Page all of 3 123>
Topic Options
#110777 - 12/07/16 04:47 PM A Difference In The CoS
LoneWolf78 Offline
member


Registered: 05/21/14
Posts: 416
I have read here about and have seen a difference in The Church of Satan even since the early 90's. Namely, after LaVey's passing. I also know that Dr. Aquino would point out differences since his 1975 departure.

However, I ran across this interesting article. While there is a lot in it, this quote pretty much nailed it in my opinion:

 Quote:
By 2001—four years after the Doctor’s death, the original Black House now razed to the ground—power was transferred to Peter, and he was tired of all the baggage that came with the name Satan.


Of all of the criticisms leveled against the current CoS as well as newer groups, this is the one that resonates most with me. As LaVey wrote in The Satanic Bible, and I am putting a different twist on this, but if they are denying the reality of Satanism and find themselves preaching the philosophies of Atheism, why not call it by it's rightful name-Atheism? Certainly it would be far less hypocritical.

This is not to say that one has to be a Devil worshiper. Rather it is to acknowledge Satan as a reality.

If Anton LaVey meant for Satanism to simply be Atheism I doubt that he would have devoted HALF of The Satanic Bible to Greater Magic and had a follow up book The Satanic Rituals completely dedicated completely to the topic.

What I find interesting on this note is how many Satanists will accept the story of how Jayne Mansfield died as a result of a curse that LaVey placed on Sam Brody, but will then say, "Oh, we're just atheists."

You either are or you aren't.

Top
#110778 - 12/07/16 10:46 PM Re: A Difference In The CoS [Re: LoneWolf78]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
[Extract from my The Church of Satan]

... Such anecdotes offer a glimpse of yet another curious contradiction within the Church of Satan. In its original denunciation of established religions - all of them, not just Christianity - it attacked not only Jehovah but all externalized deities as being crippling, imaginary fantasies with which man had unnecessarily burdened himself. As Anton put it in an early Church handout [later included in his Satanic Bible]:

 Quote:
THE GOD YOU SAVE MAY BE YOURSELF

All religions of a spiritual nature are inventions of man. He has created an entire system of gods with nothing more than his carnal brain. Just because he has an ego and cannot accept it, he has had to externalize it into some great spiritual device which he calls “God”.

God can do all the things man is forbidden to do - such as kill people, perform miracles to gratify his will, control without any apparent responsibility, etc. If man needs such a god and recognizes that god, then he is worshipping an entity that a human being invented. Therefore he is worshipping by proxy the man that invented God. Is it not more sensible to worship a god that he himself has created in accordance with his own emotional needs - one that best represents the very carnal and physical being that has the idea-power to invent a god in the first place?

If man insists on externalizing his true self in the form of “God”, then why fear his true self in fearing “God” - why praise his true self in praising “God” - why remain externalized from “God” in order to engage in ritual and religious ceremony in his name?

Man needs ritual and dogma, but no law states that an externalized god is necessary in order to engage in ritual and ceremony performed in a god’s name! Could it be that when he closes the gap between himself and his “God”, he sees the dæmon of pride creeping forth - that very embodiment of Lucifer appearing in his midst? He no longer can view himself in two parts, the carnal and the spiritual, but sees them merge as one; and then, to his abysmal horror, discovers that they are only the carnal - and always were! Then he either hates himself to death, day by day - or rejoices that he is what he is!

If he hates himself, he searches out new and more complex spiritual paths of “enlightenment” in hopes that he may split himself up again in his quest for stronger and more externalized “gods” to scourge his poor, miserable shell. If he accepts himself but recognizes that ritual and ceremony are the important devices that his invented religions have utilized to sustain his faith in a lie, then it is the same form of ritual that will sustain his faith in the truth - the primitive pageantry that will give his awareness of his own majestic being added substance.

When all religious faith in lies has waned, it is because man has become closer to himself and farther from “God” - closer to the “Devil”. If this is what the Devil represents, and such a man lives his life in the Devil’s fane, with the sinews of Satan moving his flesh, then he either escapes from the cacklings and carpings of the righteous or stands proudly in his secret places of the Earth and manipulates the folly-ridden masses through his own Satanic might until that day when he may come forth in splendor, proclaiming, “I am a Satanist! Bow down, for I am the highest embodiment of human life!”

By these criteria, then, the Church of Satan was not a church in the precise sense of the term, nor did it worship Satan as an existential being in his own right. Rather it was Atheism with psychodrama. As Truzzi correctly observed, that was something which could be credibly argued to skeptical audiences.

There was, however, a problem: Satanists participating in rituals of Black Magic quickly became aware of an “interest” or “influence” in the atmosphere of the chamber that felt somehow alien to their own personalities. The pageantry and the oratory would fade into the background, and the participants would find themselves gripped in a sensory empathy so piercing, so powerful that it would leave them exhausted, drained, and shaken at the conclusion of the rite. It was not a chance occurrence, but an inevitable, recurring one. After such experiences participants were subdued, introspective, and disinclined to exchange comments on their feelings. There was perhaps even a slight feeling of embarrassment, as though one had somehow “slipped” from being a proper psychodramatic Atheist.

And Anton LaVey was himself the most familiar with this sensation. His behavior during a ritual was not that of an actor, nor of a megalomaniac, but rather of a High Priest in the sincere sense. In public and to less experienced Satanists he would continue to “excuse” the Church of Satan as Atheism-with-frills, but alone with intimates he would speak of Satan, the Church, and his own office therein with the greatest reverence and respect. He did not “believe” after the fashion of the ordinary mystic or fanatic; he continued to have a healthy contempt for such types. It would be more accurate to say that he had achieved a very deep understanding of a remote, rarely-penetrated part of existence in which intelligence and will besides those of mankind exist. Nor did he “worship” this other essence; rather he empathized and communed with it. And so these two forces - the atheistic and the Satanic - coexisted in varying proportions for the entire duration of the Church of Satan. One would expect them ultimately to conflict and provoke the final crisis, but that did not prove to be the case. The atheistic argument entered that crisis only as a later rationalization, for by that time it had long ceased to be taken seriously within the Church ...

Top
#110780 - 12/08/16 12:32 AM Re: A Difference In The CoS [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
LoneWolf78 Offline
member


Registered: 05/21/14
Posts: 416
Dr. Aquino,

First, I would like to thank you. You have well earned your stripes and yet you come here. I have seen you banter, joke, take criticism and share knowledge with anyone here who cares to see it. That is far more than could be said about many who parade titles around but would be beyond approach unless, of course, you paid them for access, trinkets, or both.

On to the subject at hand.

I know what you are talking about. It would seem kind of a balancing act from the essay that you quote from TSB coupled along with the Ritual element of it. I have always viewed the book as one part philosophy and one part religion. Not something that is entirely in contradiction but certainly one that demands a certain type of verification.

Likewise, I also know the feeling that you are speaking of when I have performed Rituals myself. Though I never felt the sense of embarrassment in "slipping". The first time was a kind of half expected thing. However, you are right about the consistency of it.

 Quote:
. It would be more accurate to say that he had achieved a very deep understanding of a remote, rarely-penetrated part of existence in which intelligence and will besides those of mankind exist.


To an extent I even got that from the following quotation from the chapter Life After Death Through Fulfillment Of The Ego:

 Quote:
If a person has been vital throughout his life and has fought to the end for his earthly existence, it is this ego which will refuse to die, even after the expiration of the flesh which housed it. Young children are to be admired for their driving enthusiasm for life. This is exemplified by the small child who refuses to go to bed when there is something exciting going on, and when once put to bed, will sneak down the stairs to peek through the curtain and watch. It is this child-like vitality that will allow the Satanist to peek through the curtain of darkness and death and remain earthbound.


It seems as though he could have elaborated on that part and then stopped.

I also get what you are saying about not worshiping it but communing and empathizing with this Force? If that would be the correct word.

Certainly, I would think that he held a contempt for believers. It always seemed to me that he was more about gaining knowledge as opposed to belief.

So far, from observing various sides of 1975, this is what caused the crisis: The integrity was lost because he became too focused on taking money from anyone and if they believed every word he said so much the better. I could be wrong on that though.

What I do know is that you are willing to openly discuss it and the CoS has always tried to sweep it under the rug. That brings up something else that loses credibility with me. How that they seem Hell bound on covering up or erasing certain parts of their history or how various past members, including yourself, are a forbidden topic of discussion.

My take on that is that just because someone is no longer a part of something that does not or should not take away from any contribution that they made. Because, like it or not, without that past, where would they be today?

As always, I appreciate the insight that you offer in my continued studies and practice.

Top
#110782 - 12/08/16 11:31 AM Re: A Difference In The CoS [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6737
Loc: Virginia
The entire development of the CoS/Satanic Bible was to satirize organized religion, its demons and to embrace man's core nature. If there were any effects of group gatherings, I think it's a leap to say that LaVey recognized a supernatural component. These conclusions tends to come from outsider opinions and observations.

The inclusion of ritulization, dogma, etc. were clearly outlined to cater to that nature. Not necessarily recognize an 'other' in the grand scheme of things. When things got a bit out of hand with vying for attentions and titles, LaVey sold them off to make a point. I don't think the point was to support the belief that:

 Quote:
There was perhaps even a slight feeling of embarrassment, as though one had somehow “slipped” from being a proper psychodramatic atheist.


People can mindfuck themselves, check with any method actor that loses his way when training for a part.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#110785 - 12/08/16 02:36 PM Re: A Difference In The CoS [Re: LoneWolf78]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
Thanks, Lone Wolf. In general I feel that I have fulfilled the task that Set gave to me in 1975 where reestablishment and constitution of his Temple are concerned, and that I have now also completed what book-records I think should survive my time on this planet for reference & convenience of others, both Setian and nonSetian. I do not expect to be here much longer, so am gruntled to have these tasks completed.

Visiting 600C is for me a bit of admitted nostalgia for the 1966-75 Age of Satan, which was, in the words of Obi-wan Kenobi, "a more civilized age". Here I attempt to resurrect a bit of that atmosphere, which is also why I use my Church IV° insignia as my avatar here. In effect I am posting as the Magister Templi IV°-II' I was then: what Anton would call a magical working of ECI (Erotic Crystalliation Inertia). [From my perspective, he descended into his personal, 1940s noir ECI after 1975 and never emerged from it thereafter.]

As surveyed in my The Church of Satan, there was no attempt at a formalized, organized Satanic religion prior to 1966, and - despite his longtime, serious interest in the Black Arts - I think it's clear that Anton had no idea how big a door he had opened when founding the Church. What started out as an impulsive natire evolved into something much deeper and more substantive, in which we all found ourselves playing a sort of catchup. It very wuickly left the "sandbox" of ordinary religion, and by 1975 even the convept of "religion" as conventionally understood.

In that sense it is no wonder to me that 600C is flailing around so much trying to "redefine Satanism". This is an area of interest, so to speak, for which Judæo-Christian terminology and iconography are hopelessly inadequate. I see today's "Satanists" as yearning for something like the sinister glamour of the movie The Devil Rides Out, without naïvely abandoning today's sophistication. Can't be done, really. Which is why 600C is inherently an "impossible" forum, doomed to beating around the bush of its avowed central subject. It persists because it remains "an itch that demands to be scratched".
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#110786 - 12/08/16 02:49 PM Re: A Difference In The CoS [Re: SIN3]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: SIN3
The entire development of the CoS/Satanic Bible was to satirize organized religion, its demons and to embrace man's core nature. If there were any effects of group gatherings, I think it's a leap to say that LaVey recognized a supernatural component. These conclusions tends to come from outsider opinions and observations.

The inclusion of ritulization, dogma, etc. were clearly outlined to cater to that nature. Not necessarily recognize an 'other' in the grand scheme of things. When things got a bit out of hand with vying for attentions and titles, LaVey sold them off to make a point.

Sin, that certainly summarizes the "party line" of Anton post-1975, continuing into Gilmore's business today. If you or anyone else wants to believe that, fine. Against it I simply submit The Church of Satan. I am completely content for individual "water to find its own level" accordingly. \:\)
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#110788 - 12/08/16 04:26 PM Re: A Difference In The CoS [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6737
Loc: Virginia
Mr. Aquino, I think you assume too much. It's not that I'm towing a party-line, it's that I fully understood what it was I was reading, observing and experiencing.


I acknowledge that you have your experiences and perspective based on your beliefs.

Believe it or not, there are people in my social circle that try to convince others that I hold beliefs in the Supernatural too. It's just the way interpersonal relationships play out, especially when they are based on differences vs. similarities.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#110790 - 12/08/16 06:45 PM Re: A Difference In The CoS [Re: SIN3]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3841
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Soon old Mikey will be dead, and with nobody to tirelessly pump his ebooks, his narrative with him.

Meanwhile we still have Anton on film from 1973 plainly stating he wasn't theistic at all.

All that time trying to retcon history will be wasted. Ahh well, at least he'll be heeded post humously within that weird aardvark cult he started. There's always that. Oh ya, and mindwar. Pretty sure governments will start replacing traditional warfare with that any time now.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#110792 - 12/08/16 08:13 PM Re: A Difference In The CoS [Re: Dan_Dread]
LoneWolf78 Offline
member


Registered: 05/21/14
Posts: 416
 Quote:
Meanwhile we still have Anton on film from 1973 plainly stating he wasn't theistic at all.


Yet, he also made the claim (which the atheistic CoS still touts to this day) that his curse on Sam Brody caused the death of Jayne Mansfield.

He also took credit for a curse that he placed on the hippie movement resulting in the so called Manson murders.

In Blanche Barton's books she reaffirms all of these and more including parking spaces just happening to appear for him.

Can I prove or disprove any of these claims?

No.

I was not there.

But, since doubt is an integral part of Satanism, I keep an opened mind. Disbelief is believing.

Did Anton LaVey believe in the reality of Satan?

Only he would know the answer to that.

I would only say that their is a difference between belief and knowledge .

For instance, I do not believe that The 600 Club message boards are a reality. Iknow that they are.

Once something has been validated consistently you can deny it, but you never have to believe it.


Edited by LoneWolf78 (12/08/16 08:15 PM)

Top
#110793 - 12/08/16 08:41 PM Re: A Difference In The CoS [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 862
Loc: Nashville
Implied in your book’s title is Michael Aquino’s Interpretation of the Church of Satan. Granted, that doesn’t flow nearly as well as The Church of Satan. My point, of course, is that your book is less an objective history of the organization and more your take on the organization. If you had been its leader or an impartial observer, your book would have more objective value. But you were a member who left the organization and to this day has an ax to grind. As Al Pacino’s Satan said in The Devil’s Advocate, “Consider the source.”
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#110794 - 12/08/16 09:41 PM Re: A Difference In The CoS [Re: LoneWolf78]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
 Originally Posted By: LW
Yet, he also made the claim (which the atheistic CoS still touts to this day) that his curse on Sam Brody caused the death of Jayne Mansfield.


Yeah___ but the occult and Atheism are not mutually exclusive. One refers to knowledge of the hidden. The other refers to lacking a belief in gods. One can have it both ways - and quite easily, though it lends itself predictably to all sorts of pseudo-occult kookery (psuedo-occult (n): That the occult is just things science has not explained yet). Fact is, that which is occult will never be empirically verifiable - by definition.

Even so, it's fun to watch people walk face first into that bong-rip-inspired pole as well.

_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
#110795 - 12/08/16 09:54 PM Re: A Difference In The CoS [Re: antikarmatomic]
LoneWolf78 Offline
member


Registered: 05/21/14
Posts: 416
 Quote:
One refers to knowledge of the hidden. The other refers to lacking a belief in gods. One can have it both ways


I agree. I would just add that it is quite easy to lack belief once you have validated knowledge.

 Quote:
Fact is, that which is occult will never be empirically verifiable - by definition.

I would address this in the same way that I would William Wright's comment here:

 Quote:
If you had been its leader or an impartial observer, your book would have more objective value.



Most things are completely subjective to the individual' experience. The experience itself may be objective, however, each individual will experience it subjectively.

However, more directly to William Wright's comment. I do not wish to be rude, but seriously, the leader of any group would put out an objective book on his or her group?

Surely you jest.

Top
#110796 - 12/08/16 10:36 PM Re: A Difference In The CoS [Re: LoneWolf78]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 862
Loc: Nashville
 Originally Posted By: LoneWolf78
more directly to William Wright's comment. I do not wish to be rude, but seriously, the leader of any group would put out an objective book on his or her group?

Surely you jest.

Point taken – the leader of any group is by definition its spokesperson, its cheerleader. For that matter, even seemingly impartial observers can have hidden biases. I guess my larger point was that Aquino’s account of his time in the CoS is just that - a personal account, no more and no less.
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#110797 - 12/08/16 11:25 PM Re: A Difference In The CoS [Re: SIN3]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
Sin, different persons with different capacities, motives, and agendas represent a given phenomenon differently, to themselves and others. If your interpretation satisfies you, so be it.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#110798 - 12/08/16 11:37 PM Re: A Difference In The CoS [Re: Dan_Dread]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
Soon old Mikey will be dead, and with nobody to tirelessly pump his ebooks, his narrative with him.

At your level of comprehension, Michael Aquino's existence is irrelevant and his writings unintelligible.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#110799 - 12/08/16 11:44 PM Re: A Difference In The CoS [Re: William Wright]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: William Wright
Implied in your book’s title is Michael Aquino’s Interpretation of the Church of Satan.

Silly. Every book is necessarily from the perspective of its author, and in this case the scope of the content goes far beyond my individual interactions and interpretations.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#110800 - 12/09/16 01:24 AM Re: A Difference In The CoS [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 862
Loc: Nashville
And that’s fine – you told the story your way. At least we can agree that beyond hard facts, the narrative was written from your perspective. It is your perspective that the CoS was “legitimate” until 1975, at which time its “legitimacy” torch was passed to the ToS. One perspective among many.
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#110801 - 12/09/16 02:20 AM Re: A Difference In The CoS [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3125
[Quick Reply]

The claimed "differentiations" in '75 and '90ies do coincide with "generational" schisms. With that I mean the swaying of public opinions. I believe there's a theory somewhere where "the public" changes mind every 15 - 20 years.

No surprise about those two obeservations there.

 Originally Posted By: M.A.A.
And Anton LaVey was himself the most familiar with this sensation. His behavior during a ritual was not that of an actor, nor of a megalomaniac, but rather of a High Priest in the sincere sense. In public and to less experienced Satanists he would continue to “excuse” the Church of Satan as Atheism-with-frills, but alone with intimates he would speak of Satan, the Church, and his own office therein with the greatest reverence and respect. He did not “believe” after the fashion of the ordinary mystic or fanatic; he continued to have a healthy contempt for such types. It would be more accurate to say that he had achieved a very deep understanding of a remote, rarely-penetrated part of existence in which intelligence and will besides those of mankind exist. Nor did he “worship” this other essence; rather he empathized and communed with it.

Some would say that "in order to believe the lie you'll have to live it first".

Well... at least that's the "experience" many paragnosts and other frauds will rely on in order to state their case valiantly. Perhaps there's some truth to it.

It might be the case ASL started to really believe his own role within the theater that is "Life" within the play that he dubbed "Satanism".

Perhaps there was indeed "something" roaring its head. Experience generally tells the human mind will make a different thing out of the other' observation in order to suit its needs or to still its own mind.

It wouldn't be the first time the anti-bomb-unit will close down an entire building for simple lost luggage. But you never know... sometimes there's a real bomb.

Gestalt Psychology might be an explanation.


Edited by Dimitri (12/09/16 02:32 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#110802 - 12/09/16 05:22 AM Re: A Difference In The CoS [Re: Dimitri]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
Well, Dimitri, I have lived my life not just in the OU, but in a SU of marvels and magic. I have also thrilled to the shared SUs of fellow magicians in many arts and sciences. I cannot imagine being condemned to your exclusively-OU prison, as also decreed by your fellow naysayers above. I have long since realized that many, if not indeed most humans cannot "take that firt step into a larger universe" without psychosis. They should safely and contentedly remain animals, not dare to become gods. [Of course, to such animals anything else is "madness".]

I have gently illustrated this previously on 600C with "The Prince and the Magician". In lieu of a long archive search/link. I'll just repost it here:

THE PRINCE AND THE MAGICIAN
from The Magus by John Fowles

Once upon a time there was a young prince, who believed in all things but three. He did not believe in princesses, he did not believe in islands, he did not believe in God. His father, the king, told him that such things did not exist. As there were no princesses or islands in his father's domaines, and no sign of God, the young prince believed his father.

But then, one day, the prince ran away from his palace. He came to the next land. There, to his astonishment, from every coast he saw islands, and on these islands, strange and troubling creatures whom he dared not name. As he was searching for a boat, a man in full evening dress approached him along the shore.

"Are those real islands?" asked the young prince.

"Of course they are real islands," said the man in evening dress.

"And those strange and troubling creatures?"

"They are all genuine and authentic princesses."

"Then God also must exist!" cried the prince.

"I am God," replied the man in full evening dress, with a bow.

The young prince returned home as quickly as he could.

"So you are back," said his father, the king.

"I have seen islands, I have seen princesses, I have seen God," said the prince reproachfully.

The king was unmoved. "Neither real islands, nor real princesses, nor a real God, exist."

"I saw them!"

"Tell me how God was dressed."

"God was in full evening dress."

"Were the sleeves of his coat rolled back?"

The prince remembered that they had been. The king smiled. "That is the uniform of a magician. You have been deceived."

At this, the prince returned to the next land, and went to the same shore, where once again he came upon the man in full evening dress. "My father the king has told me who you are," said the young prince indignantly. "You deceived me last time, but not again. Now I know that those are not real islands and real princesses, because you are a magician."

The man on the shore smiled. "It is you who are deceived, my boy. In your father's kingdom there are many islands and many princesses. But you are under your father’s spell, so you cannot see them."

The prince returned pensively home. When he saw his father, he looked him in the eyes. "Father, is it true that you are not a real king, but only a magician?"

The king smiled, and rolled back his sleeves. "Yes, my son, I am only a magician."

"Then the man on the shore was God."

"The man on the shore was another magician."

"I must know the real truth, the truth beyond magic."

"There is no truth beyond magic," said the king.

The prince was full of sadness. He said, "I will kill myself."

The king by magic caused death to appear. Death stood in the door and beckoned to the prince. The prince shuddered. He remembered the beautiful but unreal islands and the unreal but beautiful princesses "Very well," he said. "I can bear it."

"You see, my son," said the king, "you too now begin to be a magician."

Top
#110809 - 12/10/16 12:30 AM Re: A Difference In The CoS [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3841
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:
At your level of comprehension, Michael Aquino's existence is irrelevant and his writings unintelligible


Well, you are half right. I find your writing to be perfectly intelligible.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#110810 - 12/10/16 01:38 AM Re: A Difference In The CoS [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3125
 Originally Posted By: M.A.A.
Well, Dimitri, I have lived my life not just in the OU, but in a SU of marvels and magic. I have also thrilled to the shared SUs of fellow magicians in many arts and sciences. I cannot imagine being condemned to your exclusively-OU prison, as also decreed by your fellow naysayers above. I have long since realized that many, if not indeed most humans cannot "take that firt step into a larger universe" without psychosis. They should safely and contentedly remain animals, not dare to become gods. [Of course, to such animals anything else is "madness".]

You are not alone.
Especially when considering I left open the door for doubt.

The "nay" will not stem from disagreement but moreover from "I have other things to watch".
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#110823 - 12/12/16 09:31 AM Re: A Difference In The CoS [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6737
Loc: Virginia
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
Sin, different persons with different capacities, motives, and agendas represent a given phenomenon differently, to themselves and others. If your interpretation satisfies you, so be it.


This is less about what satisfies me and more so about your desire to convince me otherwise. Let me ask you this: Why is it important that I accept your narrative as the truth, the way things were behind closed doors back then?

I've also noted that you've vocalized your opinions of LaVey post-Aquino involvement. Why is this important to you as the representative for the ToS?


I think we can all agree that LaVey used showmanship, satire and a sense of humor to tackle the subject matter, yes?

So, say he *does* take credit for throwing a curse, inviting the boogeyman to dinner or getting his blessings from the other side. Why should one believe he is being anything other than theatrical to make a point?

What was the point again?
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#110829 - 12/12/16 03:23 PM Re: A Difference In The CoS [Re: SIN3]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: SIN3
This is less about what satisfies me and more so about your desire to convince me otherwise.

I have no such desire. It is important to me that I have made truth as I see it available to others; whether they accept or reject it is their prerogative.

This is generally my attitude concerning all of my books: If I had written them to maximize reader-appeal, or commercial sales, etc., I would have done them quite differently. One of my principal reasons for going with CreateSpace, as opposed to various commercial publishers who've contacted me over the years, is that CS gives the author complete control over content; there is no Editor/Publisher revising.

 Quote:
Let me ask you this: Why is it important that I accept your narrative as the truth, the way things were behind closed doors back then?

As above, I have no psychological or emotional need for popular "validation" or adulation. I am essentially a Truth Freak: Detecting and communicating truth is important to my personal sense of integrity and self-respect. The recognitions I've received are thus most important to me where they speak to my pursuit of this standard, from Eagle Scout to U.C. Ph.D. I regard such as barometers that in the opinion of competent, specialized evaluators, my work is sound and reliable. [The Indian name I was given for the Order of the Arrow's Vigil Honor was Watuthowi = Dependable One.]

I've also noted that you've vocalized your opinions of LaVey post-Aquino involvement. Why is this important to you as the representative for the ToS?[/quote]
Since 1975 the Temple of Set has been generally uninterested in the Church or Anton except, infrequently, as pre-75 "antiquity". Satanism per se was discarded as an internal reaction against J/C, and the Æon of Set threw that entire bathtub out the window onto the dustbin of history.

So the interest in Anton and the Church is more a personal one of mine:

 Originally Posted By: M.A.A., The Church of Satan. Chapter #37
The First (1978) and Second (1983) Editions of The Church of Satan ended with the events of Chapter 35. There were three reasons for this:

First, in the greater sense, the history of the Church of Satan came to an end with the crisis of X/1975, the disintegration of the Church as an institution, and the creation of the Temple of Set. Thereafter, while Anton - and for a time Diane and Zeena - LaVey sought to maintain the fiction of a functioning organization on the strength of the Church’s pre-1975 reputation, nothing of the original Church existed behind the facade.

Second, as one hesitates to view the decomposing corpse of a person whom one remembers as a living, vital being, I could not bring myself to write about the ugly zombie the post-1975 “Church” had become. I wanted to think of it always as I had known it in its days of strength, majesty, and above all authenticity. I had the warning of Conchis from John Fowles’ The Magus:

 Quote:
Sometimes to return is a vulgarity … Perhaps one day, Nicholas, you will have an experience that means a great deal to you. You will then realize what I mean when I say that some experiences so possess you that the one thing you cannot tolerate is the thought of their not being in some way forever present. Seidevarre is a place I do not want time to touch. So I am not interested in what it is now. Or what its inhabitants are now. If they still are.

Third, my estrangement from Anton LaVey caused me intense personal pain. For six years I had regarded him as a friend, mentor, and ultimately “Devil-father” - a bond of affection and respect clearly as profound and meaningful to him as to me. That an impasse of principles should have brought about the destruction of this bond, replacing it with an almost pathological hatred on his part and an impatient exasperation on mine, seemed the harshest of ironies.

Over the subsequent years I would constantly be approached by a wide assortment of Anton LaVey-detractors, expecting me to confirm their judgments of him as a crank, fraud, con-artist, or even quasi-criminal. With relish they would quote Anton’s periodic public denunciations and privately-expressed pathological hatred of the Temple of Set or myself. Much to their surprise, I refused to do more than say that I considered his post-75 statements unreliable and emotionally-motivated. My overriding reaction was one of irritation, that I should be placed in the position of defending the legacy of someone who seemed determined to wreck it - and whose personal bête noire happened to be, as it were, the very Repairer of his Reputation.

For the Third (1992) and subsequent Editions, I changed my mind. Anton’s statements and actions after 1975 require inclusion and analysis if the entire story to date is to be told; therefore Chapter 36 and this one. They do not make pleasant reading, nor was it pleasant to write them. So dramatic is the change of tone from the pre-1975 history that the reader may wonder if I am talking about the same person. In answer I refer that reader to the implications of Chapter 36 ...
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#110849 - 12/13/16 01:38 PM Re: A Difference In The CoS [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6737
Loc: Virginia
If that's the case, what compels you to continue on about it today? The many revisions of your original publication?

 Quote:
I wanted to think of it always as I had known it in its days of strength, majesty, and above all authenticity.


If it's the truth and nothing but, wouldn't that simply be an interpretative matter that can't really be verified? You say you're not seeking validation or to even have your side of things accepted as part of the 'history'; but doesn't that come regardless by your readership's response to it?

For instance, the acts stand on their own merits without any need for commentary. The commentary, gives readers pause to consider the gray area of belief.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#110850 - 12/13/16 05:08 PM Re: A Difference In The CoS [Re: SIN3]
Oxus Offline
member


Registered: 04/15/10
Posts: 509
Give it a rest already SIN, you're a fucking bore!
Top
#110854 - 12/14/16 01:17 AM Re: A Difference In The CoS [Re: SIN3]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: SIN3
If that's the case, what compels you to continue on about it today? The many revisions of your original publication?

I confess to being an obsessive perfectionist. It took me several years and 8 editions fo get COS to where I'm completely gruntled with it. TOS has just gotten its 2nd Edition, and at least so far I'm content with that. Of course COS has the task of telling a "whole story", while TOS is just my toe in a much larger swimming pool, as it were. I have no plans to revise any of my other published works.

 Quote:
If [COS] is the truth and nothing but, wouldn't that simply be an interpretative matter that can't really be verified? You say you're not seeking validation or to even have your side of things accepted as part of the 'history'; but doesn't that come regardless by your readership's response to it?

Anyone who reads COS will bring the "lens" of his/her own personality, experience, etc. to the table. I don't mind this at all. What was/is important to me is my own honesty, and as much wisdom as I can bring to bear.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#110856 - 12/14/16 09:28 AM Re: A Difference In The CoS [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6737
Loc: Virginia
I suppose that accounts for the retort to any interpretation vocalized, and thus 'corrected' by you, yes?

Still, I can't help but think you doth protest too much at times.

If you don't mind it, no need to give Nero's lens a buff and shine.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#110867 - 12/15/16 03:59 AM Re: A Difference In The CoS [Re: SIN3]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: SIN3
I suppose that accounts for the retort to any interpretation vocalized, and thus 'corrected' by you, yes?

Particularly during my graduate studies I learned to recognize and respect authentic expertise when I encountered it. This is one of the casualties of the "Internet age" and the cancer of "postmodernism", wherein any fool can showcase an opinion, no matter how stupid. And yes, where Anton, the Church, and Satanism as a metaphysical philosophy are concerned, I do assert authentic expertise, and feel that it is substantiated in my vitæ and publications. So I have always appreciated thoughtful, constructive criticism over the years/editions. The other noise I endeavor to ignore.

 Originally Posted By: SIN3
Still, I can't help but think you doth protest too much at times.

 Originally Posted By: Sign on Anton's desk in the Red Room
There are many who would take my time. I shun them.

There are many who would share my time. I tolerate them.

There are precious few who would contribute to my time. These I appreciate.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#110871 - 12/15/16 11:38 AM Re: A Difference In The CoS [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6737
Loc: Virginia
I suppose it's a matter of taste. Consider Dan's criticism for a moment. While he has a delivery style, the critique still stands and goes on ignored by you most of the time.

You can certainly dismiss it, explain it away or choose to justify it but that bit of evidence remains part of the History too.

Showmanship aside, if you truly believe that Anton spoke in split-tongues on the matter (regardless of motivation) I don't think there is anything anyone can offer you to change your mind about it. Authentic or not.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#110890 - 12/17/16 06:36 PM Re: A Difference In The CoS [Re: SIN3]
steven landreth Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/16/14
Posts: 9
Loc: NC
Dr.Aquino, from interviews, such as In Satanis, Dianne LaVey seemed rather a very nice, intelligent lady, and reasonable as well. At any point did you reach out to her, especially after the split between herself and Anton? I'm curious because she seemed rather sincere in her devotion to legitimate Satanism. Or perhaps, vice versa, she approached you, and/or the TOS?
Top
#110894 - 12/19/16 10:47 AM Re: A Difference In The CoS [Re: steven landreth]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6737
Loc: Virginia
Have you ever spoken to her? You have to show extreme patience with her method of speech. Aquino doesn't strike me as the type that would be bothered. What would he gain from it?
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#110968 - 12/25/16 06:36 PM Re: A Difference In The CoS [Re: SIN3]
steven landreth Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/16/14
Posts: 9
Loc: NC
Sorry Sin, I didn't mean to direct that question to you (obviously) I'm rather new to this & need to beef up my posting skills a bit. No, never have I spoken to her. Have you? I was just curious if Dr. Aquino had spoken with her, and if he had, how she may have felt about "the Infernal Mandate" having been passed on to Dr. Aquino, especially since she and Anton split many years ago. Btw, I've read many of your posts and found them interesting. Also listened to a few of your podcasts and found them very interesting as well. Sorry for my poor posting skills. At any rate my very best to you.
Top
#110975 - 12/25/16 08:42 PM Re: A Difference In The CoS [Re: steven landreth]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: steven landreth
Dr.Aquino, from interviews, such as In Satanis, Diane LaVey seemed rather a very nice, intelligent lady, and reasonable as well. At any point did you reach out to her, especially after the split between herself and Anton? I'm curious because she seemed rather sincere in her devotion to legitimate Satanism. Or perhaps, vice versa, she approached you, and/or the TOS?

Diane and I were as close as brother & sister, and that too was one of the profound pains of 1975. Diane stood by Anton on that occasion, and I respected her loyalty and never tried to compromise it.

The LaVeys' breakup and "palimony" court actions utterly stunned me, as I had always thought them a fairytale couple. Whether or not this was exacerbated by the moving-in of Sharon "Blanche Barton" Densley I cannot say; obviously Anton could and did make his own devisions in that regard.

Thereafter I sent Diane a copy of The Church of Satan, with an open invitation to any corrections or suggestions, and received none. I later sent her the final, published edition, which is dedicated to her, as you can see from the "Look Inside" feature on its Amazon page. I hope that the book will not only testify to her central role in the success of the Church, but also immortalize her wisdom, grace, beauty, and warmth as a person.

Last year Diane experienced a catastrophic accident and shock to her health, and has since been in medical care and recovery. I've written to her, but still do not feel it respectful to go beyond that.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#110983 - 12/26/16 11:52 AM Re: A Difference In The CoS [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
steven landreth Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/16/14
Posts: 9
Loc: NC
Thank you Magister Aquino (as I read in another post, how you think of yoursel when you comee here.) I could listen to you talk Satanism pre '75 forever. I dont think I'd ever been as disapointed myself as when I found out that what I thought were Legitimate Satanists were actually just Atheists. I held out the sincere 'hope' that that was just the way they were "marketing" it. I think it probably was on the Part of Anton & Diane, but the rest these days do in fact reek of being your run of the mill Atheists (no offence intended to any who may read this.) Would you care to share, one of your favorite times while in the CoS? Again I have to confess my poor posting skills, very sorry...but I am working on it! I certainly wish Diane as well as Yourself, my very, very best.
Top
#110986 - 12/26/16 03:18 PM Re: A Difference In The CoS [Re: steven landreth]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
What I would recommend is that you pick up a copy of my The Church of Satan, volumes 1 and 2 you can find here. Both are available in paperback and Kindle ebook editions. The Kindles are less expensive, but bear in mind that these are both mammoth books with minimal "white space" and abundant footnotes, so are much easier to use as the paperbacks. [V1 is more $$ than V2 because it is in color, necessitated by the extensive photo section.]

My intention was to capture the entire history, philosophy, and key personalities of the Church, both for alumni and for later generations who missed the phenomenon. After years of revision/expansion and 8 editions, I'm satisfied that it's a "wrap". \:\)

As for anecdotes, consider also perusing the 600C archives, not just for my comments, but for those of various other forum participants. There were and still are a lot of bright people here.

While I empathize with your disappointment about "missing the original, authentic experience", the problem is that Satanism per se was limited by definition to being a reaction or response to Judæo-Christianity. It certainly stood up to that challenge over the decade of its existence, but we gradually, increasingly realized that it was an artificially limited frame of reference. J/C itse;f is entirely comfortable remaining within this "prison of stupidity", but Satanists were not.

Hence our evolution into the Temple of Set, which is conceptually infinite. I've also said here that, had the crisis of 1975 not happened, I think the Church would have continued to evolve in this same direction, including Anton personally as its continuing head. That would have been a "same but different" adventure!
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#110998 - 12/27/16 09:40 AM Re: A Difference In The CoS [Re: steven landreth]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6737
Loc: Virginia
No worries. The reply feature can be abused by us all here.

Yes, I had plenty a few years back.

Don't get me wrong, she's pleasant and articulate in her ideas (even if I find them disagreeable), I just don't see what could be gained by them.

Judging by Aquinio's reply, that 'health crisis' thing rears its head once more. Is it any wonder why the Christians believe that God is still on the payroll? heh
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#111005 - 12/27/16 05:29 PM Re: A Difference In The CoS [Re: SIN3]
steven landreth Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/16/14
Posts: 9
Loc: NC
If you dont mid me asking, what ideas of hers did you find disagreeable? Would be interesting for me to know, if you don't mind sharing.
Top
#111008 - 12/28/16 11:50 AM Re: A Difference In The CoS [Re: steven landreth]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6737
Loc: Virginia
She's got some pretty strange ideas about what constitutes the Satanic but so do most people on this forum.

Take for example the necessity to create "Theistic Satanism" wtf for and to what end? Seems like a gross misunderstanding of the entire point. Aside from "I do what I want dammit!" - pointless.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#111009 - 12/28/16 01:22 PM Re: A Difference In The CoS [Re: SIN3]
steven landreth Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/16/14
Posts: 9
Loc: NC
I see your point Sin, I Myself, am from the 'old school' and beieve in The Prince of Darkness. (Won't bore you with the details, just see the many posts of Dr. Aquino.) Otherwise, I see claiming the Title of Satanist without believing in a Satan quite pointless and I can still "do what I want dammit!" However, I started out many years ago with Aleister Crowley and so see the situation as "Do what thou wilt" We may disagree on a few points, but what the hell? I still find you a very interesting and very intelligent person.
Top
#111010 - 12/28/16 03:33 PM Re: A Difference In The CoS [Re: steven landreth]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6737
Loc: Virginia
I think it's rather easy to recognize adversity and an MO as antagonist without the need for anthropomorphism.

Crowley apprehended it (as the concept predates him) and by the end of his life, he was assuredly doing it wrong.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
Page all of 3 123>


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.056 seconds of which 0.003 seconds were spent on 53 queries. Zlib compression disabled.