Page 1 of 2 12>
Topic Options
#33210 - 12/24/09 05:58 PM Merry Christmouse from Anton LaVey
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
A note to me from Diane LaVey back in the '70s - "Hugo Zorilla" was one of Anton's whimsical pen names, often for his artwork - accompanying this.

Merry Christmouse to all 600ers!
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#33211 - 12/24/09 06:07 PM Re: Merry Christmouse from Anton LaVey [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
I saw a slightly different version of this. Basil Ratbone -- the rat-- was not amused, but hey... he was a rat.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#33212 - 12/24/09 06:27 PM Re: Merry Christmouse from Anton LaVey [Re: Jake999]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
As an aside...

I've been working on some Satanic note cards, etc. I've designed a trapezoidal envelope with laminated Sigil of Baphomet and appropriately shaped note card, and a couple of other items because someone had commented to me that there was nothing appropriate for Walpurgisnacht, etc.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#33213 - 12/24/09 06:33 PM Re: Merry Christmouse from Anton LaVey [Re: Jake999]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
Just awesome. Some folks may get these next year - if your good.

I do love the carnival atmosphere in the stores today. It is sort of like going to post office on April 15th.

Of course, the 12 Days of Xmas are simply lifted from Roman pagan tradition. Rome held a series of festivals prior to the winter solstice. Naturally, most pagans celebrated the winter solstice because Northern Europe sucks in the winter without gas heat and electricity.

Hell, even you savages have something to celebrate. Now go have some fun.
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#33256 - 12/26/09 01:26 AM Re: Merry Christmouse from Anton LaVey [Re: Fist]
Woland Moderator Offline
Seasoned
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 763
Loc: Oslo, Norway
 Originally Posted By: Fist
Naturally, most pagans celebrated the winter solstice because Northern Europe sucks in the winter without gas heat and electricity.


Happy to say that Northern Europe sucks in the winter WITH gas heat and electricity.
70 cm of snow in 6 hours.
Now; where's my shovel...
_________________________
Regards

Woland

Contra Mundum!

Top
#33352 - 12/29/09 03:40 PM Re: Merry Christmouse from Anton LaVey [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
111Cal Offline
member


Registered: 12/22/09
Posts: 143
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
A note to me from Diane LaVey back in the '70s - "Hugo Zorilla" was one of Anton's whimsical pen names, often for his artwork - accompanying this.

Merry Christmouse to all 600ers!


Dr. Aquino. I am sure you wont recall me, but I had contacted you about 15 years ago with an interview request for a book I was working on. At that time, I was completing my service in the US Army, and although you were not able to do the interview, you did send me a thoughtful letter relating some of your experiences at Fort Bragg, NC. I always appreciated you taking the time to do so.

My question is this... Having read many of your posts on this forum, you seem to speak kindly toward the late Anton LaVey and always seem to share positive stories about him. We all know about the personal and "spiritual" differences that the two of you had. When you look back on LaVey and his life: how do you view his legacy? And do you remember him fondly? Or with the hostility that the two of you seemed to share for one another the last 25 years of his life?

I mean this in all honesty because it seems as if you seem to miss him at time? Or at least that with the passage of time, you have focused more on the positive and let some of the negatives soften.

Top
#33694 - 01/07/10 09:43 PM Re: Merry Christmouse from Anton LaVey [Re: 111Cal]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 860
Loc: Nashville
I am not Dr. Aquino. I am closer to the great British film character Dr. Bean. However, I may be able to get at the conundrum that has been plaguing you all these years: How could Michael Aquino form his own organization despite the wishes of his fearless leader, Anton LaVey?

The answer, I think, can be found in LaVey’s philosophy post-1975. LaVey’s view of Satanism, as I take it, is that it is the purest form of human expression – that Satanism is, basically, humanism in Technicolor.

I think the main philosophical difference between LaVey and Aquino is not the purchasing of degrees vs. the non-purchasing of degrees. It is Theism vs. Atheism. LaVey may’ve believed in the Prince of Darkness during the “non-contaminated” 1966-1975 CoS period, but it seems pretty clear that afterward either LaVey A)Didn’t believe in Satan/Set/Whoever The Fuck He Is, or B)Didn’t care what he had to say.

I suspect that Aquino’s feelings toward LaVey are complicated, and I suspect that LaVey would’ve wanted it that way.
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#33702 - 01/07/10 10:53 PM Re: Merry Christmouse from Anton LaVey [Re: William Wright]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



What is regarded as the sale of the degrees had everything to do with it.

It was the catalyst. The TOS is seen as the logical progression and culmination of the CoS, from Dr. Aquino's view.

Infernal mandate is transferred and revealed to Dr. Aquino via a new revealed literature.

All of this is detailed in Dr.Aquino's books on the CoS and the early parts of his book on the TOS.

I wish to apologise to Dr. Aquino and Jake. You both should be able to have discussions and enjoyment in this place without people like me stirring up things and dragging up a past you may not wish to have to deal with again.

Top
#33703 - 01/07/10 11:10 PM Re: Merry Christmouse from Anton LaVey [Re: William Wright]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
 Originally Posted By: William Wright

I think the main philosophical difference between LaVey and Aquino is not the purchasing of degrees vs. the non-purchasing of degrees. It is Theism vs. Atheism. LaVey may’ve believed in the Prince of Darkness during the “non-contaminated” 1966-1975 CoS period, but it seems pretty clear that afterward either LaVey A)Didn’t believe in Satan/Set/Whoever The Fuck He Is, or B)Didn’t care what he had to say.


http://www.the600club.com/topic33445-1.html -- This clarifies Dr. LaVey's thoughts on that PRE 1975, as the recording was sold in 1973... production time, makes the content even earlier. It's in his own words, in his own voice. Not much room for ambiguity,
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#33712 - 01/08/10 03:25 AM Re: Merry Christmouse from Anton LaVey [Re: William Wright]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3116
 Quote:
However, I may be able to get at the conundrum that has been plaguing you all these years: How could Michael Aquino form his own organization despite the wishes of his fearless leader, Anton LaVey?

As far as I can tell (and I assume this is the main explanation, derived from the texts both jake and Michael posted) both persons respected each other and were probably close friends.
As in some posts stated, and in a few texts I read, the titles weren't that much of an importance in the very beginning.

Another reason is, as far as I can see, that Satanism isn't the fully 100% about having an atheistic or theistic view. The philosophy of Satanism goes a bit beyond that. While in most views of Satanism theism is being seen as delusional, I don't think it is that of a problem IF the person still knows where the boundaries of reality and fantasy are.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#33718 - 01/08/10 05:57 AM Re: Merry Christmouse from Anton LaVey [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Baron dHolbach Offline
member


Registered: 12/29/09
Posts: 162
 Originally Posted By: MawhrinSkel
By the same token, distancing oneself from the theistic aspects of Satanism only works to a certain extent. Even so-called 'theist' Satanists cannot be said to be 100% theist. Setians, as I understand the term, acknowledge the existence of a dark force/entity, but do not worship him/it. Others, like myself, do not acknowledge any such supernatural claims, but still maintain there is a spark that can be labelled 'divine' inside ourselves.


I have so far encountered two types of Atheist. Type One says, "There is no God and I can prove it." Type Two says, "There is no empirical evidence for the existence of God, therefore I don't make the claim that there is a God, and I reject anyone else's claim to that effect."

In the above, "God" is my word for any non-material entity who was instrumental in bringing about the material universe.

Type One atheists can be attacked on the basis of whatever proof they offer, and as the proof is always flimsy at best, because they are trying to prove a negative, Type One atheists end up flailing about, trying to bail the water out of their rapidly sinking ship.

Type Two atheists, of which I am one, can only be attacked by offering empirical evidence for the existence of God. Such supposed evidence, when offered, is always flimsy at best, and thus it is the attacker who ends up flailing about.

I think Type One is more absolutist in the sense you're using the term, MawhrinSkel, and Type Two is less absolutist. Please correct me if I am wrong.

The Type Two Atheist knows and accepts the fact that if he/she were ever presented with solid empirical evidence for the existence of God, he/she would immediately begin scientific inquiry or at least research of the inquiries of others, and if, over time, the empirical evidence continued to uphold the God hypothesis, the Type Two Atheist would stop espousing Atheism. Of course this has never happened, and I doubt it ever will.

As an aside, I'll draw attention to the fact that solid empirical evidence for the existence of God is hard to even imagine, let alone find. If I suddenly encountered a burning bush that spoke, a column of flame moving on its own across the sands of the desert, a tablet of stone on which words were materializing with no visible cause, and a man who was curing lepers by the laying on of hands, I would be quicker to think some super-advanced extra-terrestrial technology was being employed, than to think these phenomena were caused by God.

All of that is preamble to my main question, MawhrinSkel:

What do you mean by a spark that can be labeled "divine"? Please flesh that concept out for me, if you wouldn't mind. Perhaps you can start by defining the two key terms, "spark" and "divine," as you are using them in your sentence.
_________________________
The baboon is the soul of man.



Top
#33731 - 01/08/10 12:56 PM Brrrrring! [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
The existence of the neteru [corrupted into "gods", further debased into "God"] is easy to prove: it is first the existence of the material/energetic universe and secondly its consistency everywhere and all of the time. That's it. Anything else is just a subset.

Not to mention that this also, necessarily, proves the existence of Set, "the neter not of the neteru", as the [general/Platonic Form] source of the external perspective and free will that enables all particular isolate consciousnesses [that's us] to first apprehend the neteru, then learn to communicate with them, then influence them.

None of this is at all complicated, and of course people stumble around doing it nonconsciously and ineptly [as opposed to Adeptly] every day. Initiation is accordingly just the process [also fucked up a lot] of turning oneself from an Inept into an Adept.

Anton knew all of this just as much as I did back then, and he was just as matter-of-fact about the futility of "teaching people who need to be taught"; the results vary from the comic to the dangerous:

 Originally Posted By: Anton LaVey to M.A.A. 12/18/70
I received the Ouspensky volume and wish to thank you for your thoughtfulness in having it sent. It is a masterpiece, and you are to be commended for bringing it to my attention. I am going to make it required reading for all members and will state same in next month’s newsletter. Perhaps it might explain the Balance Factor to a few of our more egocentric members who constantly seek new power and wouldn’t know what to do with it if they had it.

The book in question was The Psychology of Man's Possible Evolution, which is a succinct series of lectures on how to wake up. For anyone here who is still asleep, here's your alarm clock.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#33736 - 01/08/10 01:30 PM Re: Brrrrring! [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: MawhrinSkel
Thanks for pointing it out. I have it in .pdf. Anyone curious can pm me and I'll send them a copy from an open source.

I keep forgetting how fingersnapping a resource the Internet is! Here's the book for direct .pdf download.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#33742 - 01/08/10 06:54 PM Re: Brrrrring! [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Baron dHolbach Offline
member


Registered: 12/29/09
Posts: 162
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
The existence of the neteru [corrupted into "gods", further debased into "God"] is easy to prove: it is first the existence of the material/energetic universe and secondly its consistency everywhere and all of the time. That's it. Anything else is just a subset.


The existence of the material/energetic universe doesn't prove the existence of a non-material maker. The material/energetic universe could be uncreated and without a beginning. To call that impossible is to beg the question of how a non-material maker could be uncreated and without a beginning.

The consistency everywhere all the time doesn't prove the existence of a non-material maker. Consistency is what one experiences when one lives in universe of physical and mathematical lawfulness. Lawfulness does not prove the existence of a non-material maker. We have no evidence that a non-lawful universe is even possible. The imaginable and the possible do not always intersect. Human beings can imagine the impossible.

The concept of lawfulness is really just a recognition that there are scenarios where the probability of something happening or being factual is exactly one. We live in a probabilistic universe. Is there any other kind? As far as we know, we live in the only kind of universe there is or could ever be. Nothing about that necessitates a non-material maker.
_________________________
The baboon is the soul of man.



Top
#33747 - 01/08/10 08:42 PM Re: Brrrrring! [Re: Baron dHolbach]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2517
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Baron dHolbach
[quote=Michael A.Aquino]The material/energetic universe could be uncreated and without a beginning.

It is indeed possible to propose that presence [at the raw matter/energy level] is just as a priori assumable as absence. However such a presence, absent organization, would be merely an undifferentiated universal plasma. The moment that this ultimately-uniform/relaxed state is divided and coalesced into matter, antimatter, and energy, an intelligence and agent behind that tension is inescapably necessary.

As for time, the concept has no meaning in an undifferentiated universe, since it is merely a way of tracking and comparing the various differentiations.

 Quote:
The consistency everywhere all the time doesn't prove the existence of a non-material maker. Consistency is what one experiences when one lives in universe of physical and mathematical lawfulness. Lawfulness does not prove the existence of a non-material maker. We have no evidence that a non-lawful universe is even possible.

To the contrary, the consistency of even two phenomena establishes a connection between them, which in turn necessitates a force dictating that connection. And in the case of the universe, the interconnections are [to the limits of our experience and detection] omnipresent. It is absurd to suggest that uniformity on such a scale could be accidental, not to mention accidental infinitely through time.

 Quote:
The imaginable and the possible do not always intersect. Human beings can imagine the impossible.

This is precisely the premise for the necessary existence of Set, thank you.

Caveat, however, that despite the isolate, particularized consciousness' ability to create, invent, and imagine the unnatural (or should I say "un-neterable"?), that capacity is very rarified - the very essence of divinity - because its outward manifestations slide into mere sensory recombinations of universal laws, resulting in only the illusion of their violation. Hence imagining that Jake's hat turns into a green elephant every night while he sleeps is not the Gift of Set. But your ability to willfully engage in such imagination is.

 Quote:
The concept of lawfulness is really just a recognition that there are scenarios where the probability of something happening or being factual is exactly one. We live in a probabilistic universe. Is there any other kind? As far as we know, we live in the only kind of universe there is or could ever be.

According to universal, natural laws of probability, a variety of minerals and chemicals would not combine themselves into an automobile. That requires a divine consciousness apart from the neteru, to beg, borrow, or steal some of their stuff, as it were. It gets more serious when, as the scientists of the Mahatttan Project, you start fucking with the really primal universal laws.

The very concept of "law" is a complex one. Just because your wristwatch has been ticking through the minutes for the last hour or day or year, is there a law which requires it to continue for one more minute? Such a law, strictly defined, would eliminate all possibility of variation. So a great many "natural laws" are more accurately theories - or, less established, hypotheses - or, less hypothetical, speculations.

I am reminded of the philosophy student who, after listening to a lecture on Descartes, found himself unable to sleep. Finally, at around 3AM, he telephone the professor and screamed at him, "Tell me - I've got to know - DO I EXIST?!" The prof yawned, "And who wants to know?"
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
Page 1 of 2 12>


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

Generated in 0.027 seconds of which 0.001 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.