Ok, so we got chaos...

I've been reading some threads here and I find myself with a question *note: I'm not attacking anyone, just trying to understand and possibly stimulate a conversation*:

Whereas words are arbitrary (ex: an orange could be called a pickle, it all depends on how and what language we learn) and therefore it would be purely what one was socialized to associate the word "demon" with that would create a desire to call oneself a Demon.

Whereas Demons have been (at least from what I've read on this board, correct me if I am wrong) defined as being creatures entirely composed of chaos and that is the only solid connection between them.

Is every person with a severe aversion to order/severe attraction to chaos a demon? How, if that is not the case and knowing the diverse ideas people have been socialized into around the word "demon", would one determine if they were or weren't one?

I don't think this question has been posed quite like this before, and was wondering (as a person who can never settle on much of anything, counts money in incomprehensible little piles of whatever (), has interests changing at random, who gets bored easily, who cleans only when the whim strikes, etc....).

I generally don't like the term "demon" because, as used in common English, it is something entirely different from most of the uses in otherkin groups. The problem is a lot of people say "I'm a demon" when they mean "I'm a chaos entity" . . . and a lot of people say "I'm a demon" when they mean "I look scary and I'm eeeeeeevil and oh so misundersood" and it's not helpful for communication to have the same term used for two unrelated things.

But - that said - at least on OKP the "chaos entity" definition has stuck. It seems to be taken to mean, though, not just any chaotic entity but rather chaotic energy beings (spirits, astral entities, whatever you want to call them). Whether or not a naturally physical entity would even be capable of being "chaotic" is another question (and based on previous threads on this forum one that could run and run, heh).

Intuitively, I want to say that if someone who was human had a sufficiently chaotic soul/essence/nature/self-identity/whatever, then the term "demon" would be appropriate for them - though they might well be a different kind of being from a demon who did not naturally have a physical body.

Interestingly, more than one person has told me that they felt shadows and demons would be related, being as they're both dark and chaotic. I personally don't see what's "dark" about a demon in the sense of a chaos-entity, and I certainly don't see any connection whatsoever between shadows and chaos (I myself am anal-retentive to a spectacular degree, heh). It's like shape and colour. Sure, you can have something that is both round and blue . . . but being round doesn't imply blueness, or vice versa.

Hmmm... that's interesting. I hope I can get some more opinions, now I'm really, really curious! <!-- s:?: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_question.gif" alt=":?:" title="Question" /><!-- s:?: --> *hopeful glances round the forum*

one of the reasons why we call ourselves demons is that most of the entities known as demons actually are demons.
i posted a longer treatise somewhere else, too lazy to look it up now.

no, being chaotic does not make you a demon. it's like "every german shepherd is a dog" vs. "every dog is a german shepherd".

kahoku Wrote:one of the reasons why we call ourselves demons is that most of the entities known as demons actually are demons.

This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. "Demon" is just a label (same as shadow, dragon, elf, or whatever).

Quote:no, being chaotic does not make you a demon. it's like "every german shepherd is a dog" vs. "every dog is a german shepherd".

In the last big demon related discussion on OKP I got involved in, the working definition that seemed to come out of it was "demon means chaotic energy being". Is that now not the working definition?

I, personally, avoid using the term demon, whenever possible, because it's been used for so many different and unrelated things, that it would make as much sense as to use the word "furniture" for every piece of furniture in your house and expect people to know whether you mean your bed, your table, your wardrobe or even your television. Heck, it's almost so bad as if I were to use the word furniture to even include clothes, appliances, walls, etc, etc, etc...

Especially now that Yet Another definition has been added to the pile...

Archer Wrote:

kahoku Wrote:one of the reasons why we call ourselves demons is that most of the entities known as demons actually are demons.

This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. "Demon" is just a label (same as shadow, dragon, elf, or whatever).

let me rephrase it, now that i got some caffeine. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" /><!-- s -->

most of the entities commonly known as demons actually are demons by the definition we use here. it wouldn't make much sense to call ourselves something different, would it?

Quote:

Quote:no, being chaotic does not make you a demon. it's like "every german shepherd is a dog" vs. "every dog is a german shepherd".

In the last big demon related discussion on OKP I got involved in, the working definition that seemed to come out of it was "demon means chaotic energy being". Is that now not the working definition?

wolf didn't ask about chaotic energy beings, only about chaotic beings.

So what would a chaotic non-energy being be? Somebody mentioned somewhere that they figured a demon could be physical by nature too. Is that wrong? (lol, hijacking my own thread a bit )

Depends on that person's definition of "demon" in that context.

...and the person's definition of chaos (which is a thread around here somewhere).