Page all of 7 12345>Last »
Topic Options
#34716 - 01/28/10 05:52 AM Set: What does he want?
Baron dHolbach Offline
member


Registered: 12/29/09
Posts: 162
I have been reading public documents from the Temple of Set Official Site and I have a question for Setians on this forum, among whom the most prominent is Doctor Aquino as far as I know.

What does Set want?

So far from my reading I think your answer would be:
1. Suitable companions
2. The eradication of stupidity to whatever extent possible

In asking this question, I view myself as having entered your lair, and I voluntarily bind myself to the third of The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth. I obviously can't speak for anyone else in that regard.
_________________________
The baboon is the soul of man.



Top
#34750 - 01/28/10 06:15 PM R-E-S-P-E-C-T ... [Re: Baron dHolbach]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Baron dHolbach
What does Set want?

Acknowledgment, respect, and appreciation. And I gather he would rather not see humans abuse the Gift of Set, e.g. isolate self consciousness and all that flows from it, though it is inherent in the Gift that it is not preconditional, and is irrevocable.

Things were much simpler back in the Church of Satan days ...

 Originally Posted By: HPL, The Shadow Over Innsmouth
Never was nobody like Cap’n Obed—old limb o’ Satan! Heh, heh! I kin mind him a-tellin’ abaout furren parts, an’ callin’ all the folks stupid fer goin’ to Christian meetin’ an’ bearin’ their burdens meek an’ lowly. Says they’d orter git better gods like some o’ the folks in the Injies—gods as ud bring ’em good fishin’ in return for their sacrifices, an’ ud reely answer folks’s prayers ...

Hey, yew, why dun’t ye say somethin’? Haow’d ye like to be livin’ in a taown like this, with everything a-rottin’ an’ a-dyin’, an’ boarded-up monsters crawlin’ an’ bleatin’ an’ barkin’ an’ hoppin’ araoun’ black cellars an’ attics every way ye turn? Hey? Haow’d ye like to hear the haowlin’ night arter night from the churches an’ Order o’ Dagon Hall, an’ know what’s doin’ part o’ the haowlin’? Haow’d ye like to hear what comes from that awful reef every May-Eve an’ Hallowmass? Hey? Think the old man’s crazy, eh? Wal, Sir, let me tell ye that ain’t the wust! Yew want to know what the reel horror is, hey? Wal, it’s this—it ain’t what them fish devils hez done, but what they’re a-goin’ to do! They’re a-bringin’ things up aout o’ whar they come from into the taown—ben doin’ it fer years, an’ slackenin’ up lately. Them haouses north o’ the river betwixt Water an’ Main Streets is full of ’em—them devils an’ what they brung—an’ when they git ready ... I say, when they git ready ... ever hear tell of a shoggoth? ... Hey, d’ye hear me? I tell ye I know what them things be—I seen ’em one night when ... EH—AHHHH—AH! E’YAAHHHH. . . .

_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#34765 - 01/29/10 06:02 AM Re: R-E-S-P-E-C-T ... [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Baron dHolbach Offline
member


Registered: 12/29/09
Posts: 162
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
 Originally Posted By: Baron dHolbach
What does Set want?

Acknowledgment, respect, and appreciation. And I gather he would rather not see humans abuse the Gift of Set, e.g. isolate self consciousness and all that flows from it, though it is inherent in the Gift that it is not preconditional, and is irrevocable.


Thank you for the response. Most informative.

I think the above resonates with my two guesses, namely, that Set, as depicted by the ToS, wanted suitable companions ("acknowledgement, respect, and appreciation") and to eradicate stupidity to whatever extent possible ("rather not see humans abuse the Gift of Set"). So I have some confidence that I'm in fact understanding what I was reading at the ToS web site.

This puts me in mind, metaphorically, of LaVey and the one he apparently considered a suitable companion, namely, Togare. By no means am I someone who exhaustively researches all the little details of LaVey's life as documented, trying to determine which parts were factually depicted and which parts were fanciful. I simply don't care. But the image of LaVey and Togare has always been a fruitful one in my mind, a powerful symbol, useful in my self-making.

I've said before that often the object of a cult of personality may be a Satanist while his duped disciples most decidedly aren't. What fascinates me about LaVey is that his message drew to his side as many lions as sheep. I view yourself and Jake as lions, regardless whether any of us always agree about everything. Why should any two people always agree about everything? Such only occurs when one is dominant and the other is submissively (and often unconsciously) self-brainwashing.

So in my mind's eye, when reading the ToS materials, I see Set as, symbolically, LaVey, and the Setian as Togare, a lion viewed by Set as a suitable companion, with the eradication of stupidity being a key leonine attribute.

I hope you take all of that as respectful, which is how it was meant, as I promised to bind myself to the third of the 11SRE, and also, frankly, because respect is my default posture when conversing with a Satanist, a variation of Tit for Tat and a sincere mental attitude.
_________________________
The baboon is the soul of man.



Top
#34778 - 01/29/10 12:50 PM Roar! [Re: Baron dHolbach]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Baron dHolbach
I view yourself and Jake as lions, regardless whether any of us always agree about everything. Why should any two people always agree about everything?

Hi Jake!

As previously noted, I think Jake is a gentleman [lion] of integrity who saw, took, and contributed the best during the time in which he encountered ASLV. I think he would have done the same had he been involved pre-1975, for that matter. We play with the hand of cards we've been dealt, as it were.

 Quote:
So in my mind's eye, when reading the ToS materials, I see Set as, symbolically, LaVey, and the Setian as Togare, a lion viewed by Set as a suitable companion, with the eradication of stupidity being a key leonine attribute.

Set is a neter, a metauniversal principle or Form. Satan as we understood him back then was less of a Form, more "personally accessible & involved", as you can see from the SB/SR, etc. Anton as his HP was his Earthly representative, plain & simple, per his formal title "High Priest and Exarch of Hell". So in that sense Anton was not quite Satan, but no mere human either. If you can grok that, you can grok the 1966-75 Church & Priesthood.

The High Priest of Set, in accordance with our apprehension of Set, has always been something much more indistinct. Call the office a whisper against the cheek of the Æon, if you like.

 Quote:
I hope you take all of that as respectful, which is how it was meant ...

Of course, as long as you stay away from Jake and me with that cattle prod.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#34879 - 01/31/10 07:34 PM Re: Roar! [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



‘Set is a neter, a metauniversal principle or Form. Satan as we understood him back then was less of a Form, more "personally accessible & involved", as you can see from the SB/SR, etc. Anton as his HP was his Earthly representative, plain & simple, per his formal title "High Priest and Exarch of Hell". So in that sense Anton was not quite Satan, but no mere human either. If you can grok that, you can grok the 1966-75 Church & Priesthood.’


‘"Set" is just the ancient Egyptian representation of the Principle according to which each one of us possesses and exercises a unique sense of isolate self consciousness and the perspective & discretion which inherently follow from that. Setians call that the Gift of Set. The 1966-75 Church of Satan called it the Black Flame. The Greeks called it the Promethean Fire. JudæoChristians call it the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. You can call it anything or nothing as pleases you, as long as you don't scare the cats.’

I have pulled out the two quotes above by Dr. Aquino because they seem to me to be quite beautiful and overwhelming in their conception.

I feel I can begin to approach and begin to appreciate Dr. Aquino’s philosophy of Set through the study of Plato. I may be wrong here.

The Theory of Forms seems to me to be a good place to start in approaching this, as I have a limited knowledge of ancient Egyptian belief systems.

Universals and particulars are the keys here, in my view.

A Platonic form is a universal.

Each individual and particular human being has the capacity to think; to be conscious; to be self – conscious (isolate self – consciousness)

Set represents, (that’s important.) Set represents.

What is represented? What does Set represent?

Set is a universal, a form, a metaphysical principle.

If all individual humans possess or potentially possess self – consciousness, than Set represents this universal capacity or potential.

Some questions:

Is theism even a relevant term to use here in relation to this philosophy, in relation to Set?

Is individual isolate self – consciousness derived from Set (as the form or principle of self – consciousness?) Does human consciousness somehow emanate from Set as the particular is stamped or organised by the universal?

If Set is the Platonic (meta - universal form of consciousness) form or idea, than does “he” also partake of consciousness and self awareness in some sense?

Does “he” occupy time and space in some sense?

Top
#34958 - 02/01/10 05:58 PM Re: Roar! [Re: ]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



The Cartesian method of doubt will probably be quite well known to many members.

Descartes wished to organise and order science and mathematics by grounding it in the self evident first principles of philosophy.

Whether Descartes did this successfully is certainly up for contention. The Cartesian method itself, however, is interesting.

The process of methodical doubt is quite famous. One was to doubt the validity of the objects presented to the human senses because the senses could be prone to error.

The famous example of the wax comes to mind here.

One was to doubt experience and induction as the basis of knowledge.

Step by step Descartes was able to throw doubt on everything, except his own existence. There is something which doubts.

At this level all he has is the cogito.

He can reach out and map and re-order his world according to reason, once the validity of cause and effect is established.

What is this cogito?

Is it innate principles, which one necessarily uses, to grasp substance, in order to make it intelligible?

Is it innate principles, which underpin, categorise and organise a raw and ultimately unknowable thing – in – itself?

There are other ways to articulate and describe this cogito.

Could The Gift of Set (isolate self – consciousness) be understood and appreciated by employing a method similar to Descartes?

It seems to be obvious to me that one respects The Gift when one thinks independently; when one acquires genuine self – consciousness, by deliberately and critically avoiding the conventional belief systems and pieties one is imbued with as a result of being a part of a community or society.

If one were to throw the senses into doubt and strip away experience and wind up with a purely rational cogito, than would this cogito be the essence of the manifestation of Set in the world?

Is this manifestation broader or different than a rational cogito?

Are these meditations on Set and the Cartesian cogito merely one particular way in which I can approach the question of The Gift of Set? There may be many paths.

To explore all aspects may be the key.

Top
#34964 - 02/01/10 09:24 PM Re: Roar! [Re: ]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



Okay one last post than I will leave it alone and do some more studying.

I will try to state it in a series of numbered points:

1. Set is the Neteru of isolate consciousness – the form or universal or absolute principle of all consciousness.

2. The gift of Set for the individual is particular isolate consciousness.

3. I begin to become aware of Set when I begin to reflect on myself authentically, honestly and courageously.

4. There is a door which I can choose to open if I am perceptive enough and which I can walk through if I am courageous enough.

5. I confront the reality of my existence and of my world and I determine its value and celebrate it and live it authentically and thereby honour myself and Set.

6. I want to examine and articulate the dark power which lies hidden in my id, identity, intelligence etc.

7. I want to explore my potential and grow in knowledge and power.

8. Magic for me is the pre - eminent method for opening myself up and entering, for opening the doors and stepping inside the dark.

Dr Aquino, if you’re out there - this is as far as I can take my understanding of Set at this stage.

Top
#34975 - 02/01/10 10:58 PM Sic Itur Ad Astra [Re: ]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: MatthewJ1
Dr Aquino, if you’re out there - this is as far as I can take my understanding of Set at this stage.

Looks good to me. As you get into your personal Grail Quest (another Setian term for "all of this"), you'll find all sorts of complications, side-effects, opportunities, and "here there be monsters" arising. For instance, as previously mentioned here, the responsibility of constructing and effecting a personal ethical standard once you have ventured "beyond [conventional] good and evil". As Satanists in the old Church of Satan, and Setians today, discovered much to their surprise, the LHP winds up being a far more chivalrous, empathetic [if not always sympathetic], and constructive personal standard. All the more ironic, and indeed funny, because much of the bombast in the Satanic Bible sounds so aggrandizing, contemptuous, and spoiled-brattish. The most accomplished, expert, and respected Satanists I've known over the years have been anything but these.

Enjoy your Great Adventure!
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#34984 - 02/01/10 11:57 PM Re: Sic Itur Ad Astra [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Valor Offline
pledge


Registered: 01/27/10
Posts: 54
Loc: Coast of New England
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
 Originally Posted By: MatthewJ1
Dr Aquino, if you’re out there - this is as far as I can take my understanding of Set at this stage.

Looks good to me. As you get into your personal Grail Quest (another Setian term for "all of this"), you'll find all sorts of complications, side-effects, opportunities, and "here there be monsters" arising. For instance, as previously mentioned here, the responsibility of constructing and effecting a personal ethical standard once you have ventured "beyond [conventional] good and evil". As Satanists in the old Church of Satan, and Setians today, discovered much to their surprise, the LHP winds up being a far more chivalrous, empathetic [if not always sympathetic], and constructive personal standard. All the more ironic, and indeed funny, because much of the bombast in the Satanic Bible sounds so aggrandizing, contemptuous, and spoiled-brattish. The most accomplished, expert, and respected Satanists I've known over the years have been anything but these.

Enjoy your Great Adventure!



Very true. We live in a world that is very short of respect. People are afraid to recoginize it. It might empower a rival, or make them aware of their own lack of achievement. Yes, as humans we long for respect.

The LHP Initiate embraces and prides himself on Ethics. And strive to avoid the traps of egoism in the process.

We also strive to avoid a vice known as Hubris which is common for the LHP Initiate. Webb touches on it saying that because the LHP Initiate does have access to mental states that 99.99% of his fellow humans do not he can come to believe that all his actions are justified. He may even come to believe that the Truth's, becoming the same sort of bigot he fled from early in his life. The cure for hubris is to associate with powerful, smart people that make you aware of how little you know, and how much more room there is for achievement in your life.

The LHP Initiate shuns being a big fish in a small pond. This aids the Initiate to use Ethics and respect to help govern his life.
_________________________
~there are none so blind as those who will not listen~

Top
#36642 - 03/17/10 12:56 PM Re: Sic Itur Ad Astra [Re: Valor]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 863
Loc: Nashville
The concept of Set as a representation of isolate consciousness - that which makes each of us unique and self-aware – makes sense to me. However, if the mission of the ToS is simply to focus on ourselves, working on ourselves to become the best we can be, then why not call the organization the Temple of Self?

The answer is that Aquino and, I suspect, most of the Priesthood of Set see Set not simply as the representation of self-consciousness but as an actual being (please correct me if I'm wrong, Dr. Aquino). This literal view of Set seems to be the main problem non-Setians have with the ToS. It’s unfortunate, because when seen as simply a vehicle for self-growth, the ToS would seem to be appealing to anyone with an open mind. But the theistic angle, which permeates throughout the ToS’s initiatory process, is a turn-off to those who see self growth as a purely self-driven process.
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#36651 - 03/17/10 03:26 PM Re: Sic Itur Ad Astra [Re: William Wright]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: William Wright
The concept of Set as a representation of isolate consciousness - that which makes each of us unique and self-aware – makes sense to me. However, if the mission of the ToS is simply to focus on ourselves, working on ourselves to become the best we can be, then why not call the organization the Temple of Self?

We do not see Set as merely a "representation" of isolate consciousness; that would reduce him to a mere symbol (such as 600C atheists regard "Satan"). Rather we see Set as the living source, the neter the Platonic "Form" of IC, of which our several ICs are particular manifestations.

As summarized in the #3 "Khemistry" chapter of my Temple of Set ebook, the Egyptians saw the cosmic totality as living, conscious manifestations or extensions of the neteru, which it was incumbent upon humanity to recognize and appreciate. This is a far more subtle apprehension of metaphysics than the simpler, coarser, and comic-booky gods of later, degenerate cultures such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc.

Hence worship of Set is not worship of oneself, though it is worship of the source of what enables you to be you, as it were. And this worship is not rote-pageantry, but rather a GBM exercise in returning your own consciousness to its source. A very interesting experience when you pursue it, which is what Xeper is all about.

 Quote:
The answer is that Aquino and, I suspect, most of the Priesthood of Set see Set not simply as the representation of self-consciousness but as an actual being (please correct me if I'm wrong, Dr. Aquino). This literal view of Set seems to be the main problem non-Setians have with the ToS. It’s unfortunate, because when seen as simply a vehicle for self-growth, the ToS would seem to be appealing to anyone with an open mind. But the theistic angle, which permeates throughout the ToS’s initiatory process, is a turn-off to those who see self growth as a purely self-driven process.

The Temple of Set is not in the least evangelistic; we don't mind in the least that some people don't understand/agree with our philosophy. Indeed we would say that you don't need to know a thing about Set, or even reflect at all upon your own sense of isolate consciousness, to enjoy its fruits. The basic difference with Setians is that we are aware of its source and think that our realization and exercise of it is enriched accordingly.

Further-indeed, Setians up through Adept II° are not expected or required to "believe" in Set. As long as they respect the Temple's dedication to him, they are welcome to enter it, learn/contribute to its various knowledge bases, and interact with other Setians. It is only with regard to the Priesthood of Set where direct, personal apprehension of Set is essential, which is of course what an authentic priesthood is all about.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#36677 - 03/18/10 12:01 AM Re: Sic Itur Ad Astra [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 863
Loc: Nashville
Dr. Aquino, thank you for your response. I clearly don’t see things as you do with regard to Set…but then you’re you and I’m me, and I’m OK with that.

As long as I have your attention, there’s a few things I’d to ask if you don’t mind. You believe that Set wrote The Book of Coming Forth by Night through you in 1975, and that this effectively marked the end of the Age of Satan and the beginning of the Aeon of Set.

Why do you think Set kept a low profile between his involvement in ancient Egypt and 1975? Why do you think he revealed himself as Set to you and not LaVey? Finally, do you think LaVey's "corruption" of the CoS was predetermined? After all, no corruption no crisis no BoCFbN (it would seem).
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#36678 - 03/18/10 01:49 AM Historical Alternatives [Re: William Wright]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: William Wright
Why do you think Set kept a low profile between his involvement in ancient Egypt and 1975?

The short answer is "I don't know.".

But in my experience, certain events or crossroads seem to happen when circumstances are right for them - rather like the alignment of the planets at key moments of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Following the 1960s, which were generally "revolutionary", the 1970s were rather more "transformational", perhaps evolutionary, perhaps escapist. It was a time of the Space Shuttle, the L Society, the High Frontier, the Jefferson Airplane becoming the Jefferson Starship, Star Wars, Star Trek, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, the President of the United States admitting to seeing a UFO, and similar restlessness. Offhand I can't think of a more appropriate moment for the Temple of Set to [re]appear than on the precise midpoint - the North Solstice of 1975 - of this curious phase of civilization.

 Quote:
Why do you think he revealed himself as Set to you and not LaVey?

Quite possibly that was his original idea; see the "Ninth Solstice Message" in my Church of Satan [and don't miss Anton's comment concerning it].

 Quote:
Finally, do you think LaVey's "corruption" of the CoS was predetermined? After all, no corruption no crisis no BoCFbN (it would seem).

No, I don't think it was predetermined; a passage of the Book of Coming Forth by Night indicates Set's surprise and dismay.

I think that if Anton had not chosen the course that he did in May 1975, that the Church of Satan would eventually have evolved into something similar, if not identical to the Temple of Set. The Judæo-Christian imagery and context were rapidly becoming obsolete and constraining, and the generally-simplistic scope of the original Church was similarly heading towards greater sophistication and subtlety.

The reemergence of the Egyptian neteru generally, and Set in particular, is going to remain something of a mystery. Neither Anton nor I nor anyone else in the Church was especially interested in or oriented towards Egypt, save for appropriate ceremonies or workings.

As I have said on many occasions, no one would have been happier than Magister Templi Michael Aquino to see the Church continue such evolution under Anton's High Priesthood. [As a budget-strained graduate student I had just splurged on some expensive IV° letterhead a month or so before the crisis; and since I expected to settle into the IV° for a nice, long time, I ordered several reams of it. So then I wound up having to toss all those boxes into the trashcan.]
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#36679 - 03/18/10 02:21 AM Re: Historical Alternatives [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Meq Offline
Banned
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 861
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
No, I don't think it was predetermined; a passage of the Book of Coming Forth by Night indicates Set's surprise and dismay.

So is Set an actual anthropomorphic being which has similar emotions to humans (such as dismay and surprise), or an impersonal Platonic Form?

While the latter is a metaphysical hypothesis, and thus a matter for philosophical debate - the former belongs strictly in a religious/mythological worldview.

(Unless, of course, such allusions to Set's human-like emotions are meant as purely symbolic.)

Top
#36703 - 03/18/10 11:23 AM Re: Historical Alternatives [Re: Meq]
SOLERIFT Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/05/08
Posts: 31
Loc: Dallas, TX
 Originally Posted By: Meq
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
No, I don't think it was predetermined; a passage of the Book of Coming Forth by Night indicates Set's surprise and dismay.

So is Set an actual anthropomorphic being which has similar emotions to humans (such as dismay and surprise), or an impersonal Platonic Form?

While the latter is a metaphysical hypothesis, and thus a matter for philosophical debate - the former belongs strictly in a religious/mythological worldview.

(Unless, of course, such allusions to Set's human-like emotions are meant as purely symbolic.)


Set may very well be a sentient "being", but does not have to be "anthropomorphized" in the typical sense..... Any "emotions" detected on the part of the observer, such as surprise or anger may prove to be translations of Set's state when decoded by a human receiver.

There are "beings" that exist in "spaces" man has clouded with myth and superstition and has given many names to, but in reality, these "spaces" are merely states of "matter" accessed by states of "being" or "mind" that science is only beginning to be able to conceptualize.

Whether these "beings" are a phenomenon of purely internal dialogue with Jungian archetypal "thought forms", inventions of your own mind, or external beings - is up for debate - even to some of us who have had these experiences....

However, the experience of such an event, leaves its impression, regardless of how you perceive it.

Perhaps the concept known as "entanglement", if ever proven, may suggest that both conditions may exist simultaneously - both empowered and colored by your mental state while also being externally manifested through the medium of "evocation"

Science has shown time and time again that concepts once considered supernatural are little more than misunderstandings of those who cannot comprehend the science behind the "magic".

Food for thought : in dreams, we experience "events" and "beings" - you can be surrounded by mental projections of your everyday friends who act, talk, and interact with you - yet - in most cases*** - these are not your friends. They are mental projections that your mind is assimilating to imitate your friends. Through memory recall and a little magic called "dream projection" - your own subconscious weaves together environments and virtual beings that interact with you in a virtual garden of your own contorted memories and impressions.

The experience can be genuinely amazing, you can even have mind expanding conversations with these "others" in your dreams - I have had conversations where I was presented with new angles of viewing questions that plague me. Conversations that would make we swear that there was no way that it could have been "just me".

I have written new songs by watching a projected person play a melody in a dream and teach it to me - the most recent dream of this type I was watching myself play something that was so beyond my technical proficiency that I had to compose it using midi. I wake up being able to formulate a new idea that came to me in a dream, often using patterns that have been reassembled in ways that I have not yet consciously discovered.

This is an interesting phenomenon : think of the way objects, people, and places get all jumbled in dreams as if being randomly combined - this seems to be what happens to my habitual chord/melodic progressions - they get mangled into a new order that I have not tried before by what seems to be another "being" - and I wake up remembering it - nothing "supernatural" per se, - but still absolutely amazing.

But to give the "rabbit hole" its due - are these "others" that are projected in the medium of our dreams actually "sentient" in some way, from the moment of their projection? It may sound insane, but the lines are blurred for me...... my perceptions are not absolute.

***I personally know it IS possible to interact with another living person in a dream and be able to share and recall the same dream together, regardless of the space between us - (in this case I was in Texas, she was in North Carolina)- so the idea of another sentient being contacting and communicating with me in some abstract state of mind induced by ritual does not seem unreasonable, just highly misunderstood

Top
#36708 - 03/18/10 01:03 PM The secret is out. [Re: Meq]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Meq
So is Set an actual anthropomorphic being which has similar emotions to humans (such as dismay and surprise), or an impersonal Platonic Form?

Neither - he's a Marvel Comics superhero.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#36712 - 03/18/10 02:34 PM Re: The secret is out. [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Meq Offline
Banned
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 861
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
 Originally Posted By: Meq
So is Set an actual anthropomorphic being which has similar emotions to humans (such as dismay and surprise), or an impersonal Platonic Form?

Neither - he's a Marvel Comics superhero.

Or in other words, a cartoon.
As all anthropomorphic feeling and emotional deities ultimately are:
The familiar knowable human form projected onto an ultimately unknowable, impersonal and indifferent universe. A very human fallacy "we" have been committing for many thousands of years.

Today, to take such a deity's emotional side as anything more than a symbol or metaphor requires quite the Kierkegaardian leap of faith - together with what Kierkegaard described as a "crucifixion of the intellect". I'll pass. ;\)

Top
#36717 - 03/18/10 04:52 PM The Passion of Meq [Re: Meq]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Meq
As all anthropomorphic feeling and emotional deities ultimately are:
The familiar knowable human form projected onto an ultimately unknowable, impersonal and indifferent universe. A very human fallacy "we" have been committing for many thousands of years. Today, to take such a deity's emotional side as anything more than a symbol or metaphor requires quite the Kierkegaardian leap of faith - together with what Kierkegaard described as a "crucifixion of the intellect". I'll pass. ;\)

Meq, your response brought to mind this from my mother's childhood musings Pegasus in Pinfeathers:

 Originally Posted By: Betty Ford
FORCED ENTRANCE

There came a time when they were not content
To shriek against the portals and the shrine.
They crushed the silver gates, and in they went,
Hot-handed, on a search for the Divine.

And the white portals opened ceaselessly,
And the great purple curtains flapped and fell,
And the great mass of people swept to see
Naked Untruth, but how they could not tell.

Still they found nothing godlike, but a throne
Empty and time-worn, in an empty hall,
And a white heap of manuscripts, alone,
And the Sun’s rays that fell, nor ceased to fall.

And, in one sheltered crevass they went by,
A flight of stairs that wound into the sky.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#36729 - 03/18/10 10:04 PM Crimespeak! [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
MawhrinSkel has warned that responses in rhyme
Are inappropriate in this forum at any t***.
But since I can no longer delete "Forced Entrance",
I must ask readers to forget every single sent****.

While this may leave poor Meq in doubt
As to the theological implications of his p***,
The prevalence of prose upon this board
Must not be compromised or ign****.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#36754 - 03/19/10 10:13 AM Re: The secret is out. [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 863
Loc: Nashville
Dr. Aquino, thank you for answering my questions. Although I have not been swayed from my prior position regarding Set, I do have a clearer understanding of your thoughts on the matter.

I’m sure you’ve grown quite tired over the years of arguing the existence of Set - hence your sarcastic “superhero” response. However, I’m sure you also understand that there’s no getting around it, that the subject will continue to rear its ugly head throughout your life. It is, to use a Christian analogy, your cross to bear.

With regard to the Temple’s initiatory process, it is true that I*’s and II*’s are not expected or required to believe in Set. However, the Priests and Priestesses who recognize them as such DO believe in him. It seems likely that the Priesthood’s acknowledgement of and perceived consecration by Set would affect their judgment and thus overshadow the recognition process.
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#36762 - 03/19/10 02:10 PM Re: Crimespeak! [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: MawhrinSkel
Curious mixture of iambs and trochees. End rhyme poetry is generally held as inferior to even free verse, since the only claim to poetic artistry lies in the harmonization of two contrasting words appearing at the end of each line.

I would certainly agree that this forum's banning of my poetry would be a merciful blessing to all readers. However I must with some righteous indignation deny that my "Crimespeak!" post above could by any stretch of demented imagination be called a poem.

 Quote:
Now, your mother produced a quite nice poem, but it doesn't need a home here. I think it's nice poem, and I'll read it.

Another Klein bottle phenomenon: How could you judge it "quite nice" if you haven't read it yet? Besides, Mom wrote it for Meq, not for you.

 Quote:
But here's the point: Not here. You are quite adept in both the rules of grammar and in constructing an argument, both abilities of which you've availed yourself in the past. In fact, few can match you in this regard. You wouldn't break those rules, now would you?

Perish the thought. And I am indeed honored to have my humble writing efforts praised by my betters.

 Quote:
Please don't break this either. If you need to, I would be most gratified if you could do so in PM.

I always enjoy gratifying those who wish it.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#36763 - 03/19/10 02:35 PM Re: The secret is out. [Re: William Wright]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: William Wright
I’m sure you’ve grown quite tired over the years of arguing the existence of Set - hence your sarcastic “superhero” response.

Not tired in any disrespectful sense, because anyone asserting direct contact with a metaphysical intelligence must expect this. Moses doubtless had the same problem explaining his conversation with a bush.

As for my response to Meq in this case, I thought he was due for a friendly whoopie cushion, that's all. ;\)

 Quote:
However, I’m sure you also understand that there’s no getting around it, that the subject will continue to rear its ugly head throughout your life. It is, to use a Christian analogy, your cross to bear.

Well, Pentagram anyway. But that's why I'm writing The Temple of Set: to try to address such questions as thoroughly and integrally as I can. The Church of Satan was an attempt to do much the same thing for my experiences in that context.

I think it is important to note that the Temple of Set, both past and present, has served its purpose not because of my ideas and experiences, but even more because of those of the thousands of Setians who have found it to enhance their own initiation. Ask every Setian about Set and you will get an answer reflective of his or her unique consciousness & perception. And I am impressed by this; indeed I would feel there to be something fundamentally wrong with the Temple if Setians were just content to echo or trust in my own nœsis. In that case we would indeed be nothing but another variation of the profane religions.

 Quote:
With regard to the Temple’s initiatory process, it is true that I*’s and II*’s are not expected or required to believe in Set. However, the Priests and Priestesses who recognize them as such DO believe in him. It seems likely that the Priesthood’s acknowledgement of and perceived consecration by Set would affect their judgment and thus overshadow the recognition process.

I see no reason why it should, not to my knowledge has any Setian I° or Adept II° voiced such a concern. Indeed it is the Priesthood's realization of the distinction between the II° and the III° that enables it not to blur the two.

Recognition as a Setian I° is a judgment of sincerity and potential. Recognition a an Adept II° is a judgment of ethics, skills, and their combined application. You do not need to know how to build a bicycle, or who built it, to become an expert at riding it.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#36770 - 03/19/10 04:46 PM Re: How to kick ass! [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
AND, although I really don't need to, but I will because it bears noting, that there's a fairly good reason, to my mind, why poetry gets the thumbs down here.

Simply put, Robert Frost, most of us AIN'T.

And for every Kubla Khan ever written, there are a million teenage angst-ridden "moon, June, spoon" poems, or deeply "satanic" epics with prerequisite death and devil pageantry by black lipped and clawed gothic masters who've analyzed the intricacies of the world and beyond at the tender age of 12.

I'm not saying that there's anything WRONG with good poetry, and I have to admit that I'm a fan of GOOD poetry... my mind even runs to connecting lyrics from songs to occasions in my life ("We learned more from a three minute record than we ever learned in school...") BUT who in the hell wants to plod through post after post of Iambic Pentameters or Dactylic Hexameters?

Forums are CHEAP... read pretty much free... in a lot or places. All you need is to sign up at one of the sites and build one. That takes a couple of minutes, and you can post just about whatever you want, as long as it falls within the guidelines of the forum's host provider. One COULD quite easily have a "Satanic Poet's Corner" up and running in a matter of minutes that would thrive or dive on its own merits.

But for sites that are owned and paid for, like this one, Dark Ryde, LTTD, and others, it's pretty much the province of the owner to decide what is the acceptable mode of posting and content allowed. It's the golden rule. "He who has the gold makes the rules." Here, the rule is set at no poetry. Same at Dark Ryde. Dunno about other places... boils down to having enough respect for the author of the feast to respect his wishes.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#36773 - 03/19/10 06:14 PM Don' throw me in dat briar patch! [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: MawhrinSkel
Now, I am by no means a psyops operative on par with the esteemed Dr. Aquino. Indeed, I would judge his abilities to be far superior to mine in any number of fields. Even so, I can recognize manipulation (LBM) when I see it.

The first thing you need to do is identify your opponent's weak spot. You can do this by trying any number of emotional stimuli. In Satanists, pride and a sense of aesthetics are the primary targets. Irony, sarcasm and cheap shots are great weapons in this regard, and the doctor wields these weapons like a surgeon wields a scalpel. I am in awe.

As much as I would like to take [dis]credit for some mustache-twirling zinger here, I guess I am missing something. I unthinkingly quoted a muse by my mother (aged 12) that seemed pertinent to Meq's previous, then acknowledged my error since I was now-unable to delete the outrage. No PSYOP involved; why should there be?

 Quote:
Poetry is one of the most innocuous of weapons, chiefly because it creates an emotional response and passes itself off as an intellectual one.

This is rather a startling statement: Do you really contend that all poetry is an "emotional weapon" and devoid of any intellectual content or merit? [Or, contrastingly, that prose is insulated from both of these perils simply because of its eschew of rhythm & rhyme?] Was your English teacher by any chance named Madam Mim?

 Quote:
I am by no means offended by the doctor's statements, but rather I find myself marvelling at how adroitly he managed to turn a simple warning about poetry into an indictment about the fundamental wrongness of our philosophical stances. Everybody should take notes. This is how you fight.



 Quote:
Feel free to carry this indictment further. Anyone who listens is free to do so. No poetry will be allowed regardless.

Poetry is crimespeak. Crimespeak is thoughtcrime. I love Big Brother.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#36774 - 03/19/10 06:43 PM Poetry: The "Devil" of 600C? [Re: Jake999]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Jake999
AND, although I really don't need to, but I will because it bears noting, that there's a fairly good reason, to my mind, why poetry gets the thumbs down here. Simply put, Robert Frost, most of us AIN'T.

Probably [and definitely in my case] true, but then some of the prose here isn't exactly Shakespeare either, so ..? It is just as easy to ignore one as the other. And if you preemptively blot it all out, well, there goes the baby with the bathwater. Maybe lots of babies.

 Quote:
And for every Kubla Khan ever written, there are a million teenage angst-ridden "moon, June, spoon" poems, or deeply "satanic" epics with prerequisite death and devil pageantry by black lipped and clawed gothic masters who've analyzed the intricacies of the world and beyond at the tender age of 12.

Coincidentally that was the average age at which my mother wrote Pegasus in Pinfeathers. Perhaps not all 12-year-olds are quite so quickly dismissible?

 Quote:
... who in the hell wants to plod through post after post of Iambic Pentameters or Dactylic Hexameters?

So skip them.

 Quote:
Forums are CHEAP... read pretty much free... in a lot or places. All you need is to sign up at one of the sites and build one. That takes a couple of minutes, and you can post just about whatever you want, as long as it falls within the guidelines of the forum's host provider. One COULD quite easily have a "Satanic Poet's Corner" up and running in a matter of minutes that would thrive or dive on its own merits.

But for sites that are owned and paid for, like this one, Dark Ryde, LTTD, and others, it's pretty much the province of the owner to decide what is the acceptable mode of posting and content allowed. It's the golden rule. "He who has the gold makes the rules." Here, the rule is set at no poetry. Same at Dark Ryde. Dunno about other places... boils down to having enough respect for the author of the feast to respect his wishes.

Point taken, but in the case of a forum which holds itself to be a/the standard-bearer for a larger, more general community of interest, there is presumably something of a commensurate, implied responsibility beyond the mere personal whims or prejudice of the owner. This is certainly a grey area with no easy or facile resolutions; but I would think that generally any medium which styles itself "Satanic" would want to err against, not towards censorship.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#36776 - 03/19/10 07:23 PM Re: Poetry: The "Devil" of 600C? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
This is certainly a grey area with no easy or facile resolutions; but I would think that generally any medium which styles itself "Satanic" would want to err against, not towards censorship.


Non inclusion is not censorship. It's simply categorical preference. You've proven yourself that you can say just about anything you want to say here... being restricted from saying it in verse is no different than the site's policy that the accepted language of posts is in English. Censorship? No. Continuitous? Yes.

Maw could be posting in Norwegian, Meq in some Cockney dialect, Diavolo and Dimitri in French or whatever the heck they're speaking in Belgium these days, and at least a half dozen other languages by members on the boards. Free flowing and organic, maybe, but hardly more than a cacaphony of linguistic babble.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#36777 - 03/19/10 07:26 PM Re: Poetry: The "Devil" of 600C? [Re: Jake999]
Noctuary Offline
pledge


Registered: 02/01/10
Posts: 92
Jesus Christ. How many fucking posts are there going to be here about don't post poetry? I would call this passive aggressive. But I can't even find the aggressive part. No poetry. Move on. I'd like to once again read about the topic at hand. Sometimes people talk way too much to say one simple sentence.
_________________________
Devils speak of the way in which she'll manifest

Top
#36783 - 03/19/10 10:37 PM Re: Poetry: The "Devil" of 600C? [Re: Jake999]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Jake999
Non inclusion is not censorship. It's simply categorical preference.

Um, Jake, I'm supposed to be the PSYOPer here. Remember when all those dastardly "terrorists" were "freedom fighters" (if on our side) or "guerrillas" (if on Che's side)?

 Quote:
You've proven yourself that you can say just about anything you want to say here... being restricted from saying it in verse is no different than the site's policy that the accepted language of posts is in English.

Indeed I would also have no objection to someone posting auf deutsch if he thought a point would be made better or exclusively that way. For instance, certain of Nietzsche's statements are rather mangled en route to English, and occasional citation of the original might help.

And again, the poster of anything unusual (such as poetry or a foreign-language passage) always takes the chance that various readers will skip it. That's just as fairly their option.

I confess to being bemused that poetry should have somehow grown horns and fangs to be the "600C Devil". Frankly I have never run into such a villagers-with-torches scene before. Was there at some point a hideous assault on the 600C by a shambling, slavering mob of poets, a la Night of the Living Dead? "They're coming to versify you, Barbara ..."

If the poetry ban were removed, does anyone really think that the 600C would suddenly be buffeted by bards (Good, Bad, or Ugly)? I doubt it; but if so, the truly ghastly could be sentenced to watch endless reruns of Seinfeld or something comparably waterboardish.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#36784 - 03/19/10 10:49 PM Re: Poetry: The "Devil" of 600C? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
Toilet training must've been a bitch, huh?

Hey, aside from watching people post some of the most idiotic things in verse, I have no real problem with poetry. I respect Rick's right as the webmaster to restrict its use, as I am a guest here. Feel free to post what you want... I'm only wearing blue, as are you.

The greens have a hell of a lot more say than I do... I just put people on ignore when I find them playing games. And reds... well, reds are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves as well. You might want to register your complaint with Rick... his site, his rules.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#36785 - 03/19/10 11:23 PM Re: Poetry: The "Devil" of 600C? [Re: Jake999]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Jake999
Toilet training must've been a bitch, huh?



 Quote:
I'm only wearing blue, as are you.

I have never judged anyone's posting here by name-color, nor do I care what mine is. [Indeed I've never bothered to decipher them.] I just assume that anyone posting here is a lady or gentleman with something sincere to say, and read/occasionally respond in kind. I see this as simple courtesy, not some pecking-order matter.

 Quote:
You might want to register your complaint with Rick... his site, his rules.

I have no complaint. The topic of poetry came up here; I had some thoughts about it to share, that's all. Some others are evidently much more worked up about this than I am.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#36796 - 03/20/10 07:01 AM TOS, Temple of Set, and etc........ [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
Move along, proceed to Set.
Move along, no poetry allowed.
Move along, no emo cutters needed.
Move along, theses are not the droids you want.


Years and years ago, we had more newbies spewing bad poetry all day long. Lots of threats, warning, locked threads, and deletions. When I used to moderate the Satanism forum back in the day, I got in trouble for deleting, stupid posts, and etc... We used to have to delete stuff because there were so many pages of posts.

Like it has been mentioned, some people think they can write poetry, most will never come close to Frost, or Neureda. The board decided a long time ago, no poetry, because of all we have, we didn't need that too. Let's face it, it would become the longest thread/forum/space sucking/ego jerk-off category here that no one would want to read.

Now back to our previous story........

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



Top
#36799 - 03/20/10 01:34 PM The Force gives me power ... [Re: Morgan]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Morgan
Move along, theses are not the droids you want.

Move along, these are not the droids we want.

 Quote:
Years and years ago, we had more newbies spewing bad poetry all day long. Lots of threats, warning, locked threads, and deletions. When I used to moderate the Satanism forum back in the day, I got in trouble for deleting, stupid posts, and etc... We used to have to delete stuff because there were so many pages of posts.

Like it has been mentioned, some people think they can write poetry, most will never come close to Frost, or Neureda. The board decided a long time ago, no poetry, because of all we have, we didn't need that too. Let's face it, it would become the longest thread/forum/space sucking/ego jerk-off category here that no one would want to read.

The 600 Club spacport: You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious ...
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#36802 - 03/20/10 03:29 PM Re: The Force gives me power ... [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
exadust Offline
pledge


Registered: 03/09/10
Posts: 91
Loc: georgia
My only question is this.

How can you stray off topic so far going from Set to poetry and then to Star Wars paraphrases?

On the subject of Set I only know what I've read about him in the fanatasy "World of Darkness".

Poetry has it's purposes but not in this forum I believe.

And the Star Wars saga was most entertaining!
_________________________
Herein you will find truth and fantasy. Each is necessary in order for the other to exsist.

Top
#36803 - 03/20/10 04:02 PM Mesa agrees! [Re: exadust]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: exadust
How can you stray off topic so far going from Set to poetry and then to Star Wars paraphrases?

Of poetry speak must you not. Sith, as known he was a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, in a cavern of his Planet to be found is. But to The Dark Side go you should not, as your brain fry it would.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#36806 - 03/20/10 06:33 PM Re: The Force gives me power ... [Re: exadust]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
How can you stray off topic so far going from Set to poetry and then to Star Wars paraphrases?

Everything was connected at a moment in time. If you read this thread from the beginning, you can see the thought progression. Granted, people do take a left turn now and then, but most people here took the road less traveled anyway.

On the subject of Set I only know what I've read about him in the fanatasy "World of Darkness".

Well then, you should read more, especially in regards to the Temple of Set. This will make understanding the stuff mentioned in this thread more understandable. Role play games are different from how people in real life understand/explain/experience stuff. Just like how the module on Ghengish Khan is different from the history of the Mongol's. Some of it may be based on truth, but not most of it.

Yes, poetry has no place here, but you can find it in "The Sith Code", and the revised edition by The Imperial Army.


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



Top
#36809 - 03/20/10 07:05 PM Re: The Force gives me power ... [Re: Morgan]
exadust Offline
pledge


Registered: 03/09/10
Posts: 91
Loc: georgia
I did indeed read the thread from the beginning.

And as far as The Temple of Set I will look into that so I can better understand their mythology.
_________________________
Herein you will find truth and fantasy. Each is necessary in order for the other to exsist.

Top
#36810 - 03/20/10 07:19 PM Set wants your brain. [Re: exadust]
Meq Offline
Banned
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 861
 Originally Posted By: exadust
How can you stray off topic so far going from Set to poetry and then to Star Wars paraphrases?

It's called misdirection.

Whenever someone makes a serious rational critique of Setian dogma which cries out for an answer, St. Michael's strategy is to disarm his opponent by making a joke of it. The use of jokes also disguises any serious intent at misdirection on his part. Not a bad LBM strategy if I may say so myself.
The only problem is that I can see right through it.

The reader sufficiently distracted with enough red herrings, and the fact that many serious points made have been rhetorically dodged is no longer apparent.

This immediately shifts the focus away from a dangerous rational critique of Setianism to something a lot safer. Wisecracks, deep-sounding quotes and self-quotes, pop-cultural references (George Lucas provides a veritable goldmine), and perhaps a bit of verse, form a powerful substitute for 'dry' rational debate, and of course to many is far more interesting and appealing. The aim of such a strategy is to "sell" an idea, not act as an unbiased seeker after truth - although it helps to give the illusion of the latter.

The reader finds themselves wanting to agree - only for all the wrong reasons. From the ancient Greek Sophists to today's lawyers, politicians, 'philosophers' and religious apologists (of all forms), the same techniques were and continue to be used with great success. (Except on those sufficiently familiar with critical thinking and LBM/persuasion tactics.)

Top
#36811 - 03/20/10 07:32 PM Re: Set wants your brain. [Re: Meq]
exadust Offline
pledge


Registered: 03/09/10
Posts: 91
Loc: georgia
Yes I know what he was trying to acheive.

But the problem with his method is that Atheist Satanists aren't going to buy into The Temple of Set.

Theist Satanists might sell out to the idea but most Satanists can't convert because we have nothing to convert from.
_________________________
Herein you will find truth and fantasy. Each is necessary in order for the other to exsist.

Top
#36813 - 03/20/10 08:00 PM Re: Set wants your brain. [Re: exadust]
Meq Offline
Banned
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 861
 Originally Posted By: exadust
But the problem with his method is that Atheist Satanists aren't going to buy into The Temple of Set.

I'm not sure if you've ever been solicited by local businesses though the mail, but many businesses like to drop off glossly leaflets advertising their services. The catch - only around 1/1000 of these leaflets are going to lead to a successful sale. Yet this method is still popular, leaflets are cheap enough, and even with the low success rate it still pays off. Send a million leaflets, get a thousand or so customers.

Now, Aquino is not going to convert many, if any, serious atheistic Satanists here. That doesn't mean his influences aren't felt in more subtle ways. Before Aquino, flaming anyone with a blinkered faith in theistic or supernatural beliefs was par for the course here.

600 now has a well-respected VIP in its midst, in a blue suit, espousing a strong religious faith in both theistic and supernatural ideas. This radically changed the dynamics here. Faith, supernaturalism and theism are now, by association, accorded far more respect than they previously were. It is no longer couth to call someone a fuckwit for nothing other than belief in a supernatural deity. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is anyone's guess.

The fact is, however, that while Aquino hasn't converted any 'Satatheists' here, he has made theism and supernaturalism more respectable, for better or worse. If it was his intent to shift attitudes towards theism here, in that respect he has had some success.

Top
#36814 - 03/20/10 09:18 PM Re: Set wants your brain. [Re: Meq]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
Like Meq I was a little confused by the likening of Set to a Platonic Form. So, like Meq, I am going to pose the same question: So is Set an actual anthropomorphic being which has similar emotions to humans (such as dismay and surprise), or an impersonal Platonic Form?

Hopefully this time we can get an actual answer.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#36816 - 03/20/10 09:54 PM Re: Set wants your brain. [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
exadust Offline
pledge


Registered: 03/09/10
Posts: 91
Loc: georgia
Since I've just left the Temple of Set website and read the little General Information Letter I have a question for any Setian who would like to answer.

In the clarifiaction section of said letter it states that some "Satanists views are just a synthesis of simple-minded Xitian propaganda and Hollywood movies.

My question is:

Are you sure your view isn't simple-minded?

I'm in no way anti- Xitian. They can be ignorant if they so choose to be. They have their own rights to believe what they choose.

I'm also not anti-Setian.

But don't tell me that most Satanists are simple-minded when the Temple of Set is just a offshoot of the CoS. Those who chose to defect from the CoS should've expected the catering that happened. After all the CoS was founded by a man.

As I've stated before and I can't speak for all Satanists but Satanism for me is a way of life and not organized religion. So I would not join any organization for the simple reason I represent myself and no one else.

No disrespect intended towards any Setian on this forum but you need to examine what you say based on your "Temples" roots.
_________________________
Herein you will find truth and fantasy. Each is necessary in order for the other to exsist.

Top
#36817 - 03/20/10 10:01 PM Re: Set wants your brain. [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Meq Offline
Banned
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 861
 Originally Posted By: 6Satan6Archist6
Hopefully this time we can get an actual answer.

You sound awfully optimistic today, 6 ;\)

P.S. IMO an anthropomorphic deity is as simple-minded as ideas come.

Top
#36824 - 03/20/10 11:26 PM Re: Set wants your brain. [Re: Meq]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 863
Loc: Nashville
Obviously Dr. Aquino is in the minority here. I don’t think he minds it; he’s been in the minority most of his life. But as far as his organization goes, I think he has a point: Those members who do not wish to join the Priesthood are not expected or required to believe in Set. In fact, I’d hazard to guess that a great many I*’s and II*’s don’t believe in Set.

I never felt pressured to believe in Set when I was in the Temple. In fact, I distinctly recall being told by more than one Priest to focus less on the idea of Set and more on myself. After giving the matter a great deal of thought, I came to the conclusion that I no more believed in Set than in God or any other deity.

But I do believe in what I think is a much bigger idea the Temple espouses - the idea that I am the captain of my ship, and that I have the power within myself to make my life better. It’s not an idea unique to the Temple, of course. But it was an idea I had never really taken to heart. The Temple was good LHP Basic Training for me, and for that I am very grateful. I left the Temple after about a year, but it was not for philosophical reasons. Ultimately, I just wanted to take what I learned and move forward alone.

There is one thing that bugs me a little, though. I remember reading in a Temple publication, written I believe by Aquino, something to the effect that those who leave the Temple will gradually slip back into old mundane thoughts and habits. I have made a conscious effort to retain what I learned in the Temple and build on it. Since leaving the Temple I have increased my earnings by nearly 50%, purchased a home and, more recently, come to terms with my destructive relationship with alcohol.

In the end, it’s not about the Temple. It’s all about me, and that’s all I really need to know.
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#36825 - 03/20/10 11:36 PM Re: Set wants your brain. [Re: Meq]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Meq
 Originally Posted By: exadust
How can you stray off topic so far going from Set to poetry and then to Star Wars paraphrases?

It's called misdirection.

Not at all. I think that throughout my 600C visit I have responded quite directly and in detail to serious, courteous questions. But I see no need to answer the same ones over and over again either. If my responses were a little difficult for you to understand, or perhaps just inconvenient to your preconceptions, please accept my apologies. And there is certainly nothing wrong with your remaining a happy and contented Atheist.

 Quote:
Whenever someone makes a serious rational critique of Setian dogma which cries out for an answer, St. Michael's strategy is to disarm his opponent by making a joke of it. The use of jokes also disguises any serious intent at misdirection on his part.

No, I think the record will show that I have responded with a whoopie-cushion only when it is quite obvious that a heckler is begging for it.

 Quote:
The reader sufficiently distracted with enough red herrings, and the fact that many serious points made have been rhetorically dodged is no longer apparent. This immediately shifts the focus away from a dangerous rational critique of Setianism to something a lot safer. Wisecracks, deep-sounding quotes and self-quotes, pop cultural references (George Lucas provides a veritable goldmine), and perhaps a bit of verse, form a powerful substitute for 'dry' rational debate, and of course to many is far more interesting and appealing.

Gee whiz, Meq, you take all the fun out of it. Tell you what: If you feel driven to discuss whatever your notion of Setian philosophy is purely drily and rationally, just go ahead and start a thread. I promise to stay out of it, and not to respond to anything imported from it. So you won't have anything to worry about.

 Quote:
The aim of such a strategy is to "sell" an idea, not act as an unbiased seeker after truth - although it helps to give the illusion of the latter.

Have I sold anything to anybody here? Of course not. I am only a magician, standing here in evening dress, with my sleeves rolled up. You are a prince, and you must do what you think best, of course.

 Quote:
The reader finds themselves wanting to agree - only for all the wrong reasons. From the ancient Greek Sophists to today's lawyers, politicians, 'philosophers' and religious apologists (of all forms), the same techniques were and continue to be used with great success. (Except on those sufficiently familiar with critical thinking and LBM/persuasion tactics.)

You are certainly to be commended for having seen through all of those dastardly schemers, past and present. The 600C is indeed blessed to have so perceptive and vigilant a shepherd to protect it.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#36826 - 03/21/10 12:41 AM Temple of Set Affiliation [Re: William Wright]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: William Wright
I remember reading in a Temple publication, written I believe by Aquino, something to the effect that those who leave the Temple will gradually slip back into old mundane thoughts and habits.

I don't recall writing or saying anything like that. Indeed the notion of the Temple of Set as an organization to which one needs to be "attached" to pursue authentic personal initiation has always been antithetical to us. We have rather described it as a "toolbox" which each Setian can use as he or she finds helpful. Of course it also functions as a communications medium among Setians worldwide, and maintains certain ethical and courtesy standards for formal affiliates. But many Initiates over the decades have regarded it as a springboard or launching-pad for their individual quests, and that is fine with us.

The Gift of Set - isolate self consciousness - is not something which the Temple of Set controls, authenticates, or validates. Each sentient being possesses it inherently. All that we do is to encourage those who are ready to awaken themselves to it - a process rather comparable to Ouspensky's The Psychology of Man's Possible Evolution lectures that I have discussed here previously.

And that is why the Setian initiatory degrees are never spoken of as "bestowed" or "conferred", but always as "Recognized". Initiation of this high order is utterly, inescapably a personal adventure. So we watch it, Recognize certain key aspects of it as extend coherently to other Initiates, and - from the collective experience of all Setians over the last 35 years - offer some helpful observations, suggestions, warnings, and encouragement. The journey is daunting enough without any more brick walls & blind alleys than absolutely necessary.

 Quote:
I have made a conscious effort to retain what I learned in the Temple and build on it. Since leaving the Temple I have increased my earnings by nearly 50%, purchased a home and, more recently, come to terms with my destructive relationship with alcohol. In the end, it’s not about the Temple. It’s all about me, and that’s all I really need to know.

_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#36827 - 03/21/10 12:55 AM Temple of Set General Information Letter [Re: exadust]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: exadust
In the clarifiaction section of said letter it states that some Satanists views are just a synthesis of simple-minded Xitian propaganda and Hollywood movies. My question is: Are you sure your view isn't simple-minded?

I think you have taken the above passage out of its proper context. A discussion of Setian philosophy, including its evolution from the 1966-75 Church of Satan, takes place elsewhere in the General Information Letter.

Here is the passage you cited, in its actual context:

 Quote:
AN IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION

Regretfully there still exist some individuals whose idea of “Satanism” is largely a simple-minded synthesis of Christian propaganda and Hollywood horror movies. The Temple of Set enjoys the colorful legacy of the Black Arts, and we use many forms of historical Satanic imagery for our artistic stimulation and pleasure. But we have not found that any interest or activity which an enlightened, mature intellect would regard as undignified, sadistic, criminal, or depraved is desirable, much less essential to our work.

The Temple of Set is an evolutionary product of human experience. Such experience includes the magical and philosophical work of many occult individuals and organizations which have preceded us. Some of these were socially acceptable by contemporary or modern standards; others were not. Some made brilliant discoveries in one field of interest while blighting their reputations with shocking excesses or tragic failures in others. In examining the secret and suppressed corners of history for valuable and useful material, the Temple insists upon ethical presentation and use of such discoveries as it makes. Setians who are in any doubt as to the ethics involved in any of the fields which we explore should seek counsel from the Priesthood. All Setians are further expected to display a high measure of maturity and common sense in this area.

The Black Arts are dangerous in the same way that working with volatile chemicals is dangerous. This is most emphatically not a field for unstable, immature, or otherwise emotionally or intellectually weak-minded people. Such are a hazard to themselves and to others with whom they come into contact. The Temple endeavors to not admit them to begin with. If such an individual should gain admittance and later be exposed, he will be summarily expelled. In cases of doubt the Temple may be expected to place the burden of proof on the individual, for the sake of all Setians and the Temple’s integrity.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#36828 - 03/21/10 01:09 AM The Neteru and Set [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: 6Satan6Archist6
Like Meq I was a little confused by the likening of Set to a Platonic Form. So, like Meq, I am going to pose the same question: So is Set an actual anthropomorphic being which has similar emotions to humans (such as dismay and surprise), or an impersonal Platonic Form? Hopefully this time we can get an actual answer.

As just mentioned to Meq, I see no reason to repeat myself, especially within the same thread. I responded to that here, to include a referral to the more extensive discussion of neteru generally and Set specifically in my Temple of Set ebook. Supplementing these are numerous publications as identified in the text, and generally in related categories of the Temple of Set Reading List (included as an appendix of TOS).
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#36830 - 03/21/10 01:17 AM Re: Temple of Set General Information Letter [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
exadust Offline
pledge


Registered: 03/09/10
Posts: 91
Loc: georgia
If I took it out of context or not it implies that Satanist's engage in criminal and otherwise counterproductive activities.

And again I can't speak for all Satanists but I don't partake in such activities and anyone who perpetrates in such activities knows nothing about true Satanism in the first place.

It's as ridiculous as blaming Heavy Metal for violence at concerts.

If someone is idiotic enough to do something stupid it is on themselves as an individual and shouldn't be blamed on music or a philosophy that they don't even have the criteria to meet.
_________________________
Herein you will find truth and fantasy. Each is necessary in order for the other to exsist.

Top
#36834 - 03/21/10 03:04 AM Luke, you have stepped into a larger universe. [Re: Meq]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Meq
... The reader sufficiently distracted with enough red herrings, and the fact that many serious points made have been rhetorically dodged is no longer apparent. This immediately shifts the focus away from a dangerous rational critique of Setianism to something a lot safer. Wisecracks, deep-sounding quotes and self-quotes, pop-cultural references (George Lucas provides a veritable goldmine), and perhaps a bit of verse, form a powerful substitute for 'dry' rational debate, and of course to many is far more interesting and appealing. The aim of such a strategy is to "sell" an idea, not act as an unbiased seeker after truth - although it helps to give the illusion of the latter.

And this is "the flight of stairs that wound into the sky" ...

Creative/imaginative expression can be merely entertaining or playful, as in my response above to Morgan and my Madam Mim poke at MawhrinSkel. But in other instances it can be a magical mirror of the psyche: a GBM working of tremendous power. History is replete with such workings and the immortality of the magicians who wrought them - in paint, in stone, in music, in writing, in film, and perhaps in other dimensions we have yet to discover and appreciate.

This was essentially what aroused my curiosity concerning the poetry ban here: because some of the greatest statements and visions of Satanism and Black Magic are to be found therein. Nor, I think, is it wise to discourage the first, often faltering steps of fledgling magicians as they dare to explore these realms. Help them not to stumble, of course. But lock them into that much smaller a universe, no.

Since the subject of Star Wars came up, I might offer my own GBM working with it, The Dark Side, as a case-study in point.

In 1977 I saw in George Lucas' film an essay on a great many traditional and heroic themes, all of which he quite openly acknowledged at the time: damsel in distress, villain, youth seeking his destiny, gunfighter, sage, comedians, chase scenes, and so on. But more to my interest, and not so intentionally preplanned by George, was the macrovision, on a galactic scale, of the interrelationship between political institutions (the Empire and the Rebellion), military establishments, and an initiatory school of magicians (the Jedi).

In 1977 I had a personal involvement in these same three camps: as a Political Scientist, a military officer, and a Setian. Reconciliation of these was a constant challenge, not always or easily achieved. Among my various approaches to this, it occurred to me to use Star Wars as a fictional laboratory, a GBM working in the SU, to explore and test various interactions of this "triangle". And so I began to write The Dark Side, which was a contemplative working extending in fragments over several years.

As mentioned in its Preface, it gradually became a working in which I was more spectator and student than intentional author. The identified, unleashed forces drove events as they demanded, and the characters found themselves more often reactive than active. From my godlike position "above the page", I began to realize what a god could and could not do - unless, as in the myth of the Deluge, I was prepared just to tear up the entire manuscript.

All of which is to say that when here I have occasionally referred respondents to The Dark Side, it is far from being a "dodge". Those who take the time to journey through it will find numerous illustrations, investigations, and experiments echoing those in this galaxy, this planet, today. It was not an odyssey in which everything came out right in the end, or in which all of the issues raised were answered; but then GBM workings rarely are. I found it exhausting, but equally enlightening. Of equal fascination to me has been how many other people - also from one or more points on that triangle - have found it meaningful to them.

"Bow down," said Clark Ashton Smith at the beginning of his The Hashish-Eater, "I am the emperor of dreams." This, if you dare to be a Black Magician, is what you too will be: a god, a creator of universes, Nietzsche's "horizon-builder", and ... someone in evening dress, with your sleeves rolled back.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#36842 - 03/21/10 06:34 AM Re: Set wants your brain. [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3151
 Quote:
So is Set an actual anthropomorphic being which has similar emotions to humans (such as dismay and surprise), or an impersonal Platonic Form?

If I can throw in my two cents..

While not being an initiate in Setian philosophy, I think Set isn't an anthromorphic being nor an impersonal Platonic form.
Set is just what it is, Set; a Universal "being"/philosophical mechanism linked with the concept of xeper.

Perhaps Set is not anthromorphic but a plain old pokémon ...
Or maybe it is even more simple and Set just "is" without any feature.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#36860 - 03/21/10 04:05 PM Re: Luke, you have stepped into a larger universe. [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Chandler Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/30/07
Posts: 36
Whether Set is a Platonic Form or a person, I would be curious to learn what the experience of receiving his message was like. It seems that this could go some distance to explain his nature to the layman. It is you, Dr. Aquino, who is supposed to have received the BofCFbyN, right? Could you describe your direct experience, if it is not too privileged?

From what I understand, your cosmology is supposed to be consistent with Crowley's. Should this suggest to me that your experience was similar to his reception of Aiwaz?

Of course, if I am totally out of line to ask such a question I will respectfully retract it.

I certainly hope that others here, regardless of their personal beliefs, would value hearing this story more than getting some Scientologist's autograph.

Top
#36871 - 03/21/10 09:12 PM The North Solstice X Working [Re: Chandler]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Chandler
Whether Set is a Platonic Form or a person, I would be curious to learn what the experience of receiving his message was like. It seems that this could go some distance to explain his nature to the layman. It is you, Dr. Aquino, who is supposed to have received the BofCFbyN, right? Could you describe your direct experience, if it is not too privileged?

Please see Chapter #2 of my Temple of Set.

 Quote:
From what I understand, your cosmology is supposed to be consistent with Crowley's. Should this suggest to me that your experience was similar to his reception of Aiwaz?

Please see Appendices #3 & #5 of the same TOS.

 Quote:
Of course, if I am totally out of line to ask such a question I will respectfully retract it.

Not in the least, but a thorough response to your questions would be a bit too long for a post here; and this is one of the reasons I'm doing the ebook (which still has a long way to go).
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#36872 - 03/21/10 09:27 PM The Cairo Working [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: MawhrinSkel
Crowley allegedly wrote his text through some kind of religious fit, where the text was dictated to him.

Not exactly; see his account of the Cairo Working in The Confessions, as well as Appendix #5 of my Temple of Set.

 Quote:
As far as I understand Aquino's account, he wrote his text in a completely lucid state.

Yes, that's true.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#36873 - 03/21/10 09:43 PM Re: The North Solstice X Working [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
felixgarnet Offline
active member


Registered: 10/17/09
Posts: 688
Loc: UK
Just to say that, yes I understand what Dr Aquino is saying (at least from the point of view of my own subjective experience). This sort of encounter completely changes one's idea of "reality" for ever and forces one to apprehend new dimensions.
Are the beings from these dimensions objectively "real"? I would suggest that yes, they are within their own environment. When "we" see them the experience is invariably subjective as we are alone, physically and mentally when it happens. No other observer can be appealed to; an amanuensis may be present to write down dictation and observations but they will (probably) not be directly apprehending the phenomenon. What makes the experience so different from, say, meeting a man in a bar is that it leaves a feeling of having been shown that "this" is not all we have. Further confirmation of the validity of the experience will show later in the usual ways - synchronicity and effects on the life of the magician, both interior and exterior. In effect, the encounter is an unsought initiation.
_________________________
"Here's to Artifice!" - Anton Szandor LaVey.

Top
#36876 - 03/21/10 10:33 PM Re: The North Solstice X Working [Re: felixgarnet]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: felixgarnet
Just to say that, yes I understand what Dr Aquino is saying (at least from the point of view of my own subjective experience). This sort of encounter completely changes one's idea of "reality" for ever and forces one to apprehend new dimensions ...

Your points well-taken. As detailed in Chapter #2 of TOS, in addition to my own SU experience, my analysis of same (Appendix #3), and the evident impact of the NS Working on many other Setians both at that time and subsequently to date, I was also interested in the OU apprehension of such phenomena generally, and found a useful analytical framework in Graham Reed's The Psychology of Anomalous Experience. It remains on the Temple Reading List as a valuable asset to GBM workings.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#36895 - 03/22/10 12:33 PM Re: Luke, you have stepped into a larger universe. [Re: Chandler]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
 Quote:
Of course, if I am totally out of line to ask such a question I will respectfully retract it.


I lol'ed.

NOTHING is or should be off limits from questioning. Only a fool would take such an account for truth at face value.

I would like to think that this is all a big joke and Aquino is laughing all the way to the bank to everyone who buys into the story but part of me can't help but think that he is delusional and actually believes Set talked to him. Aquino is an intelligent man, I will give him that much, but there is fine line between genius and insanity.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#36900 - 03/22/10 02:55 PM Re: Luke, you have stepped into a larger universe. [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Chandler Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/30/07
Posts: 36
 Quote:
Quote:
Of course, if I am totally out of line to ask such a question I will respectfully retract it.


I lol'ed.

NOTHING is or should be off limits from questioning. Only a fool would take such an account for truth at face value.

I see the humor myself. I expected Dr. Aquino to have as big a head as I would if I had amassed a cult of followers who believed I was the "Magus of the Aeon", and believed myself to be as well, even if an Aeon only lasts for most of a century.

 Quote:
I would like to think that this is all a big joke and Aquino is laughing all the way to the bank to everyone who buys into the story but part of me can't help but think that he is delusional and actually believes Set talked to him. Aquino is an intelligent man, I will give him that much, but there is fine line between genius and insanity.

After reading what he suggested to me above, I am convinced that he at least believes TheBofCFbyN to be revealed/inspired/whatever. He doesn't claim to have witnessed anything supernatural, only to have a "sensation" that the information was coming from a higher being. If he had claimed to have seen Aiwaz standing in the corner like Crowley did, I would estimate a higher probability that he was outright lying (and also a higher probability that he was hallucinating).

But it is in this very same reassurance where I find my doubts. For if he didn't witness anything supernatural, why would he himself not doubt his own "sensation". I have not read the Bof CFbyN, but I would be pleasantly surprised if it submitted anything beyond Dr. Aquino's own conceptions.

Crowley claimed to have been revolted by the morality of the Book of the Law, but a brief reference to his own morality shows this to be unlikely.

I draw no conclusions, but if I had to venture a guess, I would say Dr. Aquino is being honest, but mistaken.

Edit: Whereas Crowley may have been laughing all the way to the bank.


Edited by Chandler (03/22/10 02:58 PM)
Edit Reason: wanted to add something.

Top
#36901 - 03/22/10 03:31 PM "Ejector seat? You're joking!" [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: 6Satan6Archist6
I would like to think that this is all a big joke ...

I never joke about my work, 007.

 Quote:
... and Aquino is laughing all the way to the bank.

The Temple of Set is a nonprofit California corporation in which the High Priesthood of Set is an unpaid office. Cf. Appendices #7 & #8 of TOS. Nor, as evident on my webpage, are any of my writings for sale. Interviews (when I accepted them, during my High Priesthood) were always unpaid. I have declined all interview requests since my retirement from the HP in 1996.

 Quote:
Aquino is an intelligent man, I will give him that much, but there is fine line between genius and insanity.

"There is no great genius without a mixture of madness." - Aristotle

"Madness in great ones must not unwatched go." - William Shakespeare

"Truly great madness can not be achieved without significant intelligence." - Henrik Tikkanen

"Great wits are sure to madness near allied, and thin partitions do their bounds divide." - John Dryden
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#36902 - 03/22/10 05:25 PM Re: Luke, you have stepped into a larger universe. [Re: Chandler]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
 Quote:
He doesn't claim to have witnessed anything supernatural, only to have a "sensation" that the information was coming from a higher being.


So you don't think that receiving information from a "higher being" counts as supernatural? That sounds pretty supernatural to me. I hear voices in my head too, the thing is, the voice I hear is my own. I don't pretend that what I am hearing is coming from outside my own brain and I certainly don't think it is that of some higher being.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#36903 - 03/22/10 05:27 PM Re: "Ejector seat? You're joking!" [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
Okay, so it isn't some scam and you really believe all that stuff. So that means you are not a scam artist, you just bat-shit crazy.

"The world of madness is a lot bigger than the world of the sane." Charles Manson
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#36904 - 03/22/10 05:35 PM Re: "Ejector seat? You're joking!" [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
My personal take is that Dr. Aquino simply learned his lessons well from Dr. LaVey and created his own world within which to live. He became immersed in it and has convinced himself that those outside of his personal pleasure dome believe that they are somehow missing out on what he's found.

He's convinced himself that he was the best thing that ever happened to LaVey and LaVey just couldn't see it... when he left, he left LaVey a broken man, and LaVey just died of longing for his return. Really... I've said it before and I'll say it again. It really reminds me of that woman we all have had (or guy for the ladies) that leaves us and then spends the rest of her life telling everyone how bad we were for not meeting her expectations.

Like the typical "ate up with Jesus" Christian, or the drunken "usetawas" in a bar, he's been telling his tale forever, and while he knows that it's not really getting him anywhere, he can't stop. It's like Sisyphus and the boulder. A quick down and dirty about Sisyphs:

http://www.mythweb.com/encyc/entries/sisyphus.html

Is he "crazy?" Well, we're all "crazy" by some combination of symptoms tossed into the stew from the latest DSM. The only person SANE here is me, because the voices in my head told me so. His delusions are his own, in that he's decided that HE is the demarkation of change within the historical meanderings of the "Left Hand Path," rather than simply a fork of the road. He's played out his role for so long that he's fully invested in it and really can't let it go any longer. If he ever did, he'd be somehow weakened, if only in his own eyes.

LOL! Now here's an irony... I fully support the 600 Club's ban on poetry, but damned if the words of Pete Townshend's song SLIT SKIRTS don't come to mind. I'll simply refer the reader to the lyrics at the start of the song, beginning with "I don't now why I thought," and ending with "must be something learned." Lyrics may be reviewed at:

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/pete_townshend/slit_skirts.html


_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#36910 - 03/22/10 07:33 PM Re: Luke, you have stepped into a larger universe. [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Chandler Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/30/07
Posts: 36
 Quote:
That sounds pretty supernatural to me.
And me too. What I meant to say was "He claims not to have witnessed anything 'supernatural'," which I don't buy either. I do think that channeling Set is a supernatural event. But kudos at least to him for not hallucinating while he did.

I have conducted GBM workings where I saw demons, but I think I probably hypnotized myself into seeing them, and they were just products of my own mind. I am, after all, a bit loopy sometimes.

I think a lot of GBM boils down to self-hypnosis, which can be helpful or harmful depending on each case. There may be something else going on, but I am not firmly convinced yet.

Edit: If he did channel Set then it couldn't be supernatural.


Edited by Chandler (03/22/10 07:38 PM)

Top
#36916 - 03/22/10 09:11 PM Zu befehl, Herr Doktor Andelsprutz! [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: 6Satan6Archist6
Okay, so it isn't some scam and you really believe all that stuff. So that means you are not a scam artist, you just bat-shit crazy.

Having come to this conclusion, you are assuredly much better off not reading any of my postings here, nor any of my other writings.

 Quote:
"The world of madness is a lot bigger than the world of the sane." Charles Manson

For someone speaking on behalf of sanity, you pick a rather curious authority to quote.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#36919 - 03/22/10 09:47 PM Re: Zu befehl, Herr Doktor Andelsprutz! [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
felixgarnet Offline
active member


Registered: 10/17/09
Posts: 688
Loc: UK
If the people here did not have some interest (not necessarily "belief") in what is commonly called "the supernatural" and its various supposed manifestations, surely they would not involve occult terminology in their posts or speak of ritual or even bother to join a forum like this? Would they not simply join an Atheist, humanist site and post there?
Honestly, wouldn't most of us here be blown away by the sort of encounter which Dr Aquino describes and damn well refuse to trivialize it as "just" a subjective one? Aren't his detractors just a teensy bit envious? No-one comes round to your house selling the Book Of Coming Forth By Night so why be so excited about proving its origins?
I guess I prefer a world where there are no easy answers.
_________________________
"Here's to Artifice!" - Anton Szandor LaVey.

Top
#36920 - 03/22/10 10:06 PM ... and - how quaint ... [Re: Jake999]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Jake999
My personal take is that Dr. Aquino simply learned his lessons well from Dr. LaVey and created his own world within which to live. He became immersed in it and has convinced himself that those outside of his personal pleasure dome believe that they are somehow missing out on what he's found.

I think that if you read TOS, quite a different history is documented. At no time did I ask or expect anyone else to take the North Solstice X Working on trust. I merely proposed to revive the Temple of Set according to its principles, which (such as Xeper) were necessarily unique to each Initiate.

As for the North Solstice X Working text, I of course did examine it as thoughtfully as I could (Appendix #3), including considering it from a purely-conventional standpoint (as per Dr. Reed's book cited in Chapter #2). I think that all of this should fulfill any reasonable responsibility to others. But if someone will only be satisfied by a complete denial on my part that I experienced what I did, I think that speaks to more to a deep insecurity in that person: "Anything that is possibly beyond my perception or understanding, I must discredit, crush, kill. Only then will my world be safe."

 Quote:
He's convinced himself that he was the best thing that ever happened to LaVey and LaVey just couldn't see it... when he left, he left LaVey a broken man, and LaVey just died of longing for his return.

I am quite content for readers of my Church of Satan to review its contents, correspondence, documentation, etc. and draw their own conclusions. If you wish to construct your own reassuring fantasy to blot out that compendium, that is certainly your prerogative.

 Quote:
Really... I've said it before and I'll say it again. It really reminds me of that woman we all have had (or guy for the ladies) that leaves us and then spends the rest of her life telling everyone how bad we were for not meeting her expectations. Like the typical "ate up with Jesus" Christian, or the drunken "usetawas" in a bar, he's been telling his tale forever, and while he knows that it's not really getting him anywhere, he can't stop. It's like Sisyphus and the boulder.

Actually, Jake, it seems to me that you're the one emotionally addicted to this sexual imagery, not me - as a reading of the concluding chapter of COS and the beginning one of TOS will substantiate. Do I regret Anton's 1975 decisions? Of course. Did I have a great deal of affection for him as his "Devil-son" (his term)? Certainly. Beyond writing COS to set the historical record of the original Church straight, did I attempt reinvolvement with it thereafter? Not at all. [My visit to the 600C has included personal anecdotes and factual corrections concerning that era, but largely in response to others' questions.]

 Quote:
His delusions are his own, in that he's decided that HE is the demarkation of change within the historical meanderings of the "Left Hand Path," rather than simply a fork of the road. He's played out his role for so long that he's fully invested in it and really can't let it go any longer. If he ever did, he'd be somehow weakened, if only in his own eyes.

Once again you seem much more obsessed and prejudgmental about Set than I am. Or, for that matter, than the Temple of Set is. The Temple generally regards Set as a hypothesis which, so far, as been working out very impressively and convincingly. As for me, I see no reason why I should compromise my own integrity merely to soothe what Maleficent termed "the rabble".
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#36922 - 03/22/10 10:39 PM I don't care if it rains or freezes ... [Re: felixgarnet]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: felixgarnet
No-one comes round to your house selling the Book Of Coming Forth By Night, so why be so excited about proving its origins?

Well, we were thinking of marketing a small statuette of Set, stamped out badly (with the mold-edges showing) in green, glow-in-the-dark plastic, on a wind-up base that, when unwinding, plays a selection from Hans Salter's Horror Rhapsody [scroll down to and select #20 to hear it]. A magnetized base for everyone's dashboard, of course ...
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#36923 - 03/22/10 10:56 PM Re: ... and - how quaint ... [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
It's not I who has made a 30 year case for one's personal jilting by Anton LaVey, first in snail mail correspondences with anyone who cared to expend the cost of a stamp, and then by email and computer pages. It is not I who further wrote an ebook (thankfully saving 10000 trees) regarding your involvement in The Church of Satan and constantly referring any and all to it repeatedly. And yeah, we know... you aren't promoting the thing, you're just here to set the record straight and... ok... we get it.

As for "Set," you might want to look back and see what my involvement in "Set" actually is. Simply another "invisible friend." I make no assumptions about the Temple of Set. I don't care about the Temple of Set. I have no interest in it. I've read some of the tracts and have come to the conclusion that it's not for me. I have never told ANYONE not to join the Temple of Set or even to not look into it. I don't care if they do. I don't care if they think it's the bees knees and cat's pajamas, just as much as I don't care about Scientology, Christianity, Islam or the way of the Jedi.

But then, I've never told ANYONE that they should join The Church of Satan, either, not under LaVey, under Barton or under Gilmore. Simply put, I am not that invested in the lives of others that I care enough to. It's their life. I wouldn't look for their input into what I should do with mine, and I don't care what they do with theirs.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#36924 - 03/22/10 10:57 PM Re: I don't care if it rains or freezes ... [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
felixgarnet Offline
active member


Registered: 10/17/09
Posts: 688
Loc: UK
Excellent! ;\)
Today is my Birthday - so it's very, VERY important - and were such an item available I don't doubt a friend would have ordered one for me by now.
On a more serious note, I shall add a new Topic here tomorrow about astral encounters (or whatever the popular term is here) and open the floodgates for debate before this thread gets too unwieldy.
_________________________
"Here's to Artifice!" - Anton Szandor LaVey.

Top
#36925 - 03/22/10 10:58 PM Re: I don't care if it rains or freezes ... [Re: felixgarnet]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
Happy Birthday, Felix! Many happy returns of the day!
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#36926 - 03/22/10 11:09 PM Re: I don't care if it rains or freezes ... [Re: Jake999]
felixgarnet Offline
active member


Registered: 10/17/09
Posts: 688
Loc: UK
YAY!!! Thank you, Jake! \:\) It's 3.15am. I shall indulge myself with a small brandy. ;\)
_________________________
"Here's to Artifice!" - Anton Szandor LaVey.

Top
#36927 - 03/22/10 11:14 PM Re: I don't care if it rains or freezes ... [Re: felixgarnet]
felixgarnet Offline
active member


Registered: 10/17/09
Posts: 688
Loc: UK
I wish I could get into Chat here. So frustrating. I could sip and chat. \:\(
_________________________
"Here's to Artifice!" - Anton Szandor LaVey.

Top
#36933 - 03/23/10 02:22 AM Berkeley '68: "Stab him with your peace button!" [Re: Jake999]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Jake999
It's not I who has made a 30 year case for one's personal jilting by Anton LaVey, first in snail mail correspondences with anyone who cared to expend the cost of a stamp, and then by email and computer pages. It is not I who further wrote an ebook (thankfully saving 10000 trees) regarding your involvement in The Church of Satan and constantly referring any and all to it repeatedly. And yeah, we know... you aren't promoting the thing, you're just here to set the record straight and... ok... we get it.

Well, evidently you still don't, because you keep saying silly stuff such as the above [again] that COS has long since corrected/documented. I like you and have never once criticized either your integrity, your motives, or your experiences at 6114 post-1975. You might consider reciprocal courtesy to me.

 Quote:
As for "Set," you might want to look back and see what my involvement in "Set" actually is. Simply another "invisible friend." I make no assumptions about the Temple of Set. I don't care about the Temple of Set. I have no interest in it. I've read some of the tracts and have come to the conclusion that it's not for me. I have never told ANYONE not to join the Temple of Set or even to not look into it. I don't care if they do. I don't care if they think it's the bees knees and cat's pajamas, just as much as I don't care about Scientology, Christianity, Islam or the way of the Jedi.

And yet here you are in this thread about Set and the Temple of Set, dragging a spiked ball up my ass?

I didn't start this thread. I've answered sincere questions in it directly and candidly, as respect for honest curiosity requires. If my answers send some onlookers climbing to the treetops, well, life is full of rude awakenings and unexpected surprises. To quote the Mayor of Hiroshima's last words: "What the fuck was that?"
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#36944 - 03/23/10 01:10 PM Re: Zu befehl, Herr Doktor Andelsprutz! [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
Having come to this conclusion, you are assuredly much better off not reading any of my postings here, nor any of my other writings.


Point well taken, and indeed I have come to that same conclusion myself. However, it is kind of like a car crash scenario to me; you don't want to look but you can't help but stare.

 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
For someone speaking on behalf of sanity, you pick a rather curious authority to quote.


I wasn't trying to quote an authority on anything. I just wanted to show that I can cite random quotes too. Perhaps you would have preferred something from Star Wars? :P
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#36953 - 03/23/10 07:17 PM Re: Zu befehl, Herr Doktor Andelsprutz! [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3935
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
While this subject is at hand, I think questions need to be asked:

What qualitatively separates these supernatural claims of personal revelations from the claims offered by members of every other theistic faith on earth?

While I find the mythology offered up by Mr. Aquino interesting, what if anything sets it apart? Why is it offered special consideration here, in these forums?
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#36961 - 03/23/10 09:58 PM Re: Zu befehl, Herr Doktor Andelsprutz! [Re: Dan_Dread]
felixgarnet Offline
active member


Registered: 10/17/09
Posts: 688
Loc: UK
I think one difference is that Dr Aquino does not claim that this revelation is for the benefit of anyone but himself, unless one feels it is appropriate to accept it after close personal investigation. Proponents of the major world faiths make a claim to a truth which should be universally accepted. They proselytize widely and marginalise those who are unwilling to embrace their doctrine as the One True Way (to God, enlightenment or whatever).
I can find no evidence of this in the writings of Dr Aquino about Set and the creation of the Book Of Coming Forth By Night.
Neither is this attitude evident on the Xeper site. Indeed, like all LHP groups it is very particular about who affiliates and why.
It is being given consideration on these forums because Dr Aquino broke away from the original Church of Satan founded by Dr LaVey to form his own Temple according to the directions of the Set communication. As this is (so far as I understand it) a primarily LaVeyan site inevitable clashes of opinion and hard questioning will arise, which can only be healthy.
_________________________
"Here's to Artifice!" - Anton Szandor LaVey.

Top
#36978 - 03/24/10 08:14 AM Re: Zu befehl, Herr Doktor Andelsprutz! [Re: felixgarnet]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3935
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Claims to the truth are claims to the truth, and supernatural claims should all receive equal scrutiny. You say the distinction exists in that aquino doesn't proselytize, yet he will jump on anyone that doesn't agree with his particular worldview, to the point of being outright rude.

Behavior that would get anyone else doing the same banned.


And honestly I think calling Aquinos theology LHP is a stretch.

So again, why is this particular outlandish theistic claim afforded special consideration while similar claims are offhandedly dismissed as rubbish?
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#36979 - 03/24/10 09:01 AM Re: Zu befehl, Herr Doktor Andelsprutz! [Re: Dan_Dread]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
Maybe because he didn't start the threads. He just answered questions put forth by members here. Sometimes with more patience than I can understand.

The LHP is at times pretty big to very small. It is just a matter of deciding where to put your feet.

I don't think its a matter of special consideration, its just that various newbies keep asking the same questions and it seems to never end. Want to end any SET threads, don't respond to them.

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



Top
#36981 - 03/24/10 12:05 PM "It's just a jump to the left ..." [Re: Dan_Dread]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
Claims to the truth are claims to the truth, and supernatural claims should all receive equal scrutiny. You say the distinction exists in that aquino doesn't proselytize, yet he will jump on anyone that doesn't agree with his particular worldview, to the point of being outright rude.

And you think that this entire post of yours isn't rude?

Where my posts are concerned, on occasion they may have been frank and factual to the point of unsettling some cozy prejudices, but never ad hominem - beyond the aforementioned whoopie cushion response to [rude] hecklers.

 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
Behavior that would get anyone else doing the same banned.

Apparently not, because you're still here.

 Quote:
And honestly I think calling Aquinos theology LHP is a stretch.

As discussed in the Crystal Tablet of Set:

 Originally Posted By: M.A.A.
THE TWO PATHS

The terms “Left-Hand Path” (LHP) and “Right-Hand Path” (RHP) are used in different and often incompatible ways by various occultists. Reportedly the terms originated in Tantrism, a school of Mahayna Buddhism in northern India which taught that Buddhahood can be realized through various theurgic practices. For mantra and mudra ceremonies the female was positioned to the right of the male; for erotic rites she was positioned to the left. Theosophy’s H.P. Blavatsky felt sex-magic to be immoral and perverse, so she subsequently employed the term LHP to characterize the magical systems she didn’t like, and the term RHP to characterize the ones she did, i.e. Theosophy. Post-Blavatsky the terms have been expanded through popular usage to refer generally to what the Temple of Set defines as white magic (RHP) and Black Magic (LHP).

Most popular-occult organizations, to be sure, use the two terms simply to identify their moral biases. What they consider “good” is RHP, and what they consider “evil” is LHP. After Aleister Crowley left the Golden Dawn, he portrayed it as a “Black Lodge” and his own A.'.A.'. as the “Great White Brotherhood”; while on the other side of the fence W.B. Yeats and other G.'.D.'. leaders considered Crowley to be the Black Magician.

To further complicate the matter, there have been some deliberately criminal “Satanic” organizations which have avowedly followed the LHP as defined by those who consider it synonymous with degenerate and destructive practices. Such episodes have of course served to reinforce the conventional religious image of Satanism and Black Magic as nefarious practices.

So enduring was this stereotype that the Church of Satan found it very difficult to break free from it during the entire decade of its existence. All sorts of creeps, crackpots, criminals, and cranks pounded on the door of the Church, assuming that it would excuse and encourage whatever social shortcomings they embraced. The Temple of Set has avoided this problem, presumably because “Satan” is popularly associated with “evil” while “Set” is largely unknown outside of Egyptological circles.

The Temple of Set’s LHP orientation is, as noted above, a function of its definition of Black Magic. No moral or ethical stances are implied by the terms LHP and RHP per se, since they refer to techniques and systems rather than to the ends to which they are applied.

As defined within the Temple of Set:

• The Left-Hand Path (LHP) involves the conscious attempt to preserve and strengthen one’s isolate, psychecentric existence against the objective universe (OU) while apprehending, comprehending, and influencing a varying number of subjective universes (SU).

• The Right-Hand Path (RHP) involves the conscious attempt to dissolve or merge the self with the objective universe (OU).

 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
So again, why is this particular outlandish theistic claim afforded special consideration while similar claims are offhandedly dismissed as rubbish?

I daresay because some 600Cers are sincerely curious about the significance and substance of Setian philosophy.

And I think mercifully we won't re-beat the dead horse of Atheism posturing as Satanism/LHP.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#36987 - 03/24/10 03:12 PM Re: "It's just a jump to the left ..." [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3935
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Originally Posted By: Mike

And you think that this entire post of yours isn't rude?

As I have overlooked about 100 of your posts which consist of looking squarely down your nose at all us 'wannabe' Satanists, I think you have been afforded way more than enough courtesy.

 Quote:


Apparently not, because you're still here.

Oh yuk yuk yuk. Is that really the best you can do? I present a worldview that is consistent with the theme of this site. Why are you here again? Preachin' the 'good news' of set?

 Quote:

I daresay because some 600Cers are sincerely curious about the significance and substance of Setian philosophy.

Yes I would say most of the sheep out there are eager to swallow faith based tripe such as you offer. Some of them post here. This was once a sanctuary from garbage such as you present.

 Quote:

And I think mercifully we won't re-beat the dead horse of Atheism posturing as Satanism/LHP.

Oh I'm sure you will at the very next opportunity. You can't help yourself.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#36988 - 03/24/10 03:18 PM Re: "It's just a jump to the left ..." [Re: Dan_Dread]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3935
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
One more thing. Only religionists such as yourself view 'Atheism' as some sort of complete worldview. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. That in and of itself isn't a philosophy, or a religion, or even a position relating to anything real or relevant. That Satanism doesn't need to invoke imaginary friends doesn't reduce it to 'Atheism'. I find your repeated attempts to paint it that way as either willfully ignorant or purposefully disingenuous. Take your pick.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#36993 - 03/24/10 07:09 PM Re: "It's just a jump to the left ..." [Re: Dan_Dread]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
As I have overlooked about 100 of your posts which consist of looking squarely down your nose at all us 'wannabe' Satanists, I think you have been afforded way more than enough courtesy.

So an inconvenient truth is an excuse for rudeness? If so, I must remember to insult my dentist the next time he tells me I need a root canal.

And I don't recall ever calling anyone here a "wannabe Satanist", which would imply a wistful, cowardly pretense to the term. No, the "Satanatheism" on this board [which I rather think is less unanimous than you imagine] is ostensibly honest and, in the opinion of its professors, justifiable. As noted, I see no reason to repeat my critique thereof.

 Quote:
I present a worldview that is consistent with the theme of this site.

If you are its unquestioned spokesman, I am indeed impressed.

 Quote:
 Originally Posted By: M.A.A.
I daresay because some 600Cers are sincerely curious about the significance and substance of Setian philosophy.

Yes I would say most of the sheep out there are eager to swallow faith based tripe such as you offer. Some of them post here. This was once a sanctuary from garbage such as you present.

Well, if you wish to call any 600Cer who disagrees with you a "sheep", and anything that doesn't fit tightly into your anal ideology "garbage", I suppose that's your privilege.

 Quote:
 Originally Posted By: M.A.A.
And I think mercifully we won't re-beat the dead horse of Atheism posturing as Satanism/LHP.

Oh I'm sure you will at the very next opportunity. You can't help yourself.

Well, you see, I have this occasional slight problem with my right arm ...

 Quote:
One more thing. Only religionists such as yourself view 'Atheism' as some sort of complete worldview. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods.

Um, no, that's agnosticism. Atheism is a belief that gods absolutely do not exist. Both of these, like theism, leave open the question of just what a "god" is/would be. That's where it gets messy.

 Quote:
That Satanism doesn't need to invoke imaginary friends doesn't reduce it to 'Atheism'. I find your repeated attempts to paint it that way as either willfully ignorant or purposefully disingenuous. Take your pick.

_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#36994 - 03/24/10 08:14 PM Re: "It's just a jump to the left ..." [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3935
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
What needs to be said has been said on my part, and your reply was exactly as expected. So with that done, I would just like to point out that your definition of Atheist is incorrect.

Although an Atheist might make the claim that deities do not exist, one does not need to make that claim to be an Atheist. Anyone who does not hold a belief in personal deities is an Atheist.
A - Without
Theism - belief in a personal god

Pretty basic stuff. Agnostic on the other hand is theism-light, in that it lends enough credibility to the idea that deities might exist to give it equal floor time with the idea that they don't, which is extremely intellectually dishonest given the evidence.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#36997 - 03/24/10 10:07 PM Re: "It's just a jump to the left ..." [Re: Dan_Dread]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
What needs to be said has been said on my part, and your reply was exactly as expected.

Yet here you are saying more. You can't help yourself.

 Quote:
So with that done, I would just like to point out that your definition of atheist is incorrect.

Nope.

 Quote:
Agnostic on the other hand is theism-light, in that it lends enough credibility to the idea that deities might exist to give it equal floor time with the idea that they don't, which is extremely intellectually dishonest given the evidence.

Nope.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#37000 - 03/24/10 10:17 PM Re: "It's just a jump to the left ..." [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3935
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Yes yes believe as you need to to make your wacky theistic paradigm float. You theists haven't been entirely successful at hijacking the word Atheist to serve your ends, though. Why don't you click the link to said word in this post for further information.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#37001 - 03/24/10 10:23 PM Re: "It's just a jump to the left ..." [Re: Dan_Dread]
exadust Offline
pledge


Registered: 03/09/10
Posts: 91
Loc: georgia
Actually agnostic atheists state that they do not personally believe in any deities but cannot prove whether they exsist or do not exsist based on the lack of evidence either way.

Personally I won't believe in any deity until he/she materializes in front of me proclaiming he/she is in fact a deity.

Until that day just call me an Atheist Satanist!
_________________________
Herein you will find truth and fantasy. Each is necessary in order for the other to exsist.

Top
#37002 - 03/24/10 10:23 PM Re: "It's just a jump to the left ..." [Re: Dan_Dread]
felixgarnet Offline
active member


Registered: 10/17/09
Posts: 688
Loc: UK
Dan - why do Dr Aquino's beliefs matter so much to you? If the Temple of Set and its system is so distasteful to you, why are you so bothered by it? I wouldn't post on a born-again Christian site to tell members they are wrong and incessantly ask them to justify their faith. I understood the 600 Club Forum offered the opportunity for debate on a wide spectrum of issues related to the LHP. The Setian take is one, yours is another, mine yet another; we all walk this Path alone, essentially.
_________________________
"Here's to Artifice!" - Anton Szandor LaVey.

Top
#37006 - 03/24/10 11:51 PM Re: "It's just a jump to the left ..." [Re: felixgarnet]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3935
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
All forms of theism disgust me. Faith is a virus..a scar on the psyche of mankind. The legacy of the RHP.

Seeing it proliferated here, by someone that doesn't even attempt to veil his contempt for what I and many others here believe, has driven me to make posts like this. Maybe I am just talking to the wall, I dunno, but I feel that I am probably speaking for more than just myself here. It sticks in my craw.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#37009 - 03/25/10 12:20 AM Re: "It's just a jump to the left ..." [Re: Dan_Dread]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1647
Loc: Orlando, FL
Agnostic on the other hand is theism-light, in that it lends enough credibility to the idea that deities might exist to give it equal floor time with the idea that they don't, which is extremely intellectually dishonest given the evidence.

Actually, gnosticism is a stricter empirical view that Theism. A person can be an Atheist and still believe in spirits and karma and heaven and the like. (Many Buddhists are atheists, but still believe in preposterous ideas such as literal reincarnation of the soul.)

Agnosticism, however, implies a rejection of "gnosis", ie, direct experiential knowledge of the supernatural. That is, agnostics deny anything that is not a strict materialistic view of the world, which pretty much serves as a basis for rejecting all supernatural phenomenon, gods and all. I think what you're referring to is Deism, which is a more wishy-washy (or "transcendental", depending on your view) interpretation of Theism.

My only real beef with Dr. Aquino is that his metaphysical view of Set can be adequately explained without resorting to his figurehead as an theistic isolate consciousness. (That is, just because you have a blinding flash of inspiration doesn't mean that an ancient Egyptian god is speaking to you personally.) Occham's Razor, etc, etc.

Regardless, he's conducted himself rather civilly in this forum. It's a bit annoying having to flip through his 50-billion-page biographies every time he responds to a question, but if I were him, I'd be tired of answering the same gazillion questions I'd have heard endless times over the past 35-odd years. I just think he deserves a little bit more respect, even if you disagree with him.


Edited by The Zebu (03/25/10 12:22 AM)
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#37012 - 03/25/10 12:57 AM Re: "It's just a jump to the left ..." [Re: The Zebu]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3935
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

A person can be an Atheist and still believe in spirits and karma and heaven and the like.

EXACTLY. 'Atheist' really doesn't say that much. There is no such thing as an 'Atheist philosophy' or an 'Atheist worldview'.'Atheists' can believe all sorts of things as long as some sort of deity isn't one of them.

Saying Satanists are 'just atheists' is meaningless.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#37013 - 03/25/10 01:28 AM Gnosticism & Charlie [Re: The Zebu]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: The Zebu
Actually, gnosticism is a stricter empirical view that Theism. A person can be an Atheist and still believe in spirits and karma and heaven and the like. (Many Buddhists are atheists, but still believe in preposterous ideas such as literal reincarnation of the soul.)

Agnosticism, however, implies a rejection of "gnosis", ie, direct experiential knowledge of the supernatural. That is, agnostics deny anything that is not a strict materialistic view of the world, which pretty much serves as a basis for rejecting all supernatural phenomenon, gods and all. I think what you're referring to is Deism, which is a more wishy-washy (or "transcendental", depending on your view) interpretation of Theism.

I think that in general usage today "agnosticism" carries the more "undecided" connotation per my linked dictionary definition. I like your stricter, more precise interpretation, however; that is probably how it originated.

In the Temple of Set we became interested in Gnosticism primarily because of its concept of æons, which term figured significantly in both the current Æon of Set and the previous Thelemite Æon of Horus. In 1992 in the Scroll of Set I wrote:

 Originally Posted By: M.A.A.
ÆONS

As far as most occultists are aware, references to æons began with Aleister Crowley’s much-advertised Æon of Horus, which he proclaimed to have followed first the Æon of Isis (roughly pre-Christian paganism) and then that of Osiris (roughly 2,000 years of Christianity). Since Crowley’s understanding of Egyptian mythology was essentially that of the Osiris/Isis/Horus trinity, this tied Western civilization up into a nice, neat package.

Not only was Crowley responsible for bringing about the Æon of Horus, we are told, but that of Osiris as well - in a previous incarnation as the High Priest of Osiris [and Priestess of Isis] Ankh-f-na-khonsu. The detailed story of this is told in his memoir of that incarnation, “Across the Gulf”, in Equinox #I-7:

 Originally Posted By: Aleister Crowley
But Thoth the mighty god, the wise one, with his ibis-head and his nemyss of indigo, with his Ateph crown and his phœnix wand and with his ankh of emerald, with his magic apron in the three colors; yea, Thoth, the god of wisdom, whose skin is of tawny orange as though it burned in a furnace, appeared visibly to all of us. And the old Magus of the Well, whom no man had seen outside his well for night threescore years, was found in the midst; and he cried with a loud voice, saying, “The Equinox of the Gods!”

And he went about to explain how it was that Nature should no longer be the center of man’s worship, but man himself, man in his suffering and death, man in his purification and perfection. And he recited the Formula of the Osiris as follows, even as it hath been transmitted unto us by the Brethren of the Cross and Rose unto this day ...

In his own writings Crowley does not indicate where he came by this concept of “æons” or exactly what is meant by it. A little detective work, however, takes us back to the days of the Golden Dawn and the writing of a book entitled Egyptian Magic by Florence Farr, Scribe of the G.'.D.'., in 1896. This book, part of a 10-volume series Collectanea Hermetica edited by W.W. Westcott, contained a very interesting chapter called “The Gnostic Magic of Egypt”, from which the following quote:

 Originally Posted By: Florence Farr
Let us first consider the essential principles of Gnosticism, which are briefly as follows:

First - A denial of the dogma of a personal supreme God, and the assertion of a supreme divine essence consisting of the purest light and pervading that boundless space of perfected matter which the Greeks called the Pleroma. This light called into existence the great father and the great mother whose children were the æons or god-spirits. That is to say from the supreme issues the nous or divine mind and thence successive emanations, each less sublime than the preceding. The divine life in each becoming less intense until the boundary of the Pleroma, or the fullness of God, is reached. From thence there comes into being a taint of imperfection, an abortive and defective evolution, the source of materiality and the origin of a created universe, illuminated by the divine but far removed from its infinitude and perfection.

Now the Gnostics considered that the actual ruler and fashioner of this created universe and its beings good and evil was the Demiurgos, a power issuant from sophia or wisdom. By some it was said that the desire of souls for progression caused the origin of a universe in which they might evolve and rise to the divine.

The Gnostics definitely believed in the theory of cycles of ascent and return to the evolutionary progress of worlds, ages, and man; the ascents & descents of the soul; the pre-existence of all human souls now in worldly life; and the surety that all souls that desire the highest must descend to matter and be born of it. They were the philosophical Christians.

The rule of the Christian church, however, fell into the hands of those who encouraged an emotional religion, destitute of philosophy, whose members should be bound together by personal ties of human sympathy with an exalted sufferer and preacher rather than by an intellectual acceptance of high truth.

The Gnostics dissented from the creed then being taught, on the ground of the inferiority of the hero-worship of Christ to the spiritual knowledge of the supernal mind, which they considered he taught.

The Gnostics were almost universally deeply imbued with the doctrines of Socrates and Plato; and a religion of emotion and reverence, combined with moral platitudes, did not seem to them of a sublimity sufficiently intense to be worthy to replace the religious mysteries of Egypt, India, and Persia, the theocracy of the Jews, or the sublime truths hidden in the myths of Greece.

In Religion in Ancient History S.G.F. Brandon (Professor of Comparative Religions, Manchester University) comments:

 Originally Posted By: Prof. Brandon
In his “First Epistle to the Corinthians” Paul had occasion to contrast his teaching with that of other systems known to his readers. In so doing he was led to give this significant account of his own: “Howbeit we speak wisdom among the perfect: yet a wisdom not of this world, nor of the rulers of this world, which are coming to naught: but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, even the wisdom that hath been hidden, which God foreordained before the worlds unto our glory: which none of the rulers of this world knoweth: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” (ii. 6-8).

In our official English translations the proper meaning of this passage is obscured at two crucial points. The Greek word translated as “world” here, severally in its singular or plural forms, is aion, which does not mean this physical world or Earth, but “time” or “age”.

Paul’s use of aion here accordingly shows that he was thinking in terms of an esoteric system of “world-ages” that probably derived ultimately from Iranian and Babylonian sources, and that in various forms was much in vogue in current Græco-Roman thought. Next the words translated as “rulers of this world” (archontes tou aionos toutou) do not refer, as is popularly supposed, to the Roman and Jewish authorities who were responsible for condemning Jesus to death. They denote dæmonic beings who were associated with the planets and believed to govern the lives of men on Earth.

As Farr and Brandon both go on to observe, Gnostic Christianity was regarded as a very serious threat to the Christian church and was intensely persecuted. Had it become prevalent, the next 2,000 years might have evolved quite differently in Western civilization - with a very intellectual, philosophical, and initiatory religious climate instead of the intolerant, ferocious, and ignorant horror of dogmatic Christianity ...


 Originally Posted By: The Zebu
My only real beef with Dr. Aquino is that his metaphysical view of Set can be adequately explained without resorting to his figurehead as an theistic isolate consciousness. (That is, just because you have a blinding flash of inspiration doesn't mean that an ancient Egyptian god is speaking to you personally.) Occham's Razor, etc, etc.

Which is why, as noted here previously, I have never expected anyone else to take the North Solstice X Working "on trust". I have analyzed its significance to me; and others are entirely welcome to their own opinions about it.

 Originally Posted By: The Zebu
Regardless, he's conducted himself rather civilly in this forum. It's a bit annoying having to flip through his 50-billion-page biographies every time he responds to a question, but if I were him, I'd be tired of answering the same gazillion questions I'd have heard endless times over the past 35-odd years.

While visiting the 600C I've attempted to "condense" specific answers to inquiries where possible. But sometimes the questions are complex, and an adequate answer comparably so. [It's much easier when the subject is one's favorite films, etc.]

I also don't mind in the least having my feet held [politely] to the fire on "big questions", because it is thus that one sees the imperfections in either one's concepts or the presentation of them.

 Originally Posted By: The Zebu
I just think he deserves a little bit more respect, even if you disagree with him.

Since Charlie's already been quoted in this thread, perhaps his sympathetic observation concerning respect to Jesus is relevant:

 Originally Posted By: Charles Manson
Why should I care about people who don’t care about themselves? They all want someone else to do it for them. They all want to be “saved”, but they won’t make the first move to save themselves. They just sit around and wait for someone else to come to their rescue and save them. Again.

All I have to say is how god damn many times do they expect him to keep coming back anyway? Every time he comes back they give him nothing but shit. He came back during the thirties in Germany and they still haven’t stopped whining about it.


_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#37026 - 03/25/10 07:00 PM Re: "It's just a jump to the left ..." [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1146
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
Um, no, that's agnosticism. Atheism is a belief that gods absolutely do not exist. Both of these, like theism, leave open the question of just what a "god" is/would be. That's where it gets messy.


Atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually incompatible positions. As Antony Flew put it, a negative Atheist (or agnostic Atheist) is one who lacks belief in a god or gods. A positive Atheist is one who positively asserts that there are no gods (or, alternately, that a specific definition of god does not exist).

"Atheist" is a further subjective term in light of the fact that "god" is undefined. Many people refer to a person outside their particular religion as an "Atheist" because he doesn't believe in their god specifically, and after all, their god is the only on that counts because he's the one true god. Everyone's an "Atheist" to someone.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#37050 - 03/26/10 10:13 AM Re: "It's just a jump to the left ..." [Re: XiaoGui17]
Chandler Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/30/07
Posts: 36
I couldn't agree more Xiao.

I, for example, believe it is highly unlikely that there is a god or gods. This makes me both an Atheist and an agnostic. On a continuum of belief, 1 being "I believe there's a god", 10 being "I believe there's no god", I would probably be a 9. So, I may not have absolute certainty that there's no god, but you wouldn't deny me the title "Atheist".

After all, anyone who holds beliefs 10 out of 10 is probably simple.

It looks like you've been reading Richard Dawkins, or Sam Harris.


Edited by Chandler (03/26/10 10:16 AM)
Edit Reason: add sentence

Top
#37063 - 03/26/10 06:29 PM Re: "It's just a jump to the left ..." [Re: Chandler]
Room 101 Offline
member


Registered: 10/17/09
Posts: 262
Loc: Scotland
I would say “Gas, Grass or ass”. But perhaps I would be wrong
Is it that he wishes his demands are orchestrated by his representative on earth?

Is it that, a great deal of these demands entitle his chosen to greater rights over those deemed “bellow” him, as well as the charnel benefits that these “wishes” entitle his cardinals too?

Is it that the whole thing is just a crock of shit that allows dominion over those that are daft enough to follow another “non” entity?
_________________________
"Nothing is your own except the few cubic centimeters inside your skull." - George Orwell (1984)

Top
#37065 - 03/26/10 07:14 PM Re: "It's just a jump to the left ..." [Re: Chandler]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1146
Loc: Amarillo, TX
I like Dawkins a lot. I've read bits of the God Delusion and I referred to bits of The Greatest Show on Earth. I rarely read something he's written all the way through, but I often open to a random page and read as it interests me. I haven't read any of Harris's books, but I like his blog. I also like Michael Shermer and Christopher Hitchens. If we were to include recent but former contributors, I'd tack on Carl Sagan and Bertrand Russell.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#37066 - 03/26/10 08:46 PM Re: "It's just a jump to the left ..." [Re: XiaoGui17]
Adversary Offline
pledge


Registered: 02/19/10
Posts: 93
Michael, I feel the need to kinda clarify something you said. You said Atheism is a belief that gods absolutely do not exist. I, at least from my position, have to disagree with you. It is not a belief that gods absolutely do not exist, it's that there is no reason to THINK gods exist and the idea is not worth consideration. It is more a disregarding of the notion that one(or many) could exist. I don't go through the trouble of saying faries absolutely do not exist, I just don't give the notion any undue consideration. K, i'll shut up now.
Top
#37070 - 03/26/10 09:42 PM Re: "It's just a jump to the left ..." [Re: Adversary]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
Words debated have common accepted meanings even if you don't like them. If you want to argue semantics on word origin/meaning start another thread. This one is getting off topic.


From Merriam-Webster online dictionary

Agnostic
Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnōstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnōstos known, from gignōskein to know — more at know
Date: 1869

1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2 : a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>


Atheist
Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ist\
Function: noun
Date: 1551

: one who believes that there is no deity


Garrulous
Main Entry: gar·ru·lous
Pronunciation: \ˈger-ə-ləs, ˈga-rə- also ˈger-yə-\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin garrulus, from garrire to chatter — more at care
Date: circa 1611

1 : given to prosy, rambling, or tedious loquacity : pointlessly or annoyingly talkative
2 : wordy 1 <garrulous speeches>
synonyms see talkative


That's it people, move along.
Back to our previous program questions regarding Set/Tos.

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



Top
#37071 - 03/26/10 10:12 PM The Power of Definition [Re: Adversary]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Adversary
Michael, I feel the need to kinda clarify something you said. You said Atheism is a belief that gods absolutely do not exist.

As noted, I am just reflecting, as per the Merriam/Webster definitions linked, the generally-accepted meaning of these terms.

 Quote:
I, at least from my position, have to disagree with you ...

Well, it's a bit like the "Satanism" definition: If you like the word and want to represent yourself that way, you can either honestly see if you fit the g-a definition or you can "force it to fit" by coming up with your own and seeing how many other people you can get to agree with you [if you need reassurance].

Creating or re-creating definitions is one of those SU/GBM things; see that thread up in "Satanism 101". The more you can define/control a word, or a concept, the more you extend your SU into the OU: once again the Magical Link.

Where many aspiring magicians get into trouble is assuming that their preferred SU is the OU, and getting really pissed off if someone else disagrees.

Thomas Szasz, to whom Anton LaVey introduced me, observed that "In the animal world, the rule is eat or be eaten. In the human it is define or be defined." Very smart SOB. See some more of his quotes here, and check out some of his essays & books generally, which were then on the Church of Satan's reading list and remain on the Temple's today.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
Page all of 7 12345>Last »


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

Generated in 0.115 seconds of which 0.017 seconds were spent on 110 queries. Zlib compression disabled.