What bothers me is that this argument reduces things to two groups:
1. People who know about all this occult symbolism and use it in practice of the occult.
2. People who know about all this occult symbolism and use it to identify practitioners of the occult.
It can never allow that there might be a third group:
3. People who know about all this occult symbolism (because the information is obviously widely available) and appropriate it in others way.
You can argue that appropriating it for use in any way is practice of the occult, but that's not how symbols work. Symbols are meaningless without
context (hold on, I know you're ready to jump on that). Think of any symbol (non-occult, for right now), stop sign, no smoking, whatever. Now, if I
wear that symbol on a shirt, your brain will still process the meaning of it, but the symbol has no power. You don't have to stop and you can smoke
if you want to.
Now, let's take a symbol that has power in any context: the swastika (I know the swastika is an ancient symbol with varied meanings, but that's kind
of been ruined by the nazis). In the '70s the swastika was pretty big among the punk sub-culture. You'd see it on a lot of clothing, the bands would
wear them. Were they nazis or racists? Maybe some of them, but a lot of it was about the shock value and being transgressive. The point is, just
because someone wears something doesn't mean they support or practice the ideology of the symbol. People are capable of re-appropriating things
without being under the sway of the actual meaning. The peace symbol is another good example of this.
And in truth, there's no proof that Jay-Z or Beyonce or any of them engage in any occult activity. Jay-Z certainly has knowledge of such things. He
wears a "Do what thou wilt" hoodie, but again it's the ability to appropriate culture and information. Just as you're able to take the knowledge
and use it your ends, Jay-Z is able to take it's imagery and make fashion out of it. And the diamond symbol, as much as people don't want to
believe it, it is a hand sign for Roc-a-Fella Records. Hand signs are pretty big in street culture. Also, if the symbol was that important it would be
the actual Roc-a-Fella logo.
Also, the symbols in that video are all over the place and completely discount the idea that someone might do something for style. Doesn't even
consider it for a second. The multiple arms thing is clearly just a cool effect. It evokes imagery, but it's common imagery. And what the video calls
a "gemini symbol." Who said it was a Gemini symbol? Why is that a more logical conclusion than that it's just a mirrored depiction of Beyonce in
On another issue:
Originally posted by LazarusTsiyr
I don't have definitive proof and I never said I did. I said her words prove that she's saying she is possessed by something.
Firstly, it doesn't seem like she's ever said she's possessed by a demon. It's always "spirit" or "something." If we can't put forth that
she's acting or speaking metaphorically without solid proof, you shouldn't be allowed to assume it's a demon. Unless, you can point to somewhere
where she says demon specifically.
Secondly, your statement is correct. You're not saying you have proof, you're just saying what she said.
So, all we have are her words. No proof of anything. But you're pulling them in the direction of demonic possession, without proof. You can say that
she's decked out in the regalia of the occult and we know that because practitioners of the occult have used those symbols before. But she's never
said what the symbols mean to her, she's never said she practiced the occult. You deny metaphorical language and aspects, personal experience of
performance, (I know that you don't describe things like she does and you might not feel the way she does, but a lot of people do) and performance
techniques, because they're unsubstantiated for Beyonce personally. She's never said she's acting or speaking metaphorically (because how many
people really do that?).
So, why do you do that? Why are you steadfastly denying one interpretation of her words for lacking proof, but buying into the assumption of demonic
possession without proof of that. You're clearly on one side and you have a derision toward the thought of it being metaphorical.