Page 1 of 1 1
Topic Options
#115927 - 03/04/18 03:58 AM Questions to Dr. Aquino about "Quo Vadis?"
Obitus Offline
stranger


Registered: 07/20/17
Posts: 45
The word "God" is used in seemingly two different contexts in "Quo Vadis," first as a reference to the natural law of the cosmos:

"'God' is an automatic, non-conscious, dispassionate cosmos - in which man, yearning to be rid of the burden of his identity, seeks to immerse himself. Satan is That which has infused man with this identity, thus endowing him with the key to turn the inertia of the cosmos to his amusement - to make of man a god."

And then in reference to the concept of "God" held by non-Satanists:

"Would it surprise you to discover that the true Prince of Darkness is not the 'Devil' of Judaic/Christian legend? That figure is a simple caricature. Rather Satan is the true Intelligence manipulating the 'God' of the Bible and other 'divine' personages, weaning man from subservience to all gods by making their demands increasingly intolerable."

I've been wondering, are these two usages meant to be entirely separate, or is it also being indirectly implied that Satan is the Intelligence that manipulates and/or put into place the natural law of the cosmos?

And when you state that:

"This is the truth behind all religious institutions throughout history: gradual deification of man despite his most determined efforts to regress to the status of a non-thinking beast. While bowing before the Cross, man has actually been succumbing to a Diabolical Double-Cross of such ingenuity and complexity that it staggers the comprehension. Call it, if you like, The Greatest Practical Joke Ever Pulled. Or, to put it another way, humanity has been had!"

Would it be fair to say that this is reflective of this line from the "Ninth Solstice Message?"

"Man denied me, yes. But, to the impotent and bewildered fury of Heaven, this very conscious act was my true redemption and victory. Do you wonder that I so cherish irony? It has become the most reliable of all my oracles."

And if so, when you say that "Satan" is behind all religious institutions in history, would it be accurate to interpret that as something like this: Satan is the source of man's Ego, man's Ego creates religions, and no matter what the contents of those religions, since man had to willfully create them, Satan is ultimately the cause because they couldn't have made those religions in the first place if they didn't have His Gift?

And finally, since some of the Daemons (such as Beelzebub, Astaroth, etc) were originally "nature" deities of these older religions, would you say that the different religions/deities of man are only harmful/restrictive to the Self depending on how they are approached/envisioned by the individual? Would it still be "Satanic" in your view if one still honored these personages as more akin to their original forms as sky gods, fertility deities, etc, as long as they were viewing the natural world as something made for the Satanist to enjoy and use rather than something to lose one's Self in? And since man is a metaphysical reality using a body, couldn't these "Daemons" be viewed in a double-natured sort of way as the forces BEHIND the natural order who also flow through their "creation" without necessarily being the mechanical creation itself, much as how a man may make/design a car that has his "personality" in it, but he is still distinct from it?

(By the way, I'm aware that post 1975, you came to the conclusion that all the Daemons besides Satan/Set don't predate man, but I was wondering more about how you might have answered the above questions back in your CoS days.)

Top
#115929 - 03/04/18 12:48 PM Re: Questions to Dr. Aquino about "Quo Vadis?" [Re: Obitus]
CanisMachina42 Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/10/13
Posts: 1335
Loc: CA
 Quote:
"'God' is an automatic, non-conscious, dispassionate cosmos - in which man, yearning to be rid of the burden of his identity, seeks to immerse himself. Satan is That which has infused man with this identity, thus endowing him with the key to turn the inertia of the cosmos to his amusement - to make of man a god."

And then in reference to the concept of "God" held by non-Satanists:

"Would it surprise you to discover that the true Prince of Darkness is not the 'Devil' of Judaic/Christian legend? That figure is a simple caricature. Rather Satan is the true Intelligence manipulating the 'God' of the Bible and other 'divine' personages, weaning man from subservience to all gods by making their demands increasingly intolerable."

I've been wondering, are these two usages meant to be entirely separate, or is it also being indirectly implied that Satan is the Intelligence that manipulates and/or put into place the natural law of the cosmos?


Are you sure you are not inventing reasons to ask questions?

The Cosmic God Satan is like the Mandelbrot set of how fucked the universe is in metaphor. Basic rules for endless complexity through competition. An apparent base coding that infinitely repeats itself throughout the universe. Its hostility is seen by what it takes for life to evolve.

So if a species evolves through that, and god/satan is their conception for why the bear ate their daughter, then yes, the above Satan is the driving force behind the non satanic concept for divinity.

Neither of which can posit the existance of intelligence though. It is like saying a walrus has blubber because god said there will be an absolute zero.

Granted, the complexity of it all can scream 'design', but even stripping that to its most basic inputs has NO INFORMATION at the end. You're still left with an ultimately causeless existence and images of background radiation.

Intelligence can't be the cause of the former without falling under the subjective nature of the latter. Its only 'evidence' is "that it can't be explained therefore it can", and this can only be supported by specious arguments.

Any and all cosmological 'creation models' will fail when one can keep retracting god's primacy into paradox.
_________________________
...from all the unborn chicken voices in my head.

Top
#115931 - 03/04/18 03:28 PM Re: Questions to Dr. Aquino about "Quo Vadis?" [Re: Obitus]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2711
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
I got a little lost in all that quotation as to what your present question is.

Concerning the concept, history, and application of the J/C God, I'd suggest you pjdck up a copy of my IlluminAnX, linked here, because it goes into "all this" in considerable detail and context. If you think God is crazy today, wait until you take a look at his origins.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#115934 - 03/04/18 11:02 PM Re: Questions to Dr. Aquino about "Quo Vadis?" [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Obitus Offline
stranger


Registered: 07/20/17
Posts: 45
I've already read through IlluminAnX (and greatly enjoyed it.) But I was more interested in what your views were as a Magister Templi in the CoS, when you wrote "Quo Vadis?" I'm sorry if I made the questions somewhat rambling and hard to follow. I'll rephrase and make it way shorter.

Basically, I was asking, since in that article you use "God" to refer to both the mechanical cosmos which Satan is "against" by virtue of being consciousness (which is not constrained by mechanical law), but you also state that Satan is the intelligence that is behind the "God" believed in by non-Satanists, were you implying that Satan is the intelligence behind the formation of the cosmos as well?

I'm not trying to figure out the history of "God," but rather trying to get a more clear picture of the evolution of your thoughts (as a Priest of Satan in the 1970s) on the topic, and how Satan played into the concept. "Quo Vadis?" seems to me to be representative of a stage of evolution of the ideas from "The Diabolicon," but in a different phase from either that Work, or the later view that would come into fruition with the Temple of Set.

A big part of my fascination with the attitudes towards the topic held by the Priesthood of Mendes is the seeming contradiction between where your views went eventually, and the early CoS' glorifying Satan as the "Dark Force IN Nature," the "King of the World," and the "God of the Flesh." I assume that you didn't reject these notions when a Priest of Mendes, but rather had a way of making it work in concert with the notion that Satan as "consciousness" is really what it was all about. And I was kind of looking for a clue to how you balanced all that in your statements in "Quo Vadis?" I hope this makes what I was asking a bit more clear.

Top
#115935 - 03/04/18 11:45 PM Re: Questions to Dr. Aquino about "Quo Vadis?" [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Obitus Offline
stranger


Registered: 07/20/17
Posts: 45
. . . or actually, have I just always been making this conflict between "nature" ("God") and psyche ("Satan") in your old CoS writings WAY too much of a problem than it is, and Satan is the "God of the flesh," "Dark Force in Nature," etc, precisely because He is the mind that inhabits the flesh?

What throws me off is how LaVey very much championed Satan as a nature-deity sort of deal, squarely and unambiguously identifying him with Pan in both the SB and SR, whereas in your writings it always seemed like you heavily rejected that line of thought, as in, rejected viewing Him as a "nature" deity.

But perhaps you always had some sort of view vaguely similar to this quote from the Neoplatonist Thomas Taylor about the "Pan" issue?

“Pan, as we are informed by Damascius, first subsists at the extremity of the intelligible order, being there no other than the celebrated Protogonus or Phanes; but, according to his mundane subsistence, he is the monad or summit of all the local Gods and daemons. In the statues of him his upper parts resemble those of a man, but his lower parts those of a brute [viz. of a goat] indicating by this, that in the universe rationality has dominion over irrationality. As, therefore, according to his first subsistence, he is the primary exemplar of the universe; the reason is obvious why in [the Orphic Hymns] he is celebrated as all things.”
- Thomas Taylor, The Mystical Hymns of Orpheus, 1824

Top
#115936 - 03/05/18 12:01 AM Re: Questions to Dr. Aquino about "Quo Vadis?" [Re: Obitus]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2711
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
I'm not sure I can recapture my mindset 40+ years ago re the "QV" article. As you know, throughout the decade of the Church, there was ongoing discussion about who/what Satan was, and where he & associated demons fit in vs. YHVH and co. Re the latter there was some contention that he was in charge off Earth vs. another school of thought that he's left Satan in charge of it, "Lord of this World" & etc.

All this confusion predated 1966, of course, so we were trying like Indiana Jones to 'figure it out as we go". And obviously the J/C community easn't of any help either: Considering that they supposedly depended on God, it was surprising how little attention was paid to grokking him. I summarized him all the way back to his El days in IlluminAnX, but I don't recall any J/C/I institution doing this. I think they were somehow afraid to do this, because if would have made him effable instead of ineffable, or something like that.

As mentioned in IlluminAnX, "faith" is an essential part of J/C/I orthodoxy. Especially when it is involved to bring awkward conversations to a screeching halt.

Quo Vadis the movie is a case in point, challenging Peter to go back to Rome and be crucified to prove his you-know-what. If Pete had said nun-uh and let Jesus go to the city to be nailed up a second time, he might not have gotten to be a saint, had the big basilica named after him, and been played by Michael Rennie in the flick, winding up as Klaus Kinski.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#115941 - 03/05/18 05:29 AM Re: Questions to Dr. Aquino about "Quo Vadis?" [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Obitus Offline
stranger


Registered: 07/20/17
Posts: 45
I think we might be misunderstanding each other a tad bit because of the clunky word "God." I'm not trying to pick your brain about the Judeo-Christian concept of "God" as a character (whether as JHVH, EL, Allah etc) and its relation to Satan and the world so much as I was trying to hit at your old views of Satan in relation to "natural law" (with all considerations of "JHVH" completely aside.) That's why I was trying to stress that it seemed the loaded word "God" was being used in two different ways in "Quo Vadis," one to mean Natural Law, and one to mean the fantasy character "God."

To rephrase it with the perhaps confusing terminology mostly stripped away: Natural Law exists and would exist whether or not the Canaanites, Jews, Christians, etc ever dreamed up their "El/JHVH" figure and connected it to Natural Law. Consciousness would exist whether or not the Egyptians ever called it "Set," and whether or not the Judaeo-Christians would have ever called it "Satan."

Elsewhere here in the 600Club, you made the statement that "There is comprehensive intelligence behind the existence and operation of the OU," and that this is a "deistic reality." I think it's safe to assume that you don't hold "El/JHVH" to be the "comprehensive intelligence" behind the Natural Law of the OU. So, basically, I've been trying to ask if this view (divorced from the character JHVH/El) was starting to peek through in the CoS days, and if Satan/Set was/is that "comprehensive intelligence" behind the OU. I get that you were saying that Satan was the manipulating force behind the man-made concept of "God" (El/JHVH), but was asking if you were also meaning that He was the intelligence behind Natural Law, divorced from the character of El/JHVH.

(For what it's worth, I personally completely divorce the character El/JHVH from considerations of Natural Law and Intelligence behind it, and I never call JHVH "God" with a capital "G.")

Sorry if I've been making a clunky mess of this, but it's a topic that's rather bogged down through the loaded terminology. I swear I'm not trying to over-complicate things to screw with you or anything. Thanks for your patience with me and the rambling mess I've made of this issue so far.

Top
#115942 - 03/05/18 11:06 AM Re: Questions to Dr. Aquino about "Quo Vadis?" [Re: Obitus]
Phoenician Offline
member


Registered: 02/16/17
Posts: 117
Loc: CA
I think I can simplify this.

Is Satan/Set/Typhon/Iblis the intelligence behind natural law and is this the basis for the Hebrew conception of El/Java?
_________________________
Actual New Blog

Top
#115980 - 03/08/18 04:57 AM Re: Questions to Dr. Aquino about "Quo Vadis?" [Re: Phoenician]
Obitus Offline
stranger


Registered: 07/20/17
Posts: 45
 Originally Posted By: Phoenician
Is Satan/Set/Typhon/Iblis the intelligence behind natural law and is this the basis for the Hebrew conception of El/Java?


I suppose that's a fair enough way to simplify it. Although as to the second part, I don't want to suggest that the Abrahamics consciously modeled their JHVH on that being/concept, especially not the attitudes and personality of JHVH. They just happened to also think JHVH made everything is all.

It's just that Aquino always seems to stress that 1) the cosmos is is an ordered, non-chaotic thing that is designed, and 2) that Satan/Set is the origin of intelligence itself. Yet Aquino seems to stop short at actually saying that Satan/Set would therefore need to be the source of the intelligence of whatever designed the natural laws. I keep getting the impression from his works that this would be a natural conclusion to come to. If Satan/Set is the source of all consciousness, he would have to be the source of the consciousness of the creative "neteru" themselves. But since this is never spelled out directly, I keep wondering if I'm missing some major point.

And I was trying to approach all of this from the pre-1975 perspective of the CoS and its metaphysics (since this is a "Satanism" forum after all) and so was sticking to what I thought might have been hints of the notion in "Quo Vadis." And as mentioned before, I just have a particular interest of the mindset of the Priesthood of Mendes from then in general (the ones who accepted Satan as a reality) and Aquino is pretty much the only one left from that period that is available to nag about it.

Top
Page 1 of 1 1


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

Generated in 0.02 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 22 queries. Zlib compression disabled.