Page 3 of 5 <12345>
Topic Options
#35139 - 02/05/10 08:35 AM Re: The S-Word [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3883
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

As "Satan" is/always has been the Judæo/Christian Devil of Holy Bible infame, this is a circular, and therefore pointless objection. And, outside the mutually-validating world of Satanatheists, the worship of Satan remains what "Satanism" means. Trying to black-spraypaint that inconvenient fact here stops at your keyboard.

Says the trolling devil worshiper.

 Quote:

I have no personal axe to grind

Just keep telling yourself that mike. That it is otherwise is plainly obvious to everyone.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#35149 - 02/05/10 02:53 PM Re: The S-Word [Re: Dan_Dread]
Meq Offline
Banned
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 861
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
Says the trolling devil worshiper.

Dr Aquino seems more like a 'dark' neopagan to me. I'm not sure he 'worships' anything.

While I can't really fault his argumentative skill from a LBM perspective, or his recent attempts to flex his rhetorical muscles, I do think that Aquino's arguments are lacking in logical soundness.

In particular, his philosophical substance dualism raises many problems (see QualiaSoup's excellent critique), as does his adoption of Platonist metaphysics (even Plato eventually doubted the literal metaphysical existence of the Forms!) and insistence of consciousness's survival after death:

 Originally Posted By: David Hume - Of the Immortality of the Soul; 38, 43 (1755)
Nothing in this world is perpetual. Every being, however seemingly firm, is in continual flux and change: The world itself gives symptoms of frailty and dissolution: How contrary to analogy, therefore, to imagine, that one single form, seemingly the frailest of any, and from the slightest causes, subject, to the greatest disorders, is immortal and indissoluble? What a daring theory is that! How lightly, not to say, how rashly entertained!...
All doctrines are to be suspected, which are favoured by our passions. And the hopes and fears which give rise to this doctrine, are very obvious.
Read the rest (the most important section is from 30 onwards) here.

If "Satan" represents anything, it is doubt, and a commitment to 'reality' - i.e. avoiding the "sin" of self-deceit - no matter how comforting that intellectual self-deceit may be...

Top
#35151 - 02/05/10 03:04 PM Re: The S-Word [Re: EvilDjinn]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2573
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: EvilDjinn
Are there no English translations of Stanislaw Przybyszewski's work?

There are some here.

 Quote:
... I really don't care what the devil worshipers call themselves (though I wish they'd stop making the wikipedia articles a god damned mess ...

After reading this I looked up "Satanism" on Wikipedia; never did previously. I thought the basic article is harmless enough, but what a MEGO bar-fight in the "Discussion"! Makes threads like this in 600C seem positively schmoozy by comparison.

Thinking back on 1966-75, I don't recall the conceptualization of Satan/Satanism ever being an issue. Satanism was just what Satanists did, and we were them. If there were an underlying message that we were interested in getting across to the profane, it was that Satanism was now a positive religion in its own right, rather than a mere reaction to/negation of J/C. And [in the 60s-70s] we didn't run into much resistance to this, even from the profane churches. Most of the static came from the Wicca crowd, who were always falling all over themselves about we'rewitchesnotsatanists.

Now, as then, I am reminded of Miles Davis: "I'll play it first and tell you what it is later."
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#35154 - 02/05/10 04:08 PM Hume never found the Silver Key. [Re: Meq]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2573
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Meq
I'm not sure [M.A.A.] 'worships' anything.

I acknowledge the intelligent identity of Set [or "Satan" as I recognized him 1969-75]. To echo the words of G.B. Shaw in The Devil’s Disciple: “I promised him my soul, and swore an oath that I would stand up for him in this world and stand by him in the next.”

 Originally Posted By: Meq
While I can't really fault his argumentative skill from a LBM perspective, or his recent attempts to flex his rhetorical muscles, I do think that Aquino's arguments are lacking in logical soundness.

Logic is the branch of philosophy concerned with analysing the patterns of reasoning by which a conclusion is properly drawn from a set of premises, without reference to meaning or context. Thus it is a tool applicable to the physical universe exclusively. The realm of the neteru is metaphysical.

 Originally Posted By: HPL, The Silver Key
In the first days of his bondage he had turned to the gentle churchly faith endeared to him by the naive trust of his fathers, for thence stretched mystic avenues which seemed to promise escape from life. Only on closer view did he mark the starved fancy and beauty, the stale and prosy triteness, and the owlish gravity and grotesque claims of solid truth which reigned boresomely and overwhelmingly among most of its professors; or feel to the full the awkwardness with which it sought to keep alive as literal fact the outgrown fears and guesses of a primal race confronting the unknown. It wearied Carter to see how solemnly people tried to make earthly reality out of old myths which every step of their boasted science confuted, and this misplaced seriousness killed the attachment he might have kept for the ancient creeds had they been content to offer the sonorous rites and emotional outlets in their true guise of ethereal fantasy.

But when he came to study those who had thrown off the old myths, he found them even more ugly than those who had not. They did not know that beauty lies in harmony, and that loveliness of life has no standard amidst an aimless cosmos save only its harmony with the dreams and the feelings which have gone before and blindly moulded our little spheres out of the rest of chaos. They did not see that good and evil and beauty and ugliness are only ornamental fruits of perspective, whose sole value lies in their linkage to what chance made our fathers think and feel, and whose finer details are different for every race and culture. Instead, they either denied these things altogether or transferred them to the crude, vague instincts which they shared with the beasts and peasants; so that their lives were dragged malodorously out in pain, ugliness, and disproportion, yet filled with a ludicrous pride at having escaped from something no more unsound than that which still held them. They had traded the false gods of fear and blind piety for those of licence and anarchy.

Carter did not taste deeply of these modern freedoms; for their cheapness and squalor sickened a spirit loving beauty alone, while his reason rebelled at the flimsy logic with which their champions tried to gild brute impulse with a sacredness stripped from the idols they had discarded. He saw that most of them, in common with their cast-off priestcraft, could not escape from the delusion that life has a meaning apart from that which men dream into it; and could not lay aside the crude notion of ethics and obligations beyond those of beauty, even when all Nature shrieked of its unconsciousness and impersonal unmorality in the light of their scientific discoveries. Warped and bigoted with preconceived illusions of justice, freedom, and consistency, they cast off the old lore and the old ways with the old beliefs; nor ever stopped to think that that lore and those ways were the sole makers of their present thoughts and judgments, and the sole guides and standards in a meaningless universe without fixed aims or stable points of reference. Having lost these artificial settings, their lives grew void of direction and dramatic interest; till at length they strove to drown their ennui in bustle and pretended usefulness, noise and excitement, barbaric display and animal sensation. When these things palled, disappointed, or grew nauseous through revulsion, they cultivated irony and bitterness, and found fault with the social order. Never could they realise that their brute foundations were as shifting and contradictory as the gods of their elders, and that the satisfaction of one moment is the bane of the next. Calm, lasting beauty comes only in dream, and this solace the world had thrown away when in its worship of the real it threw away the secrets of childhood and innocence.


 Originally Posted By: Meq
In particular, his philosophical substance dualism raises many problems ...

It might if Setian philosophy were indeed "substance dualism", but it isn't. Once again, "substance" (as defined in your linked video) is necessarily of the physical universe, hence is thus intelligible by the rational/logical/scientific. Apprehension of the neteru, including of Set, is nœtic. Nœsis is approached by recognizing, then transcending the lower levels of Plato's "pyramid of thought" (eikasia, pistis, and dianoia); but it does not follow [logically] from this process: it is an ecstatic state of awareness.

 Originally Posted By: HPL, Through the Gates of the Silver Key
For the rite of the Silver Key, as practiced by Randolph Carter in that black, haunted cave within a cave, did not prove unavailing. From the first gesture and syllable an aura of strange, awesome mutation was apparent—a sense of incalculable disturbance and confusion in time and space, yet one which held no hint of what we recognise as motion and duration. Imperceptibly, such things as age and location ceased to have any significance whatever. The day before, Randolph Carter had miraculously leaped a gulf of years. Now there was no distinction between boy and man. There was only the entity Randolph Carter, with a certain store of images which had lost all connexion with terrestrial scenes and circumstances of acquisition. A moment before, there had been an inner cave with vague suggestions of a monstrous arch and gigantic sculptured hand on the farther wall. Now there was neither cave nor absence of cave; neither wall nor absence of wall. There was only a flux of impressions not so much visual as cerebral, amidst which the entity that was Randolph Carter experienced perceptions or registrations of all that his mind revolved on, yet without any clear consciousness of the way in which he received them.

By the time the rite was over Carter knew that he was in no region whose place could be told by earth’s geographers, and in no age whose date history could fix. For the nature of what was happening was not wholly unfamiliar to him. There were hints of it in the cryptical Pnakotic fragments, and a whole chapter in the forbidden Necronomicon of the mad Arab Abdul Alhazred had taken on significance when he had deciphered the designs graven on the Silver Key. A gate had been unlocked—not indeed the Ultimate Gate, but one leading from earth and time to that extension of earth which is outside time, and from which in turn the Ultimate Gate leads fearsomely and perilously to the Last Void which is outside all earths, all universes, and all matter.

There would be a Guide—and a very terrible one; a Guide who had been an entity of earth millions of years before, when man was undreamed of, and when forgotten shapes moved on a steaming planet building strange cities among whose last, crumbling ruins the earliest mammals were to play. Carter remembered what the monstrous Necronomicon had vaguely and disconcertingly adumbrated concerning that Guide.

“And while there are those,” the mad Arab had written, “who have dared to seek glimpses beyond the Veil, and to accept HIM as a Guide, they would have been more prudent had they avoided commerce with HIM; for it is written in the Book of Thoth how terrific is the price of a single glimpse. Nor may those who pass ever return, for in the Vastnesses transcending our world are Shapes of darkness that seize and bind. The Affair that shambleth about in the night, the Evil that defieth the Elder Sign, the Herd that stand watch at the secret portal each tomb is known to have, and that thrive on that which groweth out of the tenants within—all these Blacknesses are lesser than HE Who guardeth the Gateway; HE Who will guide the rash one beyond all the worlds into the Abyss of unnamable Devourers. For HE is’UMR AT-TAWIL, the Most Ancient One, which the scribe rendereth as THE PROLONGED OF LIFE.”


 Originally Posted By: Meq
[M.A.A.'s] adoption of Platonist metaphysics (even Plato eventually doubted the literal metaphysical existence of the Forms!) and insistence of consciousness's survival after death.

Sorry, but quoting David Hume's attack on Plato is not the same thing as quoting Plato. Hume saw reality exclusively through the lens of empiricism:

 Originally Posted By: M.A.A., The Ruby Tablet of Set
David Hume (1711-1776) is the father of modern empiricism, which holds philosophical and political values to be determined by habit and by their apparent utility, not by abstract virtues or ideals. Cosmologically he adhered to deism. The mere existence of a political system or institution, according to this approach, demonstrates that it has a part in God’s overall scheme of things. If it didn’t have such a part, it wouldn’t have come into existence. What that scheme might be is not addressed by Hume, hence political philosophy and systems cannot be measured critically according to it.

Looking at the human mind, Hume sees perceptions, which consist of impressions “when we hear, see, feel, love, hate, desire, or will”; and ideas “when we reflect upon a passion or an object which is not present”. Impressions are more “strong” and “lively” than ideas. All ideas are derived from impressions. As a blind man cannot have an idea of a color nor a deaf man an idea of music, so “we can never think of anything which we have not seen [or otherwise sensed] without us or felt in our own minds”. We cannot have factual knowledge of anything which can be conceived otherwise. Since it is possible to think that the Sun will not rise tomorrow, we cannot know that it necessarily will. The laws of nature which say that it will might change between now and then. Mathematics and geometry are examples of things in which principles cannot be conceived otherwise. One cannot think of a triangle whose internal angles do not add to 180°.

What Hume is getting at is that much of what previous philosophers had considered necessary cause-and-effect relationships is not that at all, but simply habit. “All reasonings [about causation] are nothing but the effects of custom; and custom has no influence, but by enlivening the imagination, and giving us a strong conception of any object.” ...
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#35159 - 02/05/10 10:06 PM Re: Hume never found the Silver Key. [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
paolo sette Offline
member


Registered: 12/12/08
Posts: 263
Loc: IL, USA
 Quote:
I acknowledge the intelligent identity of Set [or "Satan" as I recognized him 1969-75]. To echo the words of G.B. Shaw in The Devil’s Disciple: “I promised him my soul, and swore an oath that I would stand up for him in this world and stand by him in the next.”

I just have a statement to make: 'Go get 'em Mike!'
_________________________
tathagata-svapratyatma-aryajnana-adhigama
666
[nig]-ge-na-da a-ba in-da-di nam-ti i-u-tu

Top
#35163 - 02/06/10 02:24 AM Re: The S-Word [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
EvilDjinn Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 31
Thelnsane, I probably don't have anything terribly new or interesting. What I meant really was that I read all the perspectives on the subject that I find. So I read CoS literature as well as other things available (like Doctor Aquino's work or the ridiculous Joy of Satan website).

I do find pre-Year One Satanists to be quite interesting. Part of it is wondering if I would consider them Satanists if I bumped into them today. Part of it is trying to fully explore "Satanic roots", so to speak.

 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino

There are some here.


After reading this I looked up "Satanism" on Wikipedia; never did previously. I thought the basic article is harmless enough, but what a MEGO bar-fight in the "Discussion"! Makes threads like this in 600C seem positively schmoozy by comparison.

Thinking back on 1966-75, I don't recall the conceptualization of Satan/Satanism ever being an issue. Satanism was just what Satanists did, and we were them. If there were an underlying message that we were interested in getting across to the profane, it was that Satanism was now a positive religion in its own right, rather than a mere reaction to/negation of J/C. And [in the 60s-70s] we didn't run into much resistance to this, even from the profane churches. Most of the static came from the Wicca crowd, who were always falling all over themselves about we'rewitchesnotsatanists.


Thanks for the link!

I wouldn't imagine that the early days of the Church would have warranted much worry over "what it means to be Satanist." From what I gathered out of your book on the subject, you guys were kind of going along with things. I don't mean this disrespectfully, but it seemed like you went along with what Dr. LaVey was saying and with your experiences.

Also until offshoots started sprouting up (what was Wayne West's song and dance? "the Church of Man?"), there doesn't seem like you had many people challenging you on the definition, except for of course the tired old devil worshiper accusations.

My thoughts on the manner concerning "the old days" is that they represented growing, experimental times. This is of course purely speculation and based on no direct experience of those events, but all religions have to deal with "heresies" to some extent. Christians stamped out Arianism, then Pelagianism. The Cathars, the Gnostics.

I think the Arianism controversy is the best analog, because it represents a more fundamental change in worldview. Christianity had its "founding documents", but all the issues weren't clarified until important figures sat down and decided on things. And two thousand years later, everybody believes in the Trinity.

Such it was with Satanism. As much as we all hold it dear, it is a religion like any other and subject to the same problems. You have an early period where certain things are established, but even then it's not going to fully take definitive shape for some time.

Like other religions, Satanism is an artificial construct created by human beings and "like the...idols" is subject to change by them. And quite honestly, the suitheist interpretation is the "most legitimate" right now. No, LaVey and the CoS don't "own" the word "Satanism", but their definition seems to take hold far more than any other, after of course the inverse-Christianity association which I don't think many people are laying claim to.

I don't mean to degrade other ideas, but they are separate animals, representing fundamentally different worldviews. Part of the reason I do have respect for Doctor Aquino is that he's not claiming to be a Satanist anymore, but a Setian. Completely different ideas, completely different worldviews, and different names. Doctor LaVey may not have been "first" but he's advertised a lot better and reached more people.

He said the right things at the right time. I believe he named it the "Combination Lock" principle.

Top
#35182 - 02/06/10 11:44 AM "If your heads alright, ya don't need binoculars.. [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Meq Offline
Banned
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 861
...to see the light." (Motörhead)

Post moved to new thread. Please continue that discussion there.

Discussions about the name itself of "Satanism" and its use of "Satan" are best continued on this current thread.

Top
#41327 - 08/02/10 06:44 PM Re: The Name [Re: Sceevin]
SODOMIZER Offline
pledge


Registered: 07/04/10
Posts: 61
 Originally Posted By: Sceevin
This was brought on by my finding of several petitions to get the definition for Satanism oficialy changed to only include the atheistic philosophy.


It seems to me that "Satanism" is a very inclusive "big tent" type belief system for all who believe in left hand path philosophies.

In a philosophical sense, these are probably best described as Social Darwinist beliefs, where morality doesn't mean "do what's right" but means "let the strong dominate the weak."

Very Ragnar Redbeard, I know, but that's the main difference between Christian/New Age/liberal morality and Pagan/Satanist/conservative morality.
_________________________
SC / O9A

Top
#72076 - 10/20/12 10:34 AM Re: The Attempt [Re: SODOMIZER]
Jason King Offline
Banned/Martyrdom Denied
active member


Registered: 10/24/10
Posts: 731
Loc: 65?1%833Q!92A24 (It's a code)
I came here, as a vagabond, because some other thread was closed. There have been various attempts at legitimate exchange on this point or that.

What has been sorely absent, however, is an ability to take the counterpoint at face value, strengthen it, and rejoin in force.

So, Dr. Mike likes to promote his worldview, which is, as he understands it, the FRUITION of Satanism. Funny thing is, we're all here, to a greater or lesser degree, arguing to our own individual fruitions of Satanism.

Is Dr. Mike's any less valid?

He is arguing, not only to a philosophical preference (Platonism), but also to a real metaphysics. And doubtless, he would maintain that these two are not distinct insofar as Set Har-Wer is the manifested reality.

And what exactly is the latter? Just simply a universe infused with self-awareness. What Dr. Mike terms the SU.

It's easy to blindly critique the worldview of another. It's far more difficult to actually understand the best in your adversary and truly rejoin.

JK
_________________________



Top
#73157 - 11/23/12 02:54 PM Re: The Name [Re: TheInsane]
Le Deluge Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/05/12
Posts: 1790
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
The study of Satanism pre-LaVeyan roots in the west is published in a book called “Mörkrets apostlar” by Ph.D Per Faxneld (I believe he achieved a Ph.D not long ago) at the University of Stockholm. I am not sure if the book is available in English but you can always ask him. There is an e-mail address to him on this page http://www.su.se/pub/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=8538&a=42100 (The link that says “Kontakt”). Or you can just start to look into people like Stanislaw Przybyszewski, Ben Kadosh and even Fraternas Saturni (even though some don't consider that group as purely Satanic in nature). I actually found a short online paper by Per Faxneld on Ben Kadosh as one example of pre-LaVeyan Satanism. It can be found here: http://www.ntnu.no/eksternweb/multimedia/archive/00082/Faxneld_82295a.pdf


Per Faxneld has an essay on Stanislaw Przybyszewski in Chapter 3 of The Devil's Party: Satanism in Modernity . I'll have to start a new thread on him. We're still facing a translation issue. Faxneld has a number of possibly relevant essays on the University site, but I have found nothing uploaded in english. SP himself wrote in german and polish. There are no definitive translations available in print of SP's work (be weary of the meager pdf offerings)

PS: I found this response/poster linked on a thread titled "Ophite Cultus Satanas"

_________________________
Apres Moi ... Le Deluge

Top
#73160 - 11/23/12 07:25 PM Re: The Name [Re: Le Deluge]
Doctor Demon Offline
stranger


Registered: 07/09/12
Posts: 14
Loc: Washington, DC
Regarding Stanislas Przybyszewski, there is a lot of good, credible information about his work in the article by Larry Wolfe titled "Dynastic Conservatism and Poetic Violence in Fin-de-Siecle Cracow," American History Review, June 2001.

Przybyzewski was clearly not a religious Satanist at all but rather a literary-style Satanist who, like Proudhon and Bakunin, used Satan as a shock symbol to represent their anarchist / socialist political views against the establishment conservative religious power structures of the day.
_________________________
---------
Doctor Demon



Top
#73162 - 11/23/12 07:46 PM Re: The Name [Re: Doctor Demon]
Le Deluge Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/05/12
Posts: 1790
 Originally Posted By: Doctor Demon
Regarding Stanislas Przybyszewski, there is a lot of good, credible information about his work in the article by Larry Wolfe titled "Dynastic Conservatism and Poetic Violence in Fin-de-Siecle Cracow," American History Review, June 2001.

Przybyzewski was clearly not a religious Satanist at all but rather a literary-style Satanist who, like Proudhon and Bakunin, used Satan as a shock symbol to represent their anarchist / socialist political views against the establishment conservative religious power structures of the day.


Thanks. One can access that free online: AHR June 2001

Bakunin and Proudhon are both referenced in Faxneld's essay. The lack of source material is troubling. He was certainly a symbolist. I don't know that I'd place him solely into a political context. He doesn't seem to practice a "religious" Satanism though either.

Oddly enough, a movie is coming out about his life: The Yellow Coat
_________________________
Apres Moi ... Le Deluge

Top
#75347 - 03/06/13 01:24 PM Re: The Name [Re: Le Deluge]
Doctor Demon Offline
stranger


Registered: 07/09/12
Posts: 14
Loc: Washington, DC
I just now got around to reading Faxneld's article about Przybyszewski in The Devil's Party and I have to say that it is the best article about him that I have read yet. Really first rate. His connections to other's of that era who made positive depictions of Satan in their writings has made me reassess Przybyszewski's place in the history of Satanism. Seems he was more influential ... and more explicitly Satanic... than I originally thought. It is rather unfortunate that it has taken this long to get anthingout him in English.

I'd be interested to hear from others here who have read The Devil's Party and what they thought of it.
_________________________
---------
Doctor Demon



Top
#75380 - 03/15/13 12:57 AM Re: The Name [Re: Doctor Demon]
Le Deluge Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/05/12
Posts: 1790
 Originally Posted By: Doctor Demon
I just now got around to reading Faxneld's article about Przybyszewski in The Devil's Party and I have to say that it is the best article about him that I have read yet. Really first rate. His connections to other's of that era who made positive depictions of Satan in their writings has made me reassess Przybyszewski's place in the history of Satanism. Seems he was more influential ... and more explicitly Satanic... than I originally thought. It is rather unfortunate that it has taken this long to get anthingout him in English.

I'd be interested to hear from others here who have read The Devil's Party and what they thought of it.


My concentration centered on Pryzybsweski. Off the cuff, a number of chapters were irrelevant to my queary in buying the book. I have denoted this subject for future discussion.
_________________________
Apres Moi ... Le Deluge

Top
#75628 - 03/29/13 01:46 AM Re: The Name [Re: TheInsane]
334forwardspin Offline
member


Registered: 03/04/13
Posts: 509
Loc: Las Vegas,NV United States
I find the name Satan in LaVeyanism to be completely pointless. It is adversarial to Christianity, but so are a lot of philosophies. If your just adversarial to Christianity, you can easily just be that without calling yourself a Satanist.

LaVeyanism isn't really adversarial in any way, other than that. But if that's all it takes, you can spin a lot of things and call them Satanism.

All the name Satan in LaVeyanism does is be dramatic, and have a bunch of CoS related things show up when your searching for something relating to spiritual Satanism. There is a good reason 90% of 'theistic' Satanists don't consider it to be real Satanism.

Top
Page 3 of 5 <12345>


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

Generated in 0.033 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.