Page 8 of 17 « First<678910>Last »
Topic Options
#40372 - 07/16/10 10:28 PM Re: My Satanism is bigger than your Satanism. [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3888
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Hah. It is very amusing in so many ways to see YOU of all people talking about beating a dead horse. OH, the irony.

Case in point, here you are, interjecting with one of the only two things you ever have to say. Maybe we should read your E-book?
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#40373 - 07/16/10 11:03 PM Re: My Satanism is bigger than your Satanism. [Re: Dan_Dread]
felixgarnet Offline
active member


Registered: 10/17/09
Posts: 688
Loc: UK
Now, now let's play nicely. I, for one, appreciate Dr Aquino's offering of the link here as a useful reminder of what was said before on this very topic.
While it is true that LaVeyan Satanism is a creation of its founder it is also true that its principles have precedent in Crowley's system of Thelema; the necessity of finding one's Will and doing it in spite of cultural oppression being the over-arching one.
We all know that the "Devil worship" of which the Salem witches were accused and the "Satanism" described in the books of Dennis Wheatley et al are not what this site is about.
There may be guests and members who hold to a theistic Satanism and that is their business. Others may understand Satan as "real" in the sense of a creative and sustaining life-force which may be anthropomorphized for their convenience.
_________________________
"Here's to Artifice!" - Anton Szandor LaVey.

Top
#40381 - 07/17/10 02:28 AM Re: My Satanism is bigger than your Satanism. [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



There was a comment made above about Dr. LaVey and comparing his thought to some crappy American action movie. I disagree completely. I think LaVey's thinking is profound and liberating, but people need to make the effort.

I wanted to ask though: can one carry their grail quest forward through this Satanism? I would like to think so because for better or worse I cannot apprehend Set and I cannot apprehend Satan as literal, independent and intelligent entities.

I can understand Set is the Neter or Platonic form of consciousness and my own isolate self - consciousness is a gift which is derived in some sense from Set, but for me it is still a non-authentic understanding. I haven't felt it through ritual like you Doctor A.

Maybe society does regard Satanism in a certain way, but what do you do if the shoe fits and you see yourself reflected in LaVey's work?

I don't really care all that much what other people think, apart from those whom I respect and admire.

What other options are there for someone who regards LaVey's work as pivotal to them?

Top
#40382 - 07/17/10 02:43 AM Re: My Satanism is bigger than your Satanism. [Re: ]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I never said it was a "crappy" action movie. I find it clever, not smart.

D.

Top
#40383 - 07/17/10 04:25 AM "Not into turning the other cheek" [Re: Diavolo]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2573
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
I never said it was a "crappy" action movie. I find it clever, not smart.

Well, for a moment it was a movie, and I have always enjoyed [particularly the opening sentence of] Sundog's somewhat bewildered review of it in the legendary underground newspaper of that era, the Berkeley Tribe:

 Originally Posted By: Sundog, "Go to Hell", BT 3/13-20/1970
This has been a hard piece to write because the subject is so crazed …

It’s a documentary. One cat in a dark suit and shoes with white socks says, “Yeah, before I joined the Satanic Church I masturbated once a day and was very unhappy about it. Now I masturbate three or four times a day and really dig it.”

During one ritual a naked woman takes a large snake and rubs it over her body, up and down in her crotch, passing her hands over its length and wrapping it around her. Then she gives it to Anton, who’s dressed in an open-front hood with horns, all in black. He takes the snake over to a plump blonde, bound naked to a post, and proceeds to touch its head to various parts of her body, around each breast and down to the cunt.

An old man who lives in a house neighboring the all-black Victorian on California Street says he’s not too sure what goes on there, but he wishes they’d keep up their back yard better because it brings property values down …

Anton seemed like a nice dude, although his appearance was consciously Devil-like. Later I found out he worked on the premise that he’d be nice to you as long as you were nice to him, but he isn’t into turning the other cheek if you cross him.

Anton’s not a nut. In many ways he’s beyond the Church that he’s heading. He’s got a pretty good base for what he is, but it seems off to me. I just believe that man can get higher than he’s shown he can, but whether he will is another thing. It ain’t been goin’ too well lately, and Anton may prove right in the end.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#40390 - 07/17/10 11:10 AM Re: Church of Satan & Temple of The Vampire [Re: TheInsane]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane


Fnord

I mostly agree with you except that I do not think Anton LaVey wad the first to base an organization around Satanism and I do not think he has the right to define the word just because his idea reached the most popularity.


I think popularity and influence are two different things. Anton LaVey and his Church of Satan forged the path that most here are now walking upon. I think it goes far beyond popularity.

As always, that's just my take. I still think you're comparing apples to oranges but it is your right to do so.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#40394 - 07/17/10 01:26 PM Re: Church of Satan & Temple of The Vampire [Re: TheInsane]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3139
 Quote:
I find it quite interesting that you consider popularity of a word to be what defines it. If we were to take your word for it then the Christian version of Satanism would for sure be the one definition we would use. The most common definition of Satanism by far is the Christian one.

If you read it a bit closer you'd notice that I do not care how the masses defined it. My biggest concern and reason would have been that Satanism as defined by ASL sounded the most sane to me and shared the most views I held personally. And this is the sole reason for my choice. If ASL called it scientology (next to scientology as we know it now), I also would have adopted that single term disregarding the other one. It is but a term which is being used to indicate a certain mindset or way of thinking personally.

If you want to call and give the definition of Satanism as the one like those 2 people gave it, do so! I could not care, the only problem arising here would be confronting views in a term both parties think they are right about. To solve the issue is to mention whose definition of the term being used, evade the words and bickering for "true and false" and instead discuss the different views. A solution/agreement may not be achieved, but at least knowledge is being shared.

The problem here at the moment is that you are in a lair with a vast majority of people who held the definition of Satanism by ASL in high regard (and stick to it). You come up with 2 persons who you claim have defined it/mentioned it before him.
The given answer is obvious, regarding the majority here, and is that what you came to tell is a plain phallacy. This answer came to be by the sole reason we do not see those 2 persons who have defined it as Satanism AS IT IS TODAY. Satanism as it is this date has been defined by ASL. No discussion possible here. You might consider discussing resemblances between the two, I reckon you'll get far better results.


Edited by Dimitri (07/17/10 01:29 PM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#40395 - 07/17/10 01:30 PM Re: "Not into turning the other cheek" [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1646
Loc: Orlando, FL
Truthfully, I'm a starry-eyed Decadent at heart. I'm as staunch a materialist as can be found, but my philosophy and practice of Satanism is so overtly religious in tone that it would probably make LaVey vomit.

I'm not content with something as nuanced and primal as Satanism being "codified" by pseudo-misanthropic ramblings, vague denunciations of "the herd", or poorly edited mass-market pulp paperbacks. It might work for other people who see things differently, but I'm too much of a romantic... possibly more than is good for me, I admit.

But while I may not buy the whole CoS paradigm, I find it a good thing that many of its adherents have a good head on their shoulders, which is quite valuable in an area which sometimes seems to be overrun by fools and delusional occultniks.
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#40399 - 07/17/10 04:10 PM Now that we're organized, what next? [Re: The Zebu]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2573
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: The Zebu
Truthfully, I'm a starry-eyed Decadent at heart. I'm as staunch a materialist as can be found, but my philosophy and practice of Satanism is so overtly religious in tone that it would probably make LaVey vomit.

I'm not content with something as nuanced and primal as Satanism being "codified" by pseudo-misanthropic ramblings, vague denunciations of "the herd", or poorly edited mass-market pulp paperbacks. It might work for other people who see things differently, but I'm too much of a romantic... possibly more than is good for me, I admit.

But while I may not buy the whole CoS paradigm, I find it a good thing that many of its adherents have a good head on their shoulders, which is quite valuable in an area which sometimes seems to be overrun by fools and delusional occultniks.



Dig it: The Church of Satan was a "work in progress" from the time of its 1966 birthday until 1975 [at which time it arguably became a "work in regress"]. In '66 it was a toss-up whether Anton was going to start the Church or go into business with Monique von Cleef, which probably explains the noticeable number of masochists around 6114 in the Church's first couple of years.

Fortunately for the rest of us, Ed Webber talked Anton into doing the Church. And "Dan Dread" has a point to this extent: that in 1966 no one, including Anton, really had the slightest idea of how to "do", much less institutionalize Satanism. It was an Indiana Jones "we're making this up as we go" proposition - which doesn't mean that it was insincere, just ad hoc.

I have previously noted the same thing about the 1969 Satanic Bible - that it was a hastily-thrown-together compendium of the Church's mimeographed handouts ca. 1968, filled out to paperback requirements by lots of white space and usable cribbed stuff from Redbeard's old pamphlet and Crowley's Equinox Keys. The most powerful and ageless thing about it was simply its name and the complementary "seriousness" of its cover design. [If it had come out with the cheesy artwork of the other "occult" paperbacks of the '60s, and with a name like Satan Wants You or whatever, it would have died as summarily as they all did. But an actual Satanic Bible! There on the bookstore shelf right next to the Holy Bible!

In another thread, or possibly PM here, someone asked me where to most intelligently pursue Satanism (per se, not Setian initiation) today. I said, "Right here on the 600C." The philosophical and intellectual level here is far and away beyond that of the SB, and is just as obviously free from the OzTheGreatAndTerrible ASLV syrup of the post-75 era. Basically the difference between this forum grappling with its subject and a Rottweiler is that eventually the Rottweiler lets go.

The 600C is thus its own work-in-progress, not just a rubber-stamp rooting section aka "The SB says it, I believe it, that ends it!" bumper-sticker. The whole "definition" issue is a case in point: There's a general consensus that the J/C "Devil" is bullshit, so the question is whether this requires a mad dash all the way over to Atheism, or whether the principle underlying/inspiring the very concept of something like "Satan/Satanism" has a substantive, transformative, and heroic dimension all its own. Occasionally this descends into a food-fight, but occasionally those are fun too.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#40402 - 07/17/10 07:58 PM Re: Now that we're organized, what next? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
Semantics Semantics Semantics. Satanism and devil worship have very little in common. What's the use of equivocating them? You can say so and so used the word Satanism before LaVey therefore Satanism was already around before him, but what was being described by those other people isn't even in the same ballpark as contemporary Satanism.


The problem with your definition is that it seems to rest soley on the most popular usage in modern times. LaVeys Satanism is the correct one because its the most common one. This is of course problematic. And to be honest where I am from the CoS type of Satanism was the most common one but today Im not so sure. Most people seem to have moved on because LaVeyan Satanism stagnated and there are now other systems that are actually active. So, in general people are more individualized as Satanists where I am from but of course still have their inspirations philosophically. But dare I say that even if they started out with LaVey most seem to have, if not moved past him then at least built their own tower so high that LaVey is but one small piece of the construction material. Does this mean that in northern Europe the definition of Satanism should be another one since the LaVey one isnt the most prominent?

To me the most reasonable definition of Satanism, in a scientific scholarly sort of way, is a “religious or philosophical system based on Satan”. This is very inclusive of course but it has to be. But then again it doesnt mean that as a Satanist you have to accept what every other Satanists says. The same kind of definition works with many different religions and it doesnt mean the different branches agrees on what their religion actually is.

The problem here is that people define the word because of their own beliefs. Or actually, it may not be a problem, I may be just how the world works. However I am so used to reading scholarly books on different subjects that I easily spot when someone tries to justify his or her own version of anything and try to claim it as the only one valid. I for one have a hard time looking past that.

Dimitri:

 Quote:

The given answer is obvious, regarding the majority here, and is that what you came to tell is a plain phallacy. This answer came to be by the sole reason we do not see those 2 persons who have defined it as Satanism AS IT IS TODAY. Satanism as it is this date has been defined by ASL. No discussion possible here. You might consider discussing resemblances between the two, I reckon you'll get far better results.


How is it a fallacy (which I think you refer to by “phallacy”)? LaVey had his definition but unless you live in the CoS world it isn’t the only definition. As I said above, in northern Europe the definition is very much more eclectic generally (both within Satanic circles and in scholarly works). I feel like the American scene is turning the same way, a a slower pace but still.
When I open a scholarly work on Satanism it doesn’t offer exclusively the definition LaVey provided because honestly it isn’t the only valid one in a pure historical and scholarly perspective. For CoS sympathizers or members then sure it is but then again if you ask the Mormons their brand of Christianity is the true one as well and no history book would accept their word for it.

Again I am not bashing LaVey or his philosophy. I am more bashing the close-mindedness among his followers. Even LaVey himself admitted to Satanism existing before himself. I don’t understand why people feel the need to have LaVey be the be all end all of Satanism. Especially since his stuff in general tends to be a good introduction but not much else of any real substance.

Top
#40407 - 07/17/10 09:57 PM Re: Now that we're organized, what next? [Re: TheInsane]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
I don't think its a matter of being closed minded.
You just happen to be preaching something that the majority here just don't follow or care to.

Yes, Satanism, devil worshiping, and the Yesdiz's all existed before Anton codified it into one simple book.

So what? Does that mean we should all be reverse Xitian's?
It's Satanism, its a lone path. Who gives a fuck what everyone thinks or accepts as the meaning of the word. It should only have meaning to you because the odds of you changing anyone or making them understand something they are programmed to fear is between slim and none.

You can keep beating your head against the wall, and people will keep letting you, but you are not going to change the views of the majority of people here. They just aren't reverse Xitian's and don't view Satanism as such.

As previously mentioned and suggested. Instead of saying these 2 guys names, how about you explain the impact they had on you. What their writing said to you verses what ASL writing said to you. Explain why you feel so strongly about them.

Also please give examples of these scholarly works on Satanism that you stated you are reading.

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



Top
#40408 - 07/17/10 09:59 PM Re: Now that we're organized, what next? [Re: TheInsane]
Caladrius Offline
member


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 320
Loc: SoCal
 Quote:

The given answer is obvious, regarding the majority here, and is that what you came to tell is a plain phallacy.


 Quote:
How is it a fallacy (which I think you refer to by “phallacy”)?


LMAO... Dmitri is a "foreigner" or "ouslander." Fortunately I am well versed in interpreting foreign tongues. Let's see... Phallacy... wonder what was on his mind that caused this freudian slip?

If I'm not mistaken, what Dmitri was thinking about... or what he had on his mind was a Phallus, which in plain American English is often called a "Dick."

Therefore, Dmitri was sayin that the majority definition of Satanism... or most well marketed definition... which is accepted and understood by your average mundane emo, goth, death metal band groupie person (IQ range of 20-75) is a "Phallacy" in the sense that they are Dickheads... or something like that.

In this case, I would agree with Dmitri. The average person out there - and in "pop occulture" (phrase coined by Kori) - are imbeciles and dickheads. There is something wrong with you somewhere if you say you dislike the herd or mundane commoner, but yet accept their definitions of words and things. "He who has the power to define has the ultimate power." - Robert Anton Wilson.

Why can't we each be grown up enough to define Satanism as we understand it and need it to be, rather than run to some Church of Gilmore Girl somewhere for their sanctified definitions? Does Free Thinking include or exclude the power to define your own words and memes? Or is that still the job of an "authoritative" figure... like Webster, Wikipedia, or the Church of Satan?

Personally I did start out with the Satanic Bible when I was 13 years old. Back then as a 13 year old idiot teenybopper goth, the simple system presented by the Satanic Bible was hella impressive and life changing.

Then I moved on in life, in mind set, in worldview, and so on and the Satanic Bible or LaVey's Satanism just didn't do it for me anymore. It hard for me to understand how those LaVeyfags can be stuck in the same stagnant memeplex for over 5 years or more. In 50 years, the memes, ideas, worldviews, of the Satanic Bible has not changed much. I personally take care to keep my PC updated with the latest software versions... and I personally like keeping my brain running on biological software that is current and not some backwards 1960's Satanism version 1.0... but that's just me.

I still like the Satanic Bible... I just really dislike how Gilmore Girl up in the C/S has "revisionisticized" it into some hardcore materialist Vampire Temple buttbuddy.


Edited by Caladrius (07/17/10 10:07 PM)
_________________________
Chloe 352

Top
#40412 - 07/18/10 12:10 AM Re: Now that we're organized, what next? [Re: TheInsane]
Apion Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/06/09
Posts: 18
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
Most people seem to have moved on because LaVeyan Satanism stagnated and there are now other systems that are actually active.


I think from the contemporary CoS standpoint the idea of Satanism changing or evolving isn't the primary focus or all that appealing (and not the best way for the organization to be active). Satanism is more of a fresh filter for individual experiences having a wide enough inclusiveness as to not be narrowly restrictive. That is to say the value is in the developing individual through the various applications of Satanism rather than an updating of the philosophy every few years to match the changing perceptions of the individual.

Many of the worst CoS members look at it as a certain personality structure and it becomes rigid and tired. The better members step outside the need for identities to see Satanism as a good enough structure to find the right tools or perspectives as they apply to their multifaceted experiences without losing the context of being an individual with a point of view. I'll venture to say that's part of why talk of changing or evolving Satanism is meaningless in the CoS as there are plenty of philosophical and religious systems that meet as many spiritual/religious perspectives as there are individuals if one doesn't find the already built and time-tested model of Satanism to their liking. The ones that find unique ways of expressing Satanism in both specialized and casual situations hold more of the interest.

That's within the perspective of 1966 Satanism. I'm not getting into the done-to-death pre-1966 debate.

Top
#40416 - 07/18/10 02:30 AM Re: Now that we're organized, what next? [Re: TheInsane]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3888
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane


The problem with your definition is that it seems to rest soley on the most popular usage in modern times.

I have been fairly explicit about my views on that, I think. It has absolutely nothing to do with what is popular and accepted, and everything to do with my own conclusions based on my own logic and reason through extensive deliberation on the subject.

I am my own god, and free to define language as I see fit. Who agrees and who does not is perfectly irrelevant. As I forge my reality through exploration rather than creation, everything I believe is rooted in solid bedrock and is logical and internally coherent and consistent. The thing about it is, if what I am saying doesn't jibe with you, or the way I am saying it seems wrong somehow, then you are not my intended audience. I have no desire to convince anyone of anything, only to talk to contemporaries about a shared element of philosophy.

 Quote:
Most people seem to have moved on because LaVeyan Satanism stagnated and there are now other systems that are actually active.

Active as in, other people are doing it? Why should it matter to me what other people are doing? Why does it matter to you?
 Quote:

So, in general people are more individualized as Satanists where I am from but of course still have their inspirations philosophically. But dare I say that even if they started out with LaVey most seem to have, if not moved past him then at least built their own tower so high that LaVey is but one small piece of the construction material.

LaVeys material is bedrock to Satanism..it is the root.It is not the whole, but it can never be because of it's own nature. As it is an 'inward facing' religion/philosophy, what is built on that bedrock will never be uniform in every Satanist, but as Satanism enshrines reality, as it truly is rather than any flavour of idealism, those that understand that will tend to have similar things built upon that bedrock. Reality is what it is. The nature of the human animal doesn't vary all that much from person to person. There is far more variation in those that deny it and instead enshrine some fantasy reality.

The problem I see is that people often can't let go of their previous programming, which demands they see things in a way that is incompatible with a hard materialist naturalistic outlook. To them Satanism seems incomplete or incongruent with what they are seeking, usually something outside the self. A cause..social activity..spirituality..or any of the sweet treats offered by traditional religion and other forms of collectivist activity...none of this is inherent to Satanism and are in fact antithetical in many ways.
 Quote:

The problem here is that people define the word because of their own beliefs. Or actually, it may not be a problem, I may be just how the world works.

Language is a fluid thing. A tool. As time goes on, it continuously refines itself, as people such as myself use it in ways that make sense.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#40421 - 07/18/10 04:45 AM Re: Now that we're organized, what next? [Re: Caladrius]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3139
 Quote:
LMAO... Dmitri is a "foreigner" or "ouslander." Fortunately I am well versed in interpreting foreign tongues. Let's see... Phallacy... wonder what was on his mind that caused this freudian slip?

Quite simply enough, I was thinking about a certain dickhead.
Little mistake made, a little slip by pulling off far too much dick-jokes after a good night out.

 Quote:
Then I moved on in life, in mind set, in worldview, and so on and the Satanic Bible or LaVey's Satanism just didn't do it for me anymore. It hard for me to understand how those LaVeyfags can be stuck in the same stagnant memeplex for over 5 years or more. In 50 years, the memes, ideas, worldviews, of the Satanic Bible has not changed much. I personally take care to keep my PC updated with the latest software versions... and I personally like keeping my brain running on biological software that is current and not some backwards 1960's Satanism version 1.0... but that's just me.

As far as I am concerned, LaVey's Satanism is still valid today as it was 50 years back. He had particular views and ideas who personally resemble mine (as far as I can deduce from the SB, SW and stories told by M.A.A and Jake). But if you think that LaVey's Satanism stopped right there after his works and "legacy" then I have to disagree. Satanism has always been something evolving. It also is something personally for persons who relate to it. I see various terms such as "Atheistic Satanism", "Spiritual Satanism", "Theistic Satanism", "Progressive Satanism" as nothing more then indications of positions towards "mystic forces". I eager to say there is only Satanism since almost all ideas shared by the various sub-groups have to do with a smell of belonging and gratification on different levels. As ASL defined it "Satanism is a lone path", it implies what Satanism really is has been defined, various positions towards religion or cultural or racial or.. are nothing but personal descisions and in no way have to do with the actual philosophy.

If you feel a belonging towards one of the various sub-names, the better for you. I do not share the same sentiment and will always use the term Satanism without any extras. I have the feeling you have quite failed in understanding what Satanism was and therefor has chosen to identify with other persons who wanted to do nothing but "rename" Satanism towards something like spiritual, theistic, deistic,.. Satanism.

Given credit Gilmore is but a puppet without any actual power when it comes down to it.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
Page 8 of 17 « First<678910>Last »


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

Generated in 0.035 seconds of which 0.004 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.