OtherkinPhenomena: Forum

Full Version: Definition of demons, by demons
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
There are many threads in many forums about the definition of the term "demon", but most of them digress at some point because those who believe demons are all fallen angels collide with those who think "demons" are our bad habits, and the demonkin, at some point or another, lose interest in discussing any further.

Now this topic is especially for the demonkin we have here. How do you define "demon" for yourself? How did you know you were a demon, and what makes you different from an angel or a fae? Have you ever considered other kin types, and if so, which ones?

Although I'm usually the one who claims that there are no traits that apply to all demons, except for the fact that they are energy beings and chaotic, I have been thinking a lot lately. I don't think that all that separates us from angels is the order vs. chaos difference, or the fact that we're not bound to a deity.

There must be a reason why demons are associated with darkness, at least I haven't found a demon who was all bright and shiny.

To me, demons often take the role of an antagonist - in the good way or the bad. If there's too much happiness around, they'll be the kill-joy; if there's too much sadness, they will cheer people up. (If they care about them, that is...)

Also, I feel that demons have a strong connection to the negative side of all things, but more along the lines of noticing and accepting them, while others often like to close their eyes against the bad things in life. Which drives me crazy, at least.

Please tell me if you think that my impression is wrong.
Hmm. I think one of the problems of looking for similarities among demons is the group you're looking at isn't actually demons - it's 'people who use the term demon to describe themselves'. Modern culture depicts demons as scary monster devil things ... so how likely are the 'bright and shiny' types to use that label?
Archer Wrote:Hmm. I think one of the problems of looking for similarities among demons is the group you're looking at isn't actually demons - it's 'people who use the term demon to describe themselves'.

That's okay, I'm actually looking for this "biased" information. I want to see how people who think they are demons describe their kind, not how the bible or anyone else does, we know that already.
I slightly disagree with this.

I honestly don't think "happiness vs sadness", "dark vs light" and "order vs chaos" have anything to do with each other.
I think Archer mentioned a while back about a dream she had, where in her interpretation, light was seen as bad, and darkness as "good" and safe.
Also, you said that demons tend to cheer people up, but they are the "kill-joy" if there seems to be too much happiness: wouldn't that being creating order, not chaos? I don't know. It's just how I see it.
This is just my opinion, criticise me all you want.

For me, the definition is the same as Kahoku, an energetic being of chaos (although I'm in between a shadow and a demon, I think, but anyway), and I've always seen chaos as being spontaneous or random, and always going against rules. Still, that view is just my opinion.
kahoku Wrote:
Archer Wrote:Hmm. I think one of the problems of looking for similarities among demons is the group you're looking at isn't actually demons - it's 'people who use the term demon to describe themselves'.

That's okay, I'm actually looking for this "biased" information. I want to see how people who think they are demons describe their kind, not how the bible or anyone else does, we know that already.

Yes, but that's part of my point . . . I don't think that people who label themselves "demons" are necessarily of the same "kind". I mean talking about "their kind" implies there is something coherent about all people who label themselves demons. Tbh I don't think "chaotic energy" is even a real common denominator - it seems to be a frequent definition in some circles, but in others, and a few years ago, most people calling themselves demons seemed to be using the horns-and-evil-and-incantations definition.
Archer Wrote:Tbh I don't think "chaotic energy" is even a real common denominator - it seems to be a frequent definition in some circles, but in others, and a few years ago, most people calling themselves demons seemed to be using the horns-and-evil-and-incantations definition.
I suppose from this statement that you've seen horns, evil, and incantations to go together, but from my time spent in Satanist groups (I never did go all the way into Demonolatry because I tried to read one of OFS Demonolatry's books and...to say the least, it was way beyond my level), demons don't have to have horns, they don't have to be evil, and really OFS is the first place I think I heard of anyone using an enn (magical incantation, in this case not self-made). And an enn can be used to call up a Demon who may not be hostile. Irritable, maybe. But not necessarily "evil".

Of course, though, there's the gigantic number of mentally unstable people who gravitate to anything having to do with demons or devils or Satan (who outnumber the actual non-atheistic Satanists [I'm certain] and Demonolators [I suspect] greatly). But they generally are not the kind to stick around; possibly due to a hostile environment (owing to the large influx of "crazy," note I'm using the term "crazy" colloquially here, as I know I can be and have been considered such myself), and possibly having to do with the shallowness of what their beliefs are based on (mostly people wanting to "sell their soul," Faust-style, whereas we regulars [as I was at the time, at least] would wonder why the hell they think Satan would *want* their soul). Plus the whole social stigma is something that will powerfully drive away most who are dealing with the phenomena at all.

Then out of those who are left...one kind of gets to the point of asking oneself, "why am I talking about this?" <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> As talking about it makes one unnecessarily vulnerable. There's a *reason* why OFS is (or, at least, has been) the only aboveground Demonolatry sect with an Internet presence.

Of course, though, in the above I'm not talking about LaVeyan (Atheistic/"Modern"/Philosophical) Satanists, as LaVeyan Satanism was not the sect I was involved with, for my own valid reasons. Not liking LaVey, being a giant one. Rampant plagiarism being the second most giant one, along with his ghostwriters; then there are the far-right-wing political views (e.g. Social Darwinism) and the sexism that I saw in his texts (a.k.a. woman as defined by man), and the general energy I got off of reading what I tried to read (if nothing else, I know that I'm sensitive to energy, and his energy [or at least the energy of the person who wrote the part of the book I read] had more than a toxic air to it). To be upfront, I couldn't stand the man long enough to read much of his writing. I saw enough of the people who *had* read it, and assimilated it, and aside from some common-sense ideas (e.g. indulgence with moderation), I didn't like it in them, either.

Anyhow, aside from that small rant (^_^Wink I wouldn't be surprised if the same kind of phenomena occurs with demonkin. I know that the stigma aspect is entirely still there, at least if one doesn't identify as "being composed of chaos energy." It's the same word ("demon") with a different definition, so it's easy to say that in effect the term "demon" is a homonym, and doesn't mean what it implies at all. It's like if you look at LaVeyan Satanism, and people who call themselves "Satanists" but are really Philosophical Satanists -- it's a homonym. The common term "Satanism" and the term "Satanism" as used within LaVeyan Satanism, to the best of my knowledge, do not mean the same thing. But they're spelled and pronounced the same to try and invoke a subtext of something else. It's the same type of thing that I ran across in the Satanism forums -- "Satan" is a personal concept, and so one person may say "Satan" and in the same room of 100 people you have 121 different ideas of "Satan".

I also know that with the entire idea of *being* a demon...it appeals to people who have been rejected in their lives, as Satan, who in Xian mythos takes all the rejects, has something of an air of inclusivity. And if you don't believe he's evil, because, in my case, maybe you don't believe in the concept of evil; or you find "evil" to be an inane idea that someone thought up because they wanted to slap it on a scapegoat, which then some twisted people thought they should emulate, and which has nothing whatsoever to do with the normal flow of reality (really, how the hell can someone be 100% evil, all the time); then it just becomes a mystery to explore.

I'm going to put the rest of this in a separate post, just in case someone wants to slap this in the Religion subforum.
Irie! Now I get to talk about what I was writing about on a different site, the other night. It's like you read my thoughts, 'hoku.

I went back and named the post after I finished writing, which caused me to think. What I found, was that while the term "demon" may not qualitatively describe anything useful about me (other than that in my formative years I'd been rejected and was still healing from that), "human" doesn't quite cut it, either. Because if you look at humans as a different type of 'kin...if you make a kind of umbrella-concept of what it means to be "human", I don't identify with the term "human." But the use of the term "demon" is so varied, cross-culturally and within 'kin subculture, that it effectually says nothing, while simultaneously invoking negative value judgments from most humans (who generally think they know what it means -- which is normally "supernatural expression of evil", however nonsensical either the concept of "supernatural" or "evil" may be).

So anyway, I was listing the traits that I knew about myself on this other site, which are all pretty much more specific than "kintype." One of the things that I know at this moment is that I'm now considering myself median. I also know that I'm sensitive. I'm to the point of acknowledging that because of the plurality and because of the sensitivity, some of my "others" do not originate from within my system. However, all of them are, at this point, not hostile, which is good. <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->

Thing is that right now we have no reliable method of differentiation to be able to tell which beings operating through this brain are sourced from within, as versus who we're picking up from immediate surroundings (psychic or literal) or visitations. (...which makes it difficult to come up with an overall identity-concept other than median/sensitive.) We know at this point that there is a Rattlesnake totem who is helping. We also know we have a friendly dark spirit visitor who comes around every once in a while. I may give an update on him sometime (there's a little one behind me who is sitting with wings splayed on the floor and cheeping "yes! yes!" [translated] though I'm not sure it's him. DAMMIT SPARROW <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_lol.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing" /><!-- s:lol: -->). But anyway...

We know we have a connection to water, and probable past life history related to Asia, given our current extremely strong faith in reincarnation, our lack of inherent negative value judgment to things "dark" (and positive focus on what we can loosely refer to as yin [yes, yin is represented by white]), and the fact that it was easier for us to pick up Central/South/East Asian methods of thought than Western ones (even though the rigor in training in current China and Japan, at least, is not something we envy).

We also know that we have a connection with the triad of death/change/rebirth, which if I think about it, is connected with the plurality. I'm uncertain if the connection is *because* of the Rattlesnake totem, or if Rattlesnake gravitated to us because of this. Rattlesnake...wouldn't she be a New World spirit? Who would likely have found us in this life. Anyhow...

That's what we know with a relatively high degree of certainty. We also know that we have no particularly strong attachment to the idea of "humanity" when it and its alternative(s) are viewed with neutrality. When "humanity" is (intellectually) valued *over* other forms of life and being, though, *then* we have a problem. Not in the sense of then wanting to *be* human, but in the sense of wanting to defend those other ways of being.

So all that to say...I'm kind of just here. In a sense I identify with the term, "demon", and with darkness and chaos (Void, the mother of all things?), but I know that my identification is largely based on pain, and that darkness and chaos encompass more than just demons, whatever the realistic definition of the term (that is, should we not define "darkness and chaos" to be equivalent to "exclusively demonic traits"). I also know that chaos is just a term for a system so complex that humans cannot comprehend it. I know that in the past, my speech and thought patterns have been so complex as to appear chaotic to an outside observer, though to me they made perfect sense, even if they did jump from topic to topic. I was just not explaining how all the thoughts were connected, which made me difficult to follow...but this isn't a thread on thought disorder.

I can also intellectually conjecture that it's likely that not all demons are dark or chaotic, given what I've read (there are demons who are associated with things like healing, which does not appear dark or chaotic unless we're looking at using a deity of healing to help a curse of illness). And that, plus the real-life stigma, is a reason why I've backed off of the term, at least for now.
there are different kinds of demons, its hard to put my definition into words honestly...but i know that not all demons are fallen angels for sure, usually the fallen ones are the evil ones that i have noticed, but other demons are just born as demons <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> there are good, bad, and neutral, each feed off of some sort of energy, sexual(incubus/succubus), fear or negative feelings, and others. you see i cant put a solid definition because theres soooo many types!! if i had more time on my hands, i would explain more in this post, but i just felt i should throw this little bit of knowledge out there.
I really wanna say right now that a demon is anything that is not a currently-diety-serving angel. <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_lol.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing" /><!-- s:lol: -->

Fae have been called demons, so have dragons, vampires, were-creatures, aliens, ghosts, energy beings, *fallen* angels, witches, psychological illnesses, addictions, literary streaks... the list goes on.

Hell my definition of a demon changes constantly. What I said on the other forum(s) may not even apply if I re-think it now.

A demon is something you can't understand. Chaos is also something you cannot understand, since, when you understand it, it ceases to be chaos. Therefore, demons are chaotic, but otherwise defy any uniform definition since to concretely define a demon would make it cease to be a demon and have it become something else.

Let me take that back and change it a bit. You can define a demon. You can point at something and say, "Yep, that's a demon alright." But chances are the moment you do that it's going to be something else to somebody else.

"That's not a demon! That's obviously a dragon."
"That's not a demon! That's a vampire."
"That's not a demon! That's my inner psychological torment."
"That's not a demon! That's my uncle at my nephew's Bar Mitzvah."

And so on. Generally speaking, we can assume there are numerous things you would not call a demon: unicorns, for instance, or pretty princesses, or Superman.

Also generally speaking, we can agree that the label's usually placed upon things that the majority would classify as "not so nice." Demon has a negative connotation that is gonna be there no matter how much you try to get rid of it. I tried using the fae label, thinking it would work; all that brainstorming and pondering told me that yes, it made sense and I should use it.

But it just isn't sticking. I just can't, for whatever reason, stick with the label. Demon works. But why would I want to place a label on myself that gets you so much crap? Calling yourself a demon does not get you the nicest looks in a philosophical conversation. People assume you're one of those fancy goth kids at best, dark is my soul, blah blah blah.

Something out there takes on the label. Something out there will always be the misunderstood thing people are scared of. Demons are like Batman, really, except we don't necessarily fight crime and we usually avoid having a stick up our arse.

At the same time, I don't necessarily feel like I have a duty to take on this label. I fully acknowledge the "evilness" in me. I may not be evil, per say, but I acknowledge that I am capable of many a bad deed, wickedness, or unpredictable act capable of being construed as "evil." I acknowledge this, and embrace it. And many people would view that as demonic.

I may not necessarily think chaotically. I think erratically, my mind jumps ahead 20 steps without the logic in between at times, I'm spontaneous, I'm quick to the jump, and I often blurt things out as I think them. And some people may view that as demonic.

I take things very literally, it takes an iron-clad contract to keep me from finding a loophole, and things like "the spirit of the law" don't even compute with me. I'd make an excellent lawyer. Many people would view that as demonic.

I think Satan isn't really all that bad. I think that if Hell were to exist, I'd probably not only be in it, but probably enjoying myself some how. People think that's demonic all the time.

If you show emotion when you lose, you're a sore loser. I do my job to the letter and I'm extremely ambitious, independent, and conniving. Definitely stereotypical demon traits.

And at the same. Time. There are a bunch of other 'kin out there calling themselves demons who are the veritable opposite of me. Woot!

Demons are a paradox: Demons defy definition by the very definition of demons.
I wasn't sure whether to post this here or in the "OK, so we got chaos..." thread. But now that I've been reading and have absorbed a little knowledge on others' ideas of demons (well, okay, Robert Bruce's idea of demons), I have a little bit of something to add to the discussion:

Do you think that the connection of demons with chaos has to do with the need of spirit beings to energetically feed while on the physical plane? (This explanation assumes a mediumistic situation, but...) What I've run across would indicate that it's possible the randomness noted -- well; the randomness could be due to a sensitive form picking up on nearby spirit influences, but, I mean; the chaotic portion of this could be due to energy feeding, and getting fragments of energy from many different sources. Essentially, consuming them without first erasing their energy patterns.

So the internal experience of being chaotic could be both from picking up on nearby energies -- if you happen to be energetically sensitive (which I'd guess, if you identified as an energy being, you might be <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->) -- and energetic feeding, which would bring one into contact with a lot of disparate bits of energy which one might then sense as one assimilated them. And if you assume that everything that happens in your mind is essentially yourself...rather than bits of your energetic environment...then this could lead to your identifying everything you're sensing, as yourself. Which leads to an unstable or context-dependent self-image.

Kahoku, what was the main reason (or three) behind viewing demons as beings primarily composed of chaos?
Pages: 1 2 3
Reference URL's