Really? In that case you must have access to the super-secret document purportedly authored by Set itself entitled: "What I Did On My Summer Vacation"! I myself have only heard insane diatribes/gibberings concerning the validity of it's very existence, and how it drives even some sixth-degree Set-O-Philes utterly mad upon exposure to it's sinister premises...
Actually, in my response to your post I was pretty clear about what I thought were the glaring misinterpretations of that (Setian) philosophy that you offered. You then responded by pointing out the extensive amount of information that you have at your disposal concerning your viewpoint, but you really didn't attempt to elaborate on why you thought Setians were "Psyche Worshippers" and that they (Setians) see X-tians as being "Nature Worshippers".
If you have problems with the way I critiqued your views, extrapolate on your own by PERTINENT citation, not by simply pointing me in what you consider as being the right direction...In this case Doc Aquino's first essay in the CToS, which I still don't see as reinforcing your argument, at all. BTW - I'm interested in reading your 60-70 page essay that you wrote about the ToS on the university level!!! Convert it to a pdf and PM me a way to get it.

What makes something natural of unnatural?
From a pure objective view everything on this planet is natural. If someone says to me that the plastics we fabricate are "unnatural" I wholeheartly disagree. I start to make the parallel with cyanobacteria. Small organisms who (in simple terms) produce O2. What humans do is nothing different then what bacteria do. We take a few chemical substances, we mix them and make something new. It is a common procedure which occurs daily in nature.

The only difference is that in nature the produced substances are mostly considered as 'waste' to the producing organisms.

Plastics are natural. The procedure to make them is only a bit different with other organisms and animals.
This last part mostly is translated as 'unnatural', while it only is used as a false synonym for "man-made".

Plastics and other 'unnatural' materials still consist out of atoms, and as far as I know are atoms basic nature elements which interact with each other one way or another.



On a few side-notes:
1) There is no such thing as "academical knowledge", let this be a phallacy being rooted out of the brain. There only is 'knowledge', and knowledge can be dumbed down to make it more easy to digest or more expanded to get the picture more correct. Even so, knowledge is but a sum of facts. Depending on the amount of facts the knowledge is dumbed down or more expanded.

Following this view there isn't also a "University level" but only a certain level of writing which can only be understood by people who have a certain degree of understanding.

Adding the word "academical" or "university (level)" doesn't make someone more credible to believe, the selling of bullshit still occurs.

2) About the Set topic: this is Egyptian Mythology. While some may know a lot about the Egyptian mythology or Set, it doesn't take away mistakes are being made. From archeological experience I know that many assumptions are being made. And assumptions most of the time are WRONG.
Let also not forget that the scriptures ToS provides are philosophical interpretations made by some important and founding members.

What makes something natural of unnatural?
From a pure objective view everything on this planet is natural.

If someone says to me that the plastics we fabricate are "unnatural" I wholeheartly disagree. I start to make the parallel with cyanobacteria. Small organisms who (in simple terms) produce O2. What humans do is nothing different then what bacteria do. We take a few chemical substances, we mix them and make something new. It is a common procedure which occurs daily in nature.

The only difference is that in nature the produced substances are mostly considered as 'waste' to the producing organisms.

Plastics are natural. The procedure to make them is only a bit different with other organisms and animals.

This last part mostly is translated as 'unnatural', while it only is used as a false synonym for "man-made".

However, we do have the potential to make a far greater footprint and thus far greater damage (think about nuclear waste, depleted uranium, aluminum industry fluoride poisoning, chemical dumping, etc.....) - and these are far more dangerous wastes than animal wastes - some shown to have a measureable deleterious effect on almost every living organism surveyed in the surrounding area- (Tietê river in Brazil was one such example of this)

"Nature" itself is not threatened as a whole, but the living organisms may suffer to greater or lesser degree by becoming the filter for such poisons. Our own metabolism breaking them down while making us ill, as cancers and many other debilitations become more frequent.

The SU is quite simply the existence and power of any isolate consciousness of self to apprehend its unique identity apart from the OU, allowing it distinction from, hence definition of and contemplation of/reaction to/exercise of willful change upon the OU.

In this sense, the mere fact that you can even pose a question about nature, much less discuss whether something un-natural is possible, proves your distinction from same. Q.E.D.

Set is the neter of the SU; the others are neteru of the OU (which is where the collective term "nature" comes from). The Lovecraftian deities, the Hounds of Tindalos, and the beings in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull lurk between them.

I don't believe there is such a thing as an isolate conscious self.

I think its the big case where humans want to recognize what sets them apart from animals so much that they actually want to be set apart from everything else as well. Wanting to be "the crown jewel" of creation if you will. That we are somehow above nature.

Physics today does indicate that everything is indeed one on the sub-atomic level

... and that the world merely appears dualistic in the eyes of intelligent life.

That humans beings are set apart from everything else pretty much has to include a notion of a spiritual self of some kind which I deny exist.

LaVey ... did indeed feel that not only are we not separate from nature, there isn’t even a soul it is all the body.

And then of course we have Nietzsche who had some beautiful words to say about it; "Body am I entirely, and nothing more; and soul is only the name of something in the body."

You may think you're much smarter than your cat, but his SU is built quite differently than yours, selecting-in things of importance to him but not necessarily to you and selecting-out similarly.

No, that is not quite true. Anton certainly believed in not denying bodily pleasures as conventional religious "frameworks of the soul" prescribe; that's what "Indulgence Instead of Abstinence" was all about. But he was far more interested in the essence of each individual: his character, ethics, emotions, æsthetics, etc. He felt that it was of prime importance that these not be compromised, distorted, or otherwise injured to the individual's weakening and eclipse. He was one of the most psyche-perceptive persons I've ever known.

In that case, who is making this choice to disbelieve, then to communicate that disbelief to other isolate entities for their consideration?

Sounds as though you've just argued for the SU, except it's not a case of "dualism" as much as of isolate consciousnesses. . .
. . . Well, you certainly have a self, because here you are expressing it. . . .

No, that is not quite true. Anton certainly believed in not denying bodily pleasures as conventional religious "frameworks of the soul" prescribe; that's what "Indulgence Instead of Abstinence" was all about. But he was far more interested in the essence of each individual: his character, ethics, emotions, æsthetics, etc. He felt that it was of prime importance that these not be compromised, distorted, or otherwise injured to the individual's weakening and eclipse. He was one of the most psyche-perceptive persons I've ever known.

I think that if you read Nietzsche in context, you will find that his attitude was much like that of Anton's as summarized above: that he had no time for cheap exploitations of what profane religions call the "soul", but this all the more because he was aware of its true essence and potential - hence his concepts such as the "Will to Power", "horizon building", etc.

The popular mythology of LaVey is that he was this bulwark against religion and damning all there was to the concepts of one's "soul." Not really accurate, since it assumes that the LaVeyan "soul" might even somehow be spiritual or metaphysical. The soul in LaVeyan terms might better be seen as an exercisable muscle (or even the appendix... nobody really needs one, but it's there) that had nothing to do with the supernatural, but of individual psychic balance and in integrating the concepts of body and mind.