XyphokonicOrder.org

What is Xyphoism?
Ordinance Website
Our Books
Xyphozon Information
Commentary ARchives
Questions about Xyphoism?
About Us
Social Media

  • Commentary 36: The Purpose of Spiritual Liberty

    Greetings from the Xyphokonic Order and Ordinance. Welcome back, all. Today we will go over the topic of Spiritual Liberty. Within the doctrine of the Order, Spiritual Liberty is a divine writ bestowed upon all of creation, faithful or otherwise, that is eternally guaranteed by the Nine Xyphozons to all beings. But why is Spiritual Liberty granted to all beings? Why would the Lords give the selection of Spiritual Liberties to beings of existence? Is it a mechanical reason? A sentimental reason? Let’s explore the concept.

    Going over the main types of Spiritual Liberties, all beings are given the liberty of belief or disbelief in the Order or any philosophy without punishment for the practice of said liberty; all beings are given liberty from forced conversion or proselytizing of any philosophy, Xyphokonic or otherwise. The divine attribute of Free Will is a liberty given to beings to choose their own actions and take upon all the results of said actions.

    These liberties are guaranteed by the Xyphozons and upheld by the Order. But what possible reasons would the Lords have for granting these liberties? Approaching the question from a mechanical standpoint, the freeing of the being in spiritual conquest facilitates the Order’s ultimate goals of Maintaining the Equilibrium. Imprisoning beings or subjecting beings to purposeful suffering through the denial of Liberty of Being undoubtedly causes needless destabilization to the Equilibrium; all worldly suffering left unchecked does so. So from a mechanical standpoint, this guarantee becomes a clear necessity.

    However, as with most things, mechanics aren’t the only concern. We recognize that the Lords were Initial Beings that cast their shadow from the Initial Flash, and with that shadow spawned existence. We also recognize that the attachment of Love is the “Initial Will”—that Love for existence is the Initial Will of the 10 deities that spawned existence and therefore would carry on to say the Lords of the Xyphokonic Order still hold this Love for existence. Harboring that Love for existence and all of creation would suggest the Lords would be more than apt to grant liberties to that which was spawned from Natural Flow—that they would demonstrate an Initial Love in our existence by granting us the liberty to be who we are, and to do what we will do, regardless of the impact.

    The entire flow of free movement of spirituality is the essence of our continued existence; the Cosmos work to keep the spiritual cycle and flow in motion to feed our existence further. It would be perfectly just, then, that our liberty is guaranteed to us by the Xyphozons through both a mechanical need to Maintain the Equilibrium but also to demonstrate an Initial Love for existence itself.

    —phX, voX, erX, whX

  • Commentary 35: Disrespect and Honorifics in Xyphoism

    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

    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