The Idea of Celestials

Terro Wrote:Let's get some brainstorming going, preferably on the idea behind the Celestial type Otherkin.

Personal definitions and textbook definitions more than welcome, for any debates that form, please repost in an appropriate topic for that discussion.

Linked to the old forum: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://okphenomena.netfreehost.com/viewtopic.php?t=5&mforum=okphenomena">http://okphenomena.netfreehost.com/view ... kphenomena</a><!-- m -->

I see words - which includes names - in terms of utility. I don't think there's any inherant "truth" in an English word outside of what it means to English speakers.

So to me, a word - especially a noun - is nothing other than a label that allows two people to communicate.

There are words otherkin use which rather than allowing communication tend to hinder it, often because there are a lot of preconceptions about what they mean. I don't like those words.

Words like "demon" - to many otherkin it means "chaos entity", to many others it means "fallen angel", to many others it means "evil being from Christian mythology" and to many others again it means "powerful spirit somewhere stronger than humans, but weaker than gods."

Angel has the same problems. So does elf. So do a lot of terms.

If at all possible, I avoid using those terms simply because they make it hard to communicate.

"Celestial" is like that. To some it means a being of light. To some it means a kind of angel (and to some angels are a kind of celestial). To some it means creatures from the stars, like vast dragons the size of galaxies.

I would if forced use celestial to mean "being of light", as intentionally vague as that sounds - but if I was talking about Brighty Lighties, I'd just call them Brighty Lighties.

Then again, we could all deconstruct the system, decenter our train of thought all together on this whole otherkin business, and start a new.

People need structure in their lives to function and find meaning, and that is unfortunate as Archer mentioned, becuase something gets lost in "La Lang". along the way. We need labels, like we need food. Sure that food may not be the best thing we can put into ourselves but we need it to make sense, and metabolize mental nutrients.

I may make a post dedicated to deconstruction as its a very fun philosophy ^^ actually considered literary criticism,

I'm not criticising the use of labels. I'm doing the absolute opposite.

I'm advocating the use of labels that are clear and unambigious whereever possible, and trying to avoid those labels which by their other associations are misleading.

Archer Wrote:I'm not criticising the use of labels. I'm doing the absolute opposite.

I'm advocating the use of labels that are clear and unambigious whereever possible, and trying to avoid those labels which by their other associations are misleading.

Oh I know i was just thinking out loud xD. Though if you think about it, all labels are misleading in some way becuase they limit the scope of something. Sure a Rubber ball is a rubber ball, but if it has color that you omit that something about that rubber ball that's important that one is leaving out.

Prince Wrote:Oh I know i was just thinking out loud xD. Though if you think about it, all labels are misleading in some way becuase they limit the scope of something. Sure a Rubber ball is a rubber ball, but if it has color that you omit that something about that rubber ball that's important that one is leaving out.

That's not limiting at all. If the colour is in fact an important characteristic, you can call it "a red rubber ball" etc.

Archer Wrote:

Prince Wrote:Oh I know i was just thinking out loud xD. Though if you think about it, all labels are misleading in some way becuase they limit the scope of something. Sure a Rubber ball is a rubber ball, but if it has color that you omit that something about that rubber ball that's important that one is leaving out.

That's not limiting at all. If the color is in fact an important characteristic, you can call it "a red rubber ball" etc.

But all to often that part is omitted, especially if the ball doesn't know its red. If I say "it is a rubber ball" we get no inkling of its color, if it is bouncy (becuase not all rubber balls are), or if its hollow or solid. Lables limit xD I'm not fond of them but I recognize their usefulness (of course you'd defend labels, you formalist <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_razz.gif" alt=":P" title="Razz" /><!-- s -->.)

The fact that you can say "rubber ball" and assume I know what you mean doesn't just prove that labels are incredibly useful . . . it proves that no matter what you say to the contrary, you already agree.

Meanwhile, back on topic -

My most basic way of defining a "Celestial" is as being any heavenly creature of divine origin and/or service. The 'd' is lowercase here, as not all of them are under the instruction of the Source, but other heavenly big-wigs that have well-earned their stripes through other belief structures.

Generally, the first things that pop into my head when I think of the word "Celestial" are dragons. Buttloads of celestial dragons. Strangely, I rarely think of Angels... I hope that doesn't mean I'm a dirty speciesist. <!-- s:shock: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_eek.gif" alt=":shock:" title="Shocked" /><!-- s:shock: -->

From what ive personally seen, theres a few different base thoughts on celestals -

Celestials are simply another term for angels/angelics.

Celestials are something entirely separate from angelics, ie, following the base definition of the word - beings from the stars (this theory i tend to subscribe to.)

Celestials are a sect within the angelics - or vice versa, depending who you talk to.

I imagine there are other takes on it, however those seem to be the main ones that ive seen.

Now personally, i find i feel that Celestials are separate from the angelics, but technicly, angelics could fall under the heading of celestials, both being beings from off world in essense. but thats just me.