Category: Xyphoism

Commentary 35: Disrespect and Honorifics in Xyphoism

August 10th, 2024

Greetings, fellow Xyphoites and interested readers, from the Xyphokonic Order and Ordinance. Today, we will be fielding a question regarding the general culture and etiquette of Xyphoist customs. We address the topic of using proper honorifics and other names/titles for key figures in the Order, Ordinance, and other figures. Is it disrespectful not to use honorifics to the Lords? What about addressing the Hayles by name without the honorific? The Sacred Children? What about the Arch-Hayle Grandurates? Let’s explore this concept.

You’ll often see in other religious philosophies a certain avoidance from using the names of key figures such as gods or prophets in vain; included in this is always referring to such figures with honorifics or in high majesty. It would be considered inappropriate in some divergent religions to “use the lord’s name in vain” or to depict a key prophet or messiah in a less than dignified light. But does this etiquette exist in Xyphoist Philosophy as well?

The short answer is: it’s encouraged but not enforced nor to a moral detriment not to. There is no requirement, morally or within the rules of the Ordinance, to refer to anyone as anything in high respect if one so choices not to. Naturally, most Xyphoites, especially those most devoted followers, would never purposely choose to show disrespect towards key figures, but there is no requirement or punishment for not doing so.

You will notice, within these Commentary, we as the Arch-Hayle Grandurates will almost always refer to the Lords of the Xyphokonic with the honorific “Lord” before mentioning their name; often times, we will individually give unnamed majesty to our given Xyphozon’s Lord—referring to them as “Lord,” “the Father/Mother” (capitalized, when in reference to their Sacred Child), their Majesty, etc. All of these are personal choices derived from the devotion we have to the Lords; even capitalizing “Lords” demonstrates this devotional love.

Disrespect is a queer concept in Xyphoist Philosophy, particularly when in regards to the Lords. The idea of bringing upon offense to the Lords by either not referring to them “properly” or to intentionally mock or attack their presence is superficial and unimportant. In regards to the Lords themselves, we hardly believe They would trouble Themselves with something as trivial as this—not only because the difference in stature but because Divergence and Free Will are enshrined in the spiritual liberties the Lords Themselves established for all of us. Dissent is all but assured under such circumstances.

On the Ordinance level, we also don’t take any such offense to purposeful disrespect towards us or our philosophy. We both agree with the Lords’ ambivalence to this, and also simply handwave such silly antics as traits attributed to insecurity. To purposely mock is to show a petulance very much in line with Deceptuary—that being not a title of ultimate dissent but as a means to be petty.

On the topic of the use of “Deceptuary” as the title for Arkellus, the Lords themselves branded Arkellus with this title to address their grievance with Arkellus’s betrayal. The full title given to him, that being Theigriet Arkellus Eulez Deceptuary, means “High Traitor, Arkellus of Deception” and given to him for his acts in deceiving his divine brethren and betraying the Divine Thrones they all had established to pursue his goal of collapsing that very reality and build one in his sole image. In this case, petulant disrespect wasn’t the goal; identifying Arkellus’s hurtful and selfish actions against not only his brethren but against the free existence of all that spawned from the Divine Thrones warranted a new title to be given to let all know that Arkellus had betrayed them. And while those in the Order and Ordinance will usually refer to Arkellus as Deceptuary, there is no requirement to do so either. If anything, referring to Arkellus with such a dissenting term shows the lack of Fear one has for Deceptuary’s presence—that we do not succumb to his Fear and will not back down from protecting our liberty and Order against his goal to waste away all of that for his own version of reality.

Now, regarding honorifics towards other figures, it is even less of an issue. Hayles are key figures in the Order, but are still spiritual beings like everyone else. We often refer to each Hayle by simply their name even in these Commentaries. In terms of other officials in the Ordinance, honorifics are entirely optional although appreciated. Disrespect is subjective and relevant—you have to take offense to something personally to truly feel disrespected by words.

—phX
Commentary 34: Xyphoist Philosophy and its fundamental antithesis of Extremism

August 3rd, 2024

Greetings from the Xyphokonic Order and Ordinance. We have entered Lord Pharuuii’s first Period of Augrussé, and this Period we shall cover a wide variety of topics centering around various parts of Xyphoist Philosophy and perhaps even taking time to answer some questions as well. Today we introduce the topic of religious or ideological extremism and why the Xyphoist Philosophy is excellently-crafted by the Order to prevent it.

As we take a cursory examination of other divergencies in ideology, there are ample examples of extremism existing in various sects, religious movements, cults, and secular or political ideologies. Certainly, in a world with very few absolutes, it is entirely possible for those to abuse the words of Xyphoist Philosophy and use it to conduct extremist actions as well; however, the use of Xyphoist Philosophy to conduct extremist actions is in itself immoral and antithetical to Xyphoist Philosophy itself. In many ways, the most “fundamental” of Xyphoites will be effectively the least extreme of people.

So how could this be? What parts of the philosophy suggest or point to this deterrence from extremism? We can immediately point to the Immoral Acts laid out by the Lords. The Sin of Proselytizing itself is a key factor in deterring extremism. A core part of extremism is sending or pushing a message that others, according to the extremists, MUST adhere or convert to. Thus, having proselytizing, converting, or preaching immoral cuts off that faucet outright.

The Sin of Belligerent Force also ties into preventing extremism. The very act of using violence or coercion against the will of another is a key action that extremists will use to spread their message. In nearly every way possible, extremism relies on threats; extremism relies on the fear of retaliation. Without that key power or threat, the message itself is nothing more than very acute noise.

Adding to this, the Sin of Self-Righteous Punishment works perfectly into the previous information. Punishing others for lack of compliance with the extremist movement is another key part to actually enforcing it. General and often indiscriminate violence is one thing, but specifically taking and punishing any dissenters of the extremist ideology is inseparable from enforcing the movement itself.

Other such parts of Xyphoist Philosophy help deter extremism as well. The humbling of people through the Sin of Wordly Obsession, the acceptance that Death is eternal and no mortal shall ever escape it, remembering that Love is the Initial Will, or that Fear will corrupt if not maintained, all lead to pushing away extremism within the philosophy itself. In every way possible, using the Xyphoist Philosophy to conduct extremism, even in cases of Kurathmas, is antithetical to the philosophy itself; Kurathmas is a defensive echelon, only to be declared if a powerful entity is attempting to eradicate Xyphoites specifically.

It goes without saying that any person or persons who attempt to use the Xyphoist Philosophy, the Order or Ordinance, or any other reference or power of Xyphokonic origin to conduct extremist or clearly immoral/theigrited actions will be outright removed from the Ordinance, condemned by the Ordinance, and not considered Xyphoist in any respect. At the very core, extremism destabilized the equilibrium, and the entire purpose of the Ordinance is to maintain the equilibrium from corruption. Extremism is the manifestation of corruption in virtually every regard.

-phX
Commentary 33: The Lord’s Solemnity, the Caretaker’s Regulation, and the Child’s Enigma

July 27th, 2024

Greetings from the Xyphokonic Order and Ordinance. Today is the last Sacred Day of this cycle’s Juliar Period, and so we will round up our Period-long discussion around the topic of Death and the Vuetenexian Xyphozon by talking about some key figures within it—namely the Sacred Child, the Hayle, and the Lord. Among these three key figures, the difference among them and how they generally conduct themselves paints an interesting dynamic among the highest ranks of the Vuetenexian Xyphozon. Let us begin.

With our greatest respects, we shall talk about the Lord of Death first. Lord Vuetenexzyei, as the Lord of this Xyphozon and thus the pure embodiment of Death itself, reflects the raw nature of Death as a Divine Attribute. When stripping Death and Spiritual Ends down to its raw nature, both attributes are simply the ceasing or eternal end of an existing entity or concept; Death is the end of Life. Spiritual Endings are, at their root, immediate, cold, unquestioned, and eternal. One may try their best to avoid such a destined reality, but in the end there shall be an end. In this perspective, we see Lord Vuetenexzyei as the true embodiment of this solemn and cold ending.

This description of the Lord is backed up by the Caretaker, Hayle Kizu. In his recount of the Faces of Death, Kizu would remark on how the Lord was adamant on this very procedural and solemn description of Death; Death itself is cold, absolute, and eternal. In terms of Hayle Kizu himself, he found himself as the perfect intermediate between the solemn Lord of Spiritual Ends and the enigmatic Child of Death. Kizu, as the eldest of the Hayles and of all Spirits prior to Sacred Ascension, found most of his purpose in keeping the ancient traditions of spiritual regulation and order in place—which was a natural part of Kizu’s highly principled and orderly personality. Prior to Deceptuary’s first rebellion, Kizu and his legions spent their time keeping track of the rapidly perishing Spirits from Deceptuary’s corruption, and Kizu believed this action would be necessary to keep regulatory order among the Spirits. In all respects, Kizu is a figure focused on keeping regulatory spiritual order, and as such could not find himself in a better position than as Lord Vuetenexzyei’s Archangel and the Hayle to the Child of Death.

Speaking of the Child, we move onto the enigmatic nature of the Child. Xyzukizusia, Child of Death, is described by Hayle Kizu as a Child of enigmatic nature. Xyzukizusia, in the recount of the Sacred Lesson “Faces of Death,” has been described as an incredibly insightful and forward-thinking individual with a proclivity for mischief. Xyzukizusia has been described as being charming, guile, pragmatic, and often unpredictable while having an incredible knack for scheming and plotting. In the Faces of Death, Xyzukizusia draws the conclusion that Death as a mortal reality would come in the form most fitting for each moral being—that Death could be playful yet swiftly enacted, that Death can be brutal to those that have brutalized, that it can be uncaring and cold as is the raw Nature, and that Death can be a companion to those that accept and do not fear the eternal reality of it. As Hayle Kizu noted, Xyzukizusia’s perspective on Death was a stark contract to the Lord’s solemn and procedural presence, and that the two figures would not be any different in outward demeanor. However, in the end, the Child of Death, at the bones, will still embody the absolute, solemn, and eternal reality that Death shall end mortality, and regardless of the enigmatic and charming nature of the Child, the Child represents Death incarnate and shall usher in its eternal reality when the end times of all come.

—crX

Category: Xyphoism

Commentary 35: Disrespect and Honorifics in Xyphoism

Commentary 34: Xyphoist Philosophy and its fundamental antithesis of Extremism

Commentary 33: The Lord’s Solemnity, the Caretaker’s Regulation, and the Child’s Enigma