Page 4 of 8 « First<23456>Last »
Topic Options
#27893 - 08/03/09 11:35 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: wolf]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2573
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: wolf
... none of them convinced me that LaVey might have believed in the Devil when I read your book. I'm using a similar language in various texts because of the symbolic impact in appropriate contexts, so it's certainly possible to write such passages without believing in Satan. For the same reason, it is the apparent context of the examples you provided that doesn't convince me, as the quotes all seem to be written in a context where symbolism is important--that is, they seem to have been intended to convey a message that is hard to express otherwise.

As previously discussed here and elsewhere, I have my own six years (1969-75) of close personal friendship, dialogue, and both Lesser and Greater Black Magical workings with Anton to leave no doubt in my own mind. But I am also familiar with how psychologically, indeed desperately important it is to most other people that Satan [through the Judęo/Christian iconographic lens] not exist - as, in this instance, to force all of Anton's unequivocal statements above into some/any kind of Procrustean bed of "symbolism". Because if Satan does actually exist, then there is an entire metaphysical superstructure beyond the material universe, and most people are utterly unwilling and unprepared to even contemplate, much less confront that. I am frankly of the opinion that this is for the best:

 Originally Posted By: Captain Nemo
Think of it. On the surface there is hunger and fear. Men still exercise unjust laws. They fight, tear one another to pieces. A mere few feet beneath the waves their reign ceases, their evil drowns. Here on the ocean floor is the only independence. Here I am free! Imagine what would happen if they controlled machines such as this submarine boat. Far better that they think there's a monster and hunt me with harpoons.

Far better too that the mass of humanity not believe in the Powers of Darkness, or the Intelligence from which they emanate, except as a comic book metaphor like "God". That way too they can comfortably dismiss Anton LaVey: junkyard intellectual, con artist, poseur, carny geek, who played the role of the Devil in Rosemary's Baby and porked Marilyn Monroe.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#27897 - 08/04/09 01:15 AM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
In general to some......

Jake and Michael both knew LaVey in person, in real life.
They both spent time with him, and etc...

They are the only people who can really talk about their experiences with the man, and what they felt was going on during that time.

Everyone else is pulling shit out of their ass, while contemplating what the man might have thought.

I always thought first hand knowledge was so much better than google/wiki masturbatory intellectual bullshit.

\:\)


Morgan


Edited by Morgan (08/04/09 01:16 AM)
Edit Reason: added to some...
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#27910 - 08/04/09 03:33 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Morgan]
Azathoth68 Offline
pledge


Registered: 07/18/09
Posts: 51
Loc: Denver, CO USA
Is there, in the Temple of Set, at higher degrees, a belief that Set is a manifestation of an actual supernatural being? Or is it merely an archetype, Dr. Aquino?
Top
#27919 - 08/04/09 09:19 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Azathoth68]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2573
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Azathoth68
Is there, in the Temple of Set, at higher degrees, a belief that Set is a manifestation of an actual supernatural being?

Yes, but once again, as we began to realize within the original Church of Satan when we undertook GBM through the "Satanic lens", we're not talking about a "cartoon god" here. Rather what Plato and Pythagoras apprehended as a "Form" or "First Principle", what before them the Egyptians understood as a neter. Approximate it as "the general of which all particulars are extensions or manifestations": In the case of Set, it is the phenomenon of consciousness; and in our several particularizations our unique, isolate, infinite, and immortal self consciousness. It is this which places Set apart from all of the [natural] neteru, which in the Satanic sense placed Satan apart and opposite from all else [that was "God"]. It is this phenomenon in each and every one of us which makes us authentic gods and goddesses, not mere stimulus/response "meat machines" of natural law.

This is of course not a phenomenon, a reality, which is limited to Setians or Satanists. It is inherent in all sentient beings. The difference with us is that we have focused upon, it, explored it, identified it, and undertaken to strengthen and evolve it within ourselves. Which is what GBM is all about.

This is at once what makes Setian initiation, or authentic Satanism in its context, both so exhilarating and so dangerous. Beings bound by nature obey limitations within that universe, which on the whole are harmonious to its operation and preservation. The moment you "take your first step into a larger universe", as Obi-wan Kenobi said to Luke Skywalker, all of this is gone; in Nietzsche's terminology you are "beyond good and evil"; you have eaten of the fruit which has opened your eyes and expelled you from the Garden of Eden.

And as Plato also realized, this nœsis is not some sort of external "teaching"; rather it is an awareness inherent in our consciousness: what he called anemnesis. Once you are awakened to it, once you become sensitized to it, you understand it to be an intrinsic function of your existence. Plato illustrated this "awakening" in his Parable of the Cave; Ouspensky discussed it at length in The Psychology of Man's Possible Evolution; there are many other illustrations, as for instance the Morlindalė.

All of which is to say that you have no need to ask me about the existence of Set/Satan. You already know the answer. You just have to look within your own genius, ask the right questions to get to it. And that is the true Grail Quest.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#27930 - 08/05/09 07:40 AM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Morgan]
Amina Offline
member


Registered: 03/08/08
Posts: 177
Loc: Denmark
 Originally Posted By: Morgan
I always thought first hand knowledge was so much better than google/wiki masturbatory intellectual bullshit.


Yes, but I guess it is also a question about what you want to investigate. I for one don't really care if LaVey believed in one thing or another. Looking at other religious people and inventors of cultural objects (or human being in general), I would be surprised if his views did not change or evolve during his lifetime. If you ask the average religious person (disregarding fundamentalistic sects) they are not even able to explain the details of what they believe, or give the same explanation if you ask them 10 minuts later. LaVeys is not crystal clear in his texts, so I would no expect him to be so in person.

What *I* find interesting is his writings. If he had lived without writing anything or otherwise sharing his opinions, no one would have know about them. One could argue that maybe he wrote one thing and believed something else, but I am not sure if this could contribute much to anyones understanding of LaVeys satanic philosophy. Other religious leaders and philosophers have done this too, but accusing him of putting a show on and lying to people would be like arguing that lesser magic was a sin. No one knows what LaVey believed. What we have is his writings. If people find them useful they will use them in there own way, unrelated to how LaVey himself would have agreed or disagreed with the interpretation. The devil read the bible his own way, even the Satanic Bible.

I could also add that "masturbatory intellectual bullshit", or what some call "text interpretation" is what is usually used when someone wants to explain a religious or philosophical text. Including bibliographic data about the author helps the interpretation, but trying to explain Freuds philosophy as a product of his own relationship to his mother, or rejecting the validity of Nietzsche because of his insanity or Crowley because of his drug use would not make people much wiser. Like a novel, the text has its own life and merit and can be investigated independently of the author.

- Amina

Top
#27943 - 08/05/09 05:29 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
wolf Offline
stranger


Registered: 07/27/09
Posts: 27
Loc: Denmark
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
As previously discussed here and elsewhere, I have my own six years (1969-75) of close personal friendship, dialogue, and both Lesser and Greater Black Magical workings with Anton to leave no doubt in my own mind.

I have no doubt this is how you experienced it, and as Jake has also said, this is an experience you should keep.

I'm mostly wondering how you can have gotten this notion, because personally I can only see minor, possible hints at best. In fact, I think Blanche Barton might be one of the best sources supporting LaVey's possible belief in a literal Satan, because having been close to him many years since 1975, she told the press he had believed in the Devil when she was interviewed about his death. (But then again, using Blanche Barton as a source would mean I'd be grasping at straws.)

 Quote:
But I am also familiar with how psychologically, indeed desperately important it is to most other people that Satan [through the Judęo/Christian iconographic lens] not exist - as, in this instance, to force all of Anton's unequivocal statements above into some/any kind of Procrustean bed of "symbolism".

Such a psychologically founded importance would require us to actually feel a need for metaphysical entities to begin with. If we don't feel the need, then we don't really need such a defensive layer against the feeling either.

 Quote:
Because if Satan does actually exist, then there is an entire metaphysical superstructure beyond the material universe, and most people are utterly unwilling and unprepared to even contemplate, much less confront that.

Sure, but one might also say that if fantasy worlds existed, they would open up a whole new world, too. I prefer to not count on that, wasting years of my life hoping to catch a glimpse of a dragon in the sky. I'm quote satisfied that if metaphysical structures don't exist, there's still plenty to be explored right here.
_________________________
A comfortable falsehood will always win out over an uncomfortable truth. (Myself)

Top
#27960 - 08/05/09 10:11 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: wolf]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
Amina, you really didn't add anything at all to this discussion.
If anything you proved my point that some people have to comment on stuff even when they have nothing to say.

"using Blanche Barton as a source would mean I'd be grasping at straws"

It is from what I understand, she is not even actively involved anymore, and didn't play that large of a role in how Anton thought anyway.

Its not a matter of whether or not Anton believed in Satan as a deity during various periods of time. It's a matter of how individuals interpret the things he has written and how they are applied to your life.

Fuck it, the man has passed on, and left behind some very good writings. If all you do is sit and debate what it all means instead of actively applying it to your life and accomplishing shit, your not a Satanist.

Morgan
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#27962 - 08/05/09 10:16 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Morgan]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
 Originally Posted By: Morgan
Its not a matter of whether or not Anton believed in Satan as a deity during various periods of time. It's a matter of how individuals interpret the things he has written and how they are applied to your life.

Fuck it, the man has passed on, and left behind some very good writings. If all you do is sit and debate what it all means instead of actively applying it to your life and accomplishing shit, your not a Satanist.

Morgan



Bingo! With that, maybe this thread should be locked too before it turns into yet another bitch-fest.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#27967 - 08/05/09 11:43 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: wolf]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2573
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: wolf
... Sure, but one might also say that if fantasy worlds existed, they would open up a whole new world, too. I prefer to not count on that, wasting years of my life hoping to catch a glimpse of a dragon in the sky. I'm quote satisfied that if metaphysical structures don't exist, there's still plenty to be explored right 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."
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#27973 - 08/06/09 05:01 AM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Morgan]
Amina Offline
member


Registered: 03/08/08
Posts: 177
Loc: Denmark
 Originally Posted By: Morgan
Amina, you really didn't add anything at all to this discussion.


This is out of topic, but Morgan is out of line.

Morgan, I hope someone MAKES you a mod to satisfy your need for attention and power, or if not inform you that you are not in a position to pass fatwas on who is allowed to speak, and what they are allowed to say. I think I have been civilized and addressed you without name calling or attacks on your personal status or dignity, but I think your personal agenda against me is getting a bit tiresome by now. Could you try aiming for the ball for once? If you don't like my contributions, try reading something else. No one if forcing you to pay attention to what I write.

- Amina

Top
#27978 - 08/06/09 07:41 AM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Amina]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
Sorry kids, but when conducting research first hand interviews with the people involved are the Gold Standard. Writers, detectives, police, insurance investigators, and the Court, all rely on eye witnesses.

You interview several people and determine what the common threads are in their stories. Quite simply, the generation raised on the World Wide Web is lazy and has a tendency believe most of what they read online without applying any critical thought to the content. I really think this laziness is linked to smoking large amounts of 'the chronic.'

There is an annoying trend toward 'me-to-ism' where kids who have no first hand knowledge of the events seek validation by showing how much they 'know' from internet research.

I have personally encountered this twice here in threads about ONA and the Punk scene of early 80's.

Now if everyone doesn't mind, I believe the adults were talking...
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#27980 - 08/06/09 09:09 AM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Fist]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
What I would say is probably the closest I ever heard Dr. LaVey say as being akin to belief in a manifestation of Satan as other than a symbolic being was when he was talking about the universality of certain archetypes that begin to attain a life of their own beyond their legend. An example of this would be Lilith, there from almost the beginnings of man's quest to link his pedigree to GOD. Some of these legends that attained a life of their own exist for many even today, becoming part of the "comfortable lie" passed down to a child by its mother and father who, believing in them themselves, think of them as heritage, rather than myth.

I've heard some people refer to these as "thought forms"; ideas brought to life by the need to believe. If one just believes hard enough, it COULD be true, like clapping one's hands to keep Tinkerbell from dying, or changing the outcome of a prize fight, as in the old Twilight Zone episode, THE BIG TALL WISH (1966)... "You GOTTA BELIEVE, Bolie!"

We know that in every legend, there is a grain of truth, and in that grain, there is always room for man to rewrite the scripts of existence, from the smallest atom to the mightiest mountain. So, we can take a concept and run with it as our personal or societal needs dictate. To a society in one aspect of time, there is a need for gods and devils, and man can be sure that each is as real as the flesh on his body and the thoughts in his head. That same society in another aspect of time can put those selfsame gods and devils into their mythological perspective, because they have proven their worth only as fillers for that which is yet to be discovered. Once the discovery is made that renders them obsolete, they still hold a fond place in our overall societal framework, but in nostalgia and in reveries. We no longer revere in giving them anthropomorphic manifestation, but we can honor them for what they were.

In The Satanic Bible, we read, "There is no heaven of glory bright, and no hell where sinners roast. Here and now is our day of torment! Here and now is our day of joy! Here and now is our opportunity! Choose ye this day, this hour, for no redeemer liveth!"

And he speaks of the allegorical nature of "Satan" in the Infernal Diatribe: "How sad, that the allegorical personage most responsible for the success of spiritual religions is shown the least amount of charity and the most consistent abuse - and by those who most unctuously preach the rules of fair play!"

That's the LaVey that I spoke with and broke bread with and followed (still do). We spoke of death as the "great abstinence," but never as anything other than "just another damned thing you gotta do." He never once related anything that would indicate he felt there was any melding of energies or that there was some deity that was an overseeing factor in life or death. Was it an act for MY benefit? If so, it was a damned good one, and hardly necessary. He had me at at, "In this arid wilderness of steel and stone I raise up my voice that you may hear. To the East and to the West I beckon. To the North and to the South I show a sign proclaiming: Death to the weakling, wealth to the strong!"

So, in a very real way, we're comparing apples to oranges even though the commodity (LaVey) is the same for both Dr. Aquino and myself. Each of us has ample bedrock on which to build our respective memories, and each is assured of the rightness of our vision and their own interpretation of Dr. LaVey's message. It could almost make one a firm believer in the concept of parallel universes.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#27983 - 08/06/09 11:50 AM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Morgan]
wolf Offline
stranger


Registered: 07/27/09
Posts: 27
Loc: Denmark
 Originally Posted By: Morgan
"using Blanche Barton as a source would mean I'd be grasping at straws"

It is from what I understand, she is not even actively involved anymore, and didn't play that large of a role in how Anton thought anyway.

It's only been a few days since you said one should pay attention only to those that were close to the source. Please make up your mind.
_________________________
A comfortable falsehood will always win out over an uncomfortable truth. (Myself)

Top
#27985 - 08/06/09 12:11 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Jake999]
wolf Offline
stranger


Registered: 07/27/09
Posts: 27
Loc: Denmark
 Originally Posted By: Jake999
What I would say is probably the closest I ever heard Dr. LaVey say as being akin to belief in a manifestation of Satan as other than a symbolic being was when he was talking about the universality of certain archetypes that begin to attain a life of their own beyond their legend.

But then again, this is similar, and probably identical, to Richard Dawkins' concept of a "meme". (Which, incidentally, is rather religiously defined when one takes a closer look at his ontology and similar taboo among certain participants on this board.) There's something similar at play in his statement that a deceased person will live on in the minds and sinews of those whose respect he has gained; a social-Darwinistic concept of someone's ability to modify the biology of future generations. So there's a hint of something that transcends a person's current existence, but not anything that necessarily exists outside of human beings.

 Quote:
We know that in every legend, there is a grain of truth

Depends: we can't think of unthinkable things, so in that sense there's a grain of truth. But, legends play the role of ideas passed, so the basic "truth" is mostly to convey a particular idea or message. The specifics, such as references to some mythical being, does not in the least imply that there's some grain of truth forgotten. That is, the only truth a unicorn conveys is that of a horse.

 Quote:
It could almost make one a firm believer in the concept of parallel universes.

Love that one, Jake. Based on LaVey's various texts, as well as several of Aquino's texts, including Church of Satan, my personal impression is that LaVey was unusually open-minded and accepting of other people's perception of Satan, supporting his audience rather than contradicting it: a child of his time, perhaps, at a time when it was highly accepted that everyone's truth might be the genuine truth.
_________________________
A comfortable falsehood will always win out over an uncomfortable truth. (Myself)

Top
#27986 - 08/06/09 12:35 PM Re: First Satanic Church vs. The Church Of Satan [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
wolf Offline
stranger


Registered: 07/27/09
Posts: 27
Loc: Denmark
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
The Magus by John Fowles

In a sense, this passage summarizes the entire book, except that young Mr. Urfe doesn't become a magician in the end.

I've talked with people who literally had to put the book away because they felt they were being drawn into the magician's mind play themselves. Personally, I enjoyed watching Urfe repeatedly thinking he'd seen through the magician's traps only to walk right into another one.

Fowles was a dyed-in-the-wool Atheist, though.
_________________________
A comfortable falsehood will always win out over an uncomfortable truth. (Myself)

Top
Page 4 of 8 « First<23456>Last »


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

Generated in 0.759 seconds of which 0.727 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.