nomos:

Recognizing that menstruation isn't "unclean" would allow these women to be productive during this time and not have to be ashamed, but recognizing to potential for back injury during this time would help to keep the whole nomos from repropagating.

*********
Here is a very short video that I think is a well thought out heterodox act towards the stigma surrounding menstruation with a stated intention of starting an (antinomian) conversation:


When a leader of a LHP Order posted this video, I was shocked to hear all of the irrational thought and emotional scorn directed at the woman in the video. This scorn was echoed among other leaders of various LHPs, Satanist, Luciferians, and Setians alike. The stuff that they assumed and the junk that came out of their minds was astoundingly embarrassing to me coming from LHP leaders. For every irrational and absurd rant I refuted, several more sprung up in their place, and it took quite a bit of refuting these points for people to settle down and become thoughtful, until the only argument left was, "she's only ruining her leggings!" (Which I refuted with "Even if one woman overcomes her engrained shame to menstruation from this video, isn't a pair of ruined leggings worth it?")
 
Last edited:

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
I can get into the applying of antinomianism and heterodoxy and their effects in the LHP as the debate develops.
 

Kapalika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Post 1 of 2

My apologies for the delay in my response, I haven't been on RF but scarecly for the last week or so as I've dealt with barely working internet and taking time to deal with stuff offline.

I went ahead and went with my first-ish draft to get the ball rolling. So my post may not be perfect but hey we need to get the walls of text out of the way first.

With all that aside time to get into the debate.

The History and Definiton(s) of Antinomianism

Both antinomianism and heterodoxy are related to cultural nomos

I would argue that nomos isn't so much assumed "truths" as much as it is unquestioned ideas of what is "proper" at least in the sense you are using it here.

I took the liberty of looking into Nomos since it's a Greek word and came to This article seems to give a fairly thorough breakdown of meanings of nomos in Christian theology, and it's in this sense of nomos that antinomism is historically defined. Every definition returns to Christanity. I have also found sources such as this and this one too when searching for 'antinomanism with many other search terms such as "psychology".

I have occasionally heard antinomianism as a 'lazy' way to refer to against the normative "religious law" of a particular religion as I noted with the more "Christian Interpretation" earlier. I've even been guilty of using it in that sense on the rare occasion . However such a definition is at the very least ethnocentric and problematic and sometimes outright wrong.

Antinomian in a more literal sense would mean to be against the law of man. Religious law has more in common in any given belief system with nature, which is in distinct contrast with the actual definition as used by ancient Greek Philosophy. So something like feminism as you give an example can't be antinomian in this religious sense of the word (see the quote of the article above).

More of what you are referring to could be called cultural norms and societal rules and exception. It's not "normal" for someone to run around not wearing pants and that's cultural. Under a definition of antinomianism being against the nomos, the cynicism has more to do with antinomianism than feminism since feminism seeks to change the nomos, the status quo, and culture to have fair expectation and valuation of women. It's trading one nomos for another and so can't be Antinomianism in the classical sense either.

So with that in mind we can consider antinomianism as rejecting established morality and cultural normality. The Greek Cynics I mentioned are a good example, as the link above stated:

the link above on the cynics said:
Diogenes uses his body to upend the conventional association of decorum with the good. He breaks etiquette by publicly carrying out activities an Athenian would typically perform in private. For example, he eats, drinks, and masturbates in the marketplace, and ridicules the shame felt when one’s body is unruly or clumsy.

This is why I don't particularly agree with your definition. Sure, the Cynics mocked and questioned the Nomos, but they DID NOT seek to
to understand how they came to be, and how they might have served as a benefit or a detriment to society in the past, and applying logical reasoning as to whether the particular nomos in question needs to be changed, enhanced, or left alone in order to better society.

They simply had no need for nomos. feminism on the other hand, does fit your defintion... but you're definition is arbitrary and I can find no historical instance of that definiton or examples. I could assume that you are influenced by modern western occultists, but to what extent they understand the terms they are using I can only guess. Most definitions I've encounted western occultists use seem to refer not to any of these definitions but simply to rejecting mainstream culture, beliefs and ethics. I would call this by what it really is: counterculture. It's just one nomos for another.
 
Last edited:

Kapalika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Post 2 of 2

Heterodoxy, Orthodoxy and the LHP

Much of your definition of heterodoxy depends on your definition of nomos and antinomianism which I have already refuted. However worth addressing is the parts of the definition that talk about the taboo and this definition:

to strike fear, terror, or anger into the people of the culture in order to disable their rational thinking ability and get them to do something they normally wouldn't do if they were thinking rationally

I'm not sure what the you're getting at. I have never met, read about, or heard of heterodoxy being about striking fear in others or manipulating them. If anything what you are describing is known as "black magick" and smells a lot more like LaVeyanism than anything else. I don't think I need to quote any sources here as I can safely assume you are familiar with The Satanic Bible and other such books that address this.

There are forms of black magic in eastern traditions as well although they are not typically used to those types of ends but that is a whole can of worms involving ancient Tantriks and all kinds of crazy stuff in isolated areas. Rather, I think I should note that black magic can be an element of heterodoxy but saying it is heterodoxy is incorrect.

Heterodoxy is simply an opposite current of the orthodox, and can even become orthodoxy itself. In the broadest sense even things like economics or scientific theory can be considered heterodoxy such as the example listed here.

An example of heterodoxy becoming Orthodoxy would be Yeshua preaching unusual, heretical even views of Judaism. This would later become it's own orthodoxy of the Roman Catholic Church, which would face Martin Luther who was at the time considered Heterodoxy until Protestantism took root.

This isn't to say that all heterodoxy seeks to become orthodoxy. Bringing it back to the nomos... if a heterodoxy does not seek to establish a nomos, it can't become orthodoxy. So when you again, give examples of feminism, it fails to hold because it seeks to redefine the nomos.

Actually your example of menstruation and fetching water and the:

heterodox act towards the stigma surrounding menstruation

would actually have more to do with antinomianism in the "against the rules" kind of sense and more in line with your definition of antinomianism.

But back to heterodoxy that does not seek to establish new nomos... I spoke of heterodoxy in the past as tradition. These traditions that have survived for centuries and do not seek to change the culture at large or reshape it but to give an alternative path that in many ways actually can reaffirm the orthodoxy.

Traditional views of the Left Hand Path in Asia fit this model and so we can understand heterodoxy as the main ingredeient in the Left Hand Path. This will include practices against the normative religious law/rules (the five M's are a classic example) but the intention is to break them not to destroy them but to transcend them:

link above said:
Tantras prescribe a strict regimen of penance, meditation, sensory control, cleansing the self of negative thoughts and seeking truth and justice before an individual can hope to transcend from her or his natural state. An individual who successfully practices these tasks may eventually take a vow of viravrata (a hero's vow) to be of vira-bhava (heroic disposition). The demarcation vira is potentially transient as it is considered a state of being free of desires.

In the Kaula and Vamachara schools of tantra the pañca makara (5 M's) ritually/sacramentally broken in order to free the practitioner from binding convention are: madya (wine), mamsa (meat), matsya (fish), mudra (parched grain), maithuna (sex).

The "sacramental" or ritual breaking was only for the vira practitioner, not the divya or pasu. The pasu would misunderstand and get caught up in the literal act while the divya will have already progressed beyond and not need the literal act to understand the inner meaning.

There also exist tantric schools that substitute innocuous items for the taboo substances and acts, claiming that literal interpretations of the pañca makara miss the inner truth of the rite.

Such a dissection of what you would call the "nomos" with your goal of changing it or not has much more in common with the Right Hand Path than it does the Left Hand Path, since it believes that those valuations should be universal. At least if we are to take feminism as an accurate example. You even said yourself near the end that the goal is to change the nomos at the end of your example right before the video.

The Left Hand Path is about the individual and it exists separate from the nomos even if it doesn't wish to reaffirm it. If it seeks to become the nomos it can't be truly LHP even if it transitionally appears LHP. Plus, the LHP is about religion so it doesn't really make sense to call something social or political LHP.

However, heterodoxy can be quite useful and effective in breaking emotional ties to unproductive nomos if intelligently applied and followed up with rational contemplation to provide more productive, intelligently thought out unconscious support for those unmindful moments.

Heterodoxy as I use the term, more specific than the broader definition, does break emotional or spiritual ties to normative religious prescriptions for the benefit of the practitioner but the endeavor is not one of challenging others like how feminism does. It's about challenging the self and transcending the attachment that has grown to them whereas following them has not become a valid path for the practitioner. That doesn't effect the value of the end-goal however, it's simply avoiding the conflation.

However, that said, that is a feature of heterodox traditions, a heterodoxy encompasses all the usual trappings of any religious sect. It is not some kind of intellectual exercise it is a religious tradition unto itself. Basically any Dharmic, Buddhist, Hindu ect tradition described as Vamachara or LHP is heterodox (although in the broader sense not all heterodoxy is LHP) such as some forms of Dakini based Tantric Buddhism, the ancient Kapalikas, and particularly Shaiva Kaula. However these heterodoxies are complete with their own paramparas (lineages) and thus are established as traditions in their own right.

Conclusion and Distinction of LHP from Politics

Also lastly:

When a leader of a LHP Order posted this video, I was shocked to hear all of the irrational thought and emotional scorn directed at the woman in the video. This scorn was echoed among other leaders of various LHPs, Satanist, Luciferians, and Setians alike.

I do admit I didn't watch that video or have an interest to, but I imagine the reactions and intentions were little if any different from a video I did watch of women painting with their menstrual blood. I get why they do it, I even think there is a valid point in all of it. I can see it's taboo breaking power. A comparison to the Cynics comes to mind again. I don't have much to comment on the western occult reactions (at least for now) but I might bring it up in a later post as to why I think that happened as it pertains to what I think the LHP is.

Call it antinomianism if you will, in the sense that I'm for breaking the social and cultural norms, expectations and rules for the individuals if they would benefit from it. But again that term is problematic but I recognize I have used it in that sense the few rare times I have. I think that kind of thing is a good thing but it's not a very good example since it's link to feminism muddies it and it's not religious in nature.

But is it heterodoxy? No, although I would go so far as to say if a practitioner of the Left Hand Path did it for themselves it would be a LHP type of act. But the context this was done in wasn't either LHP or RHP but if I was forced to pick one I would say it was RHP due to it being a political and social idealogy, so really it just lays outside of relevance.

The Left Hand Path is entirely about religion. Nothing else. We can talk about antinomianism as against or defying the "law" or social conventions and rules, and heterodoxy as weird economic models or political or social ideologies... but that doesn't mean it's relevant. Those terms become relevant when we are talking about religious laws and religious orthodoxy. In any other context it's just conflation.

(Also as a side note, I wanted to touch on Atiska and Natiska since it's relevant to definitions of heterodoxy within Dharmic faiths, you being Buddhist and me being Hindu... but that's a can of worms I know we have some different views on that we should probably get to only once we get through everything here first).

My apology for the typos in my opening post. :eek:

My apologies for taking a week xD Also I honestly didn't even notice the typos. No worries.
 
Last edited:

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
They simply had no need for nomos. feminism on the other hand, does fit your defintion... but you're definition is arbitrary and I can find no historical instance of that definiton or examples. I could assume that you are influenced by modern western occultists, but to what extent they understand the terms they are using I can only guess. Most definitions I've encounted western occultists use seem to refer not to any of these definitions but simply to rejecting mainstream culture, beliefs and ethics. I would call this by what it really is: counterculture. It's just one nomos for another.
First of all, I am using the sociological definition of nomos, since the Left Hand Path is not tied to any single culture. I kinda like the "a substantive and transdisciplinary appproach" part of the title of this book:as that is what I am also seeking.

Chapter 1 of this book (The Sociology of Religion: A Substantive and Transdisciplinary Approach By George Lundskow) does a decent job of bringing out the sociological theory of religion. Page 4 has a nice table 1.1 that describes key points between Right Hand Religion and Left Hand Spirituality. Beginning on page 6 the book talks about how religion provides a nomos, which serves as a set of beliefs that connects an individual to a community, and how it acts as a survival mechanism for the community. There is a chart on page 7 that shows where nomos stand in a sociological sense.

Here is a link to chapter 1 of The Sociology of Religion: A Substantive and Transdisciplinary Approach by George Lundskow
The Sociology of Religion
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
Post 2 of 2

Heterodoxy, Orthodoxy and the LHP

Much of your definition of heterodoxy depends on your definition of nomos and antinomianism which I have already refuted. However worth addressing is the parts of the definition that talk about the taboo and this definition:

crossfire said:
to strike fear, terror, or anger into the people of the culture in order to disable their rational thinking ability and get them to do something they normally wouldn't do if they were thinking rationally

I'm not sure what the you're getting at. I have never met, read about, or heard of heterodoxy being about striking fear in others or manipulating them. If anything what you are describing is known as "black magick" and smells a lot more like LaVeyanism than anything else. I don't think I need to quote any sources here as I can safely assume you are familiar with The Satanic Bible and other such books that address this.
Again, I am using it in the sociological and psychological sense. An example would be smearing pork fat all over a dead Muslim (an act of heterodoxy) and broadcasting it as a taunt to **** them off in order to goad them into striking unintelligently at a trap.

There are forms of black magic in eastern traditions as well although they are not typically used to those types of ends but that is a whole can of worms involving ancient Tantriks and all kinds of crazy stuff in isolated areas. Rather, I think I should note that black magic can be an element of heterodoxy but saying it is heterodoxy is incorrect.
I'm not necessarily using it in the context of magick.

Heterodoxy is simply an opposite current of the orthodox, and can even become orthodoxy itself. In the broadest sense even things like economics or scientific theory can be considered heterodoxy such as the example listed here.
I would simply call heterodoxy as breaking a nomos.

An example of heterodoxy becoming Orthodoxy would be Yeshua preaching unusual, heretical even views of Judaism. This would later become it's own orthodoxy of the Roman Catholic Church, which would face Martin Luther who was at the time considered Heterodoxy until Protestantism took root.
I would call this antinomianism, as it is discussion refuting the orthodox nomos, providing alternate explainations and reasoning, not necessarily breaking any taboos. The only heterodox part is in challenging the authorities who claim to have the "word of god." Jesus telling the man he healed from paralysis to pick up his bed and carry it on the Sabbath would be heterodoxy, in that it was breaking an established (albeit illogical) nomos.

I do agree that antinomian movements can become their own nomos, establishing a new orthodoxy.

This isn't to say that all heterodoxy seeks to become orthodoxy. Bringing it back to the nomos... if a heterodoxy does not seek to establish a nomos, it can't become orthodoxy. So when you again, give examples of feminism, it fails to hold because it seeks to redefine the nomos.
This is the reason why I said heterodoxy must be followed up with careful contemplation to provide an alternative, intelligent support system to the unconscious mind to carry you through those unmindful moments. You can provide this support for yourself with personal ethics or morals, transforming yourself. You can then extend this personal unconscious support system into society, building new nomos. { as an aside, not related to feminism: This subjective self-transformation reflecting into society or the objective world is what would be termed as Greater Black Magick in the LHP circles I associate with, but feminism wouldn't necessarily see it that way.}

Actually your example of menstruation and fetching water and the:



would actually have more to do with antinomianism in the "against the rules" kind of sense and more in line with your definition of antinomianism.
I did say that the aim of this act of heterodoxy (breaking a nomos) was to establish an antinomian dialog.

But back to heterodoxy that does not seek to establish new nomos... I spoke of heterodoxy in the past as tradition. These traditions that have survived for centuries and do not seek to change the culture at large or reshape it but to give an alternative path that in many ways actually can reaffirm the orthodoxy.

Traditional views of the Left Hand Path in Asia fit this model and so we can understand heterodoxy as the main ingredeient in the Left Hand Path. This will include practices against the normative religious law/rules (the five M's are a classic example) but the intention is to break them not to destroy them but to transcend them:
I can understand that--you are severing the emotional/psychological ties to the nomos, freeing yourself psychologically.

Such a dissection of what you would call the "nomos" with your goal of changing it or not has much more in common with the Right Hand Path than it does the Left Hand Path, since it believes that those valuations should be universal. At least if we are to take feminism as an accurate example. You even said yourself near the end that the goal is to change the nomos at the end of your example right before the video.
I didn't say that feminism was LHP, I said it was antinomian.

The Left Hand Path is about the individual and it exists separate from the nomos even if it doesn't wish to reaffirm it. If it seeks to become the nomos it can't be truly LHP even if it transitionally appears LHP.
Indeed, in the LHP, one must become an individual and think for themselves.
Plus, the LHP is about religion so it doesn't really make sense to call something social or political LHP.
Again, I didn't call feminism LHP, I called it antinomian.


crossfire said:
However, heterodoxy can be quite useful and effective in breaking emotional ties to unproductive nomos if intelligently applied and followed up with rational contemplation to provide more productive, intelligently thought out unconscious support for those unmindful moments.
Heterodoxy as I use the term, more specific than the broader definition, does break emotional or spiritual ties to normative religious prescriptions for the benefit of the practitioner but the endeavor is not one of challenging others like how feminism does. It's about challenging the self and transcending the attachment that has grown to them whereas following them has not become a valid path for the practitioner. That doesn't effect the value of the end-goal however, it's simply avoiding the conflation.
Indeed, LHP is about transforming the individual. It is like an introversion of the external antinomianism, where you critically examine your personal unconscious mind and its habits, and seek to consciously change and transform what you deem needs changing/transforming.

However, that said, that is a feature of heterodox traditions, a heterodoxy encompasses all the usual trappings of any religious sect. It is not some kind of intellectual exercise it is a religious tradition unto itself. Basically any Dharmic, Buddhist, Hindu ect tradition described as Vamachara or LHP is heterodox (although in the broader sense not all heterodoxy is LHP) such as some forms of Dakini based Tantric Buddhism, the ancient Kapalikas, and particularly Shaiva Kaula. However these heterodoxies are complete with their own paramparas (lineages) and thus are established as traditions in their own right.
[satire]Orthodox heterodoxies? :p [/satire]

Conclusion and Distinction of LHP from Politics

Also lastly:



I do admit I didn't watch that video or have an interest to, but I imagine the reactions and intentions were little if any different from a video I did watch of women painting with their menstrual blood. I get why they do it, I even think there is a valid point in all of it. I can see it's taboo breaking power. A comparison to the Cynics comes to mind again. I don't have much to comment on the western occult reactions (at least for now) but I might bring it up in a later post as to why I think that happened as it pertains to what I think the LHP is.

Call it antinomianism if you will, in the sense that I'm for breaking the social and cultural norms, expectations and rules for the individuals if they would benefit from it. But again that term is problematic but I recognize I have used it in that sense the few rare times I have. I think that kind of thing is a good thing but it's not a very good example since it's link to feminism muddies it and it's not religious in nature.

But is it heterodoxy? No, although I would go so far as to say if a practitioner of the Left Hand Path did it for themselves it would be a LHP type of act. But the context this was done in wasn't either LHP or RHP but if I was forced to pick one I would say it was RHP due to it being a political and social idealogy, so really it just lays outside of relevance.
Again, I used feminism as a non religious example to demonstrate antinomianism and heterodoxy from a sociological standpoint. I never claimed it to be LHP.

The Left Hand Path is entirely about religion. Nothing else. We can talk about antinomianism as against or defying the "law" or social conventions and rules, and heterodoxy as weird economic models or political or social ideologies... but that doesn't mean it's relevant. Those terms become relevant when we are talking about religious laws and religious orthodoxy. In any other context it's just conflation.
Since the LHP covers many different cultures, I chose the non-religious example of feminism as a platform to provide sociological examples of antinomianism and heterodoxy in respect to cultural (and meta-cultural) nomos, for clarity of definition without getting into any culture wars.

(Also as a side note, I wanted to touch on Atiska and Natiska since it's relevant to definitions of heterodoxy within Dharmic faiths, you being Buddhist and me being Hindu... but that's a can of worms I know we have some different views on that we should probably get to only once we get through everything here first).



My apologies for taking a week xD Also I honestly didn't even notice the typos. No worries.
We can get into that. :)
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
Next, I'll compose a post describing how bringing nomos into consciousness and critiquing them and how breaking nomos fit into the LHP.
 

Kapalika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
First of all, I am using the sociological definition of nomos, since the Left Hand Path is not tied to any single culture. I kinda like the "a substantive and transdisciplinary appproach" part of the title of this book:as that is what I am also seeking.

Chapter 1 of this book (The Sociology of Religion: A Substantive and Transdisciplinary Approach By George Lundskow) does a decent job of bringing out the sociological theory of religion. Page 4 has a nice table 1.1 that describes key points between Right Hand Religion and Left Hand Spirituality. Beginning on page 6 the book talks about how religion provides a nomos, which serves as a set of beliefs that connects an individual to a community, and how it acts as a survival mechanism for the community. There is a chart on page 7 that shows where nomos stand in a sociological sense.

Here is a link to chapter 1 of The Sociology of Religion: A Substantive and Transdisciplinary Approach by George Lundskow
The Sociology of Religion

I seem to be having a lot of trouble finding the term nomos used in sociology either on Google or Google Scholar. You gave a Wikipedia link in your first post but it was noted as having issues on the page so I couldn't really use it. I've done some digging and it does seem the term has been rarely used however you didn't offer much of an explanation of justification for that term.

Actually you could of brought that book up earlier. I dug into the credentials of the author and the most I could find on him is that he appears to be an assistant professor in a sociology department who's written books on a number of topics (which doesn't make him any more or less credible). There is very little information on the author of George N Lundskow.

It wasn't until page 4 of Google Scholar searching "nomos sociology" that I found a single source using Nomos in the way you have used it. The *very* few sources before that seem to be referring to something quite different.

Also I think that since the Wikipedia source and you both noted it's origins in Greek the Greek view of what nomos actually meant would be totally relevant. How is it not? I would argue that this is what Nomos should be considered, and not this obscure definition you are parroting from barely known sources.

The Sociology of Religion pages 6-7 said:
Also he quotes a definition of "Finally, Verger concludes that in responding to the four great existential questions, and to the issue of theodicy, religion provides a nomos, a coherent system of meaning that connects the individual to society and to a sense of purpose above and beyond the empirical and temporal realm

....

Berger identifies the central aspect of spirituality, deistic or not, as its ability to construct and maintain a nomos - a belief system that explains the meaning of life. This nomos arises specifically from actual social relations as well as visions of society as it ought to be. Without a nomos, a society falls into alienation and anomie

(The book doesn't mention nomos again until near the end of the book)

That definition differs from your original definition. Also, I don't see how this very rare usage should have any precedent over a more Greek understanding of the term. After all, it's a Greek word.

Again, I am using it in the sociological and psychological sense. An example would be smearing pork fat all over a dead Muslim (an act of heterodoxy) and broadcasting it as a taunt to **** them off in order to goad them into striking unintelligently at a trap.

I'm not necessarily using it in the context of magick.

I would simply call heterodoxy as breaking a nomos.

I would call this antinomianism, as it is discussion refuting the orthodox nomos, providing alternate explainations and reasoning, not necessarily breaking any taboos. The only heterodox part is in challenging the authorities who claim to have the "word of god." Jesus telling the man he healed from paralysis to pick up his bed and carry it on the Sabbath would be heterodoxy, in that it was breaking an established (albeit illogical) nomos.

You have still not justified your unusual definitions of these terms. I can't address this without us being on the same page as to what these terms mean or why. In a number of aspects you actually got heterodoxy and antinomianism backwards.

I do agree that antinomian movements can become their own nomos, establishing a new orthodoxy.

You still haven't explained why antinomianism is the opposite of orthodoxy, instead of heterodoxy which is what term normally actually means that.

Or addressed the problematic nature of antinomianism as a term given it's history.

Again, I didn't call feminism LHP, I called it antinomian.

This debate is about antinomianism and heterodoxy in the LHP though. Plus I don't think it can be antinomian for the reasons I gave in my previous post, since it seeks to change the nomos instead of being against it (like the ancient Greek Cynics).

Indeed, LHP is about transforming the individual. It is like an introversion of the external antinomianism, where you critically examine your personal unconscious mind and its habits, and seek to consciously change and transform what you deem needs changing/transforming.

[satire]Orthodox heterodoxies? :p [/satire]

Orthodoxy and tradition are different things. If heterodoxy tried to become the norm, yes, it would be orthodoxy. The one needs the other, in a way. Without Orthodoxy or the RHP there is no way to define Heterodoxy and the LHP and vice-versa.

Again, I used feminism as a non religious example to demonstrate antinomianism and heterodoxy from a sociological standpoint. I never claimed it to be LHP.

Since the LHP covers many different cultures, I chose the non-religious example of feminism as a platform to provide sociological examples of antinomianism and heterodoxy in respect to cultural (and meta-cultural) nomos, for clarity of definition without getting into any culture wars.

Well, until you can justify those definitions I can't accept them. You have offered no sources or explantions as to why you define them that way and I have used the "normal" definitions of those terms and you did not refute them. You just defined them with nothing to back it up Also I think feminism of all things is a bad example to give of something to not get into a culture war... you're more lucky that I'm a feminist myself xD

Also something more lighthearted on definitions:

https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/5/52/communicating.png

We can get into that. :)

I look forward to it.

Next, I'll compose a post describing how bringing nomos into consciousness and critiquing them and how breaking nomos fit into the LHP.

Please do, so we can get into what this debate is really about.
 
Last edited:

Kapalika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
An example would be smearing pork fat all over a dead Muslim (an act of heterodoxy) and broadcasting it as a taunt to **** them off in order to goad them into striking unintelligently at a trap.

I want to address this as it's own thing but if it's anything it's antinomian particularly since it's literally against the law which is what nomos actually means. It's called desecration of a corpse and unless someone did it to free themselves in some capacity I would find such an action repugnant. Broadcasting it would indicate it's not for any kind of freeing aspect but is meant to shock and offend, as given by your example to 'goad into a trap'.

Such actions are not in keeping with what the Left Hand Path stands for nor are they justifiable. Those types of actions are used by authoritarians to intimidate the people of the faith who's bodies they are desecrating usually in war time. It is not comparable to the actual postmortem rituals of legitimate heterodox traditions which are not done with any kind of mindset resembling that.

Your example is not heterodoxy either as it's not part of tradition but just mere shock value at best, bigotry at worst.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
I seem to be having a lot of trouble finding the term nomos used in sociology either on Google or Google Scholar. You gave a Wikipedia link in your first post but it was noted as having issues on the page so I couldn't really use it. I've done some digging and it does seem the term has been rarely used however you didn't offer much of an explanation of justification for that term.

Actually you could of brought that book up earlier. I dug into the credentials of the author and the most I could find on him is that he appears to be an assistant professor in a sociology department who's written books on a number of topics (which doesn't make him any more or less credible). There is very little information on the author of George N Lundskow.
George N Lundskow is on Google Scholar
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=George+N+Lundskow&hl=en&as_sdt=0,48


It wasn't until page 4 of Google Scholar searching "nomos sociology" that I found a single source using Nomos in the way you have used it. The *very* few sources before that seem to be referring to something quite different.

Also I think that since the Wikipedia source and you both noted it's origins in Greek the Greek view of what nomos actually meant would be totally relevant. How is it not? I would argue that this is what Nomos should be considered, and not this obscure definition you are parroting from barely known sources.



(The book doesn't mention nomos again until near the end of the book)

That definition differs from your original definition. Also, I don't see how this very rare usage should have any precedent over a more Greek understanding of the term. After all, it's a Greek word




You have still not justified your unusual definitions of these terms. I can't address this without us being on the same page as to what these terms mean or why. In a number of aspects you actually got heterodoxy and antinomianism backwards.



You still haven't explained why antinomianism is the opposite of orthodoxy, instead of heterodoxy which is what term normally actually means that.

Or addressed the problematic nature of antinomianism as a term given it's history.



This debate is about antinomianism and heterodoxy in the LHP though. Plus I don't think it can be antinomian for the reasons I gave in my previous post, since it seeks to change the nomos instead of being against it (like the ancient Greek Cynics).



Orthodoxy and tradition are different things. If heterodoxy tried to become the norm, yes, it would be orthodoxy. The one needs the other, in a way. Without Orthodoxy or the RHP there is no way to define Heterodoxy and the LHP and vice-versa.



Well, until you can justify those definitions I can't accept them. You have offered no sources or explantions as to why you define them that way and I have used the "normal" definitions of those terms and you did not refute them. You just defined them with nothing to back it up Also I think feminism of all things is a bad example to give of something to not get into a culture war... you're more lucky that I'm a feminist myself xD

Also something more lighthearted on definitions:

https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/5/52/communicating.png



I look forward to it.



Please do, so we can get into what this debate is really about.

Well, let's see if we can agree with the meaning of the term nomos first, and I will dispense with using the terms antinomianism and heterodoxy. Instead, I will refer solely to the actions of critiquing the nomos and breaking a nomos in regards to their sociological and psychological effects, and how they apply to the LHP.

How would you like to define the word nomos? Do you want to have it flavored by the mythological Dæmon (invisible natural spirit {as contrasted to divine spirit} that is only known through its action) of laws and ordinance by the name Nomos? This would show it in the perspective from which it operates--as dæmons operate--invisible, just below consciousness, but having influence from being just below consciousness--operating between the realm of the divine and mortal. Plato referred to dæmons as being "occulted," or hidden, veiled.

Using Nomos in this manner fits in very well with both the ancient Greek and the modern sociological usage. We can also explore the "unwritten Natural Law" side of it as well, and how human conscious reasoning (as opposed to unconscious programming) plays into it.
 
Last edited:
Top