#36606 - 03/16/10 06:31 PM
Re: A duck by any other name ...
[Re: Michael A.Aquino]
|
CanisMajor
stranger
Registered: 02/17/10
Posts: 49
Loc: Texas
|
I have been principled on one self-evident count: that "Satanist" is properly used to identify someone who believes in the existence of Satan as a sentient entity, and who owns allegiance to him sincerely and formally, as per the Oath in the "Satanic Baptism" of the Satanic Rituals, and within the Priesthood of Mendes as per the Oath in the ceremony of that ordination... Atheists are atheists, not "Satanists"; and an Atheist who likes to affect Satanic imagery for its glamour [because Atheism by itself is dull] is doing just that... The Temple of Set is not properly "part of the Satanic community", since it considers "Satan" simply an imperfect, propagandized, Judæo/Christian caricature of Set...
I have always regarded Satan as symbolic and metaphorical.A rebellious character that thumbed his nose at conformity,convention,and orthodoxy.The rare champion of individuality,cunning,and intellect.A perfect form of adversary as archetype.
...And the congregation says,"No shit,Sherlock!"
It appears that with Satanism with Setianism the largest issue is the juxtaposition of theism and Atheism.
You have always made the argument that your theism is somehow different,and that you are a diabolical prophet who was spoken to by a deity. (Shades of Crowley, Aiwass,and The Book of the Law?)
Not to be disrespectful,but when you start waxing poetic about entities,oaths,ordinations...well...it just feels like I have seen this masquerade ball before(ad infinitum,ad nauseum,etc.).
Yogi Berra:"It's 'deja vu' all over again!"
Per Satanism,the semantic origins of Satan are irrelevant minutae best left to Qabalists.
It matters little whether or not you choose to attire an anthropomorphic devil in Egyptian lenins. He will still resemble YHWH in drag. 
Edited by CanisMajor (03/16/10 06:53 PM)
_________________________
For every complex problem,there is a solution that is simple,neat,and wrong.
H.L Mencken
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#36615 - 03/16/10 11:33 PM
Re: "Yes, my son, I am only a magician."
[Re: Michael A.Aquino]
|
The Zebu
active member
Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1129
Loc: Orlando, FL
|
Honestly, I must confess that while I admire the Temple of Set's practical philosophies, I'm not too impressed with their first-hand "scriptural material". The Book of Coming forth by Night comes off as being a bland and petty quarrel, making more dated references to Anton LaVey and the Church of Satan rather than any grand Aeonic declarations or profound mystical revelations, or anything else you'd expect from an ancient god of darkness who hasn't had the chance to speak his mind unhindered for the past few dozen centuries. The "Word of Set" isn't much better, itself being a liberal translation of the Enochian Calls rather than anything original. I have a sneaking suspicion that you're hiding the good stuff from us behind the closed doors of the Temple, but I'm too lazy to seek initiation if curiosity is my only reason.
(Sorry, that was a little rant I've had brewing inside me for the past few years. I'll move on to more serious ramblings.)
But, admittedly, in contrast to how much fun we seem to be having making fun of the "different" kid on the block, I find myself wondering something, Dr. Aquino, and I hope you'll respond, as it is in regards to the "ultimate" nature of Set and Satan (should I dare to use such heavy labels).
A feature of my interpretation of Satanism is that Satan, despite the popular notion of the whole "eternal Good versus eternal Evil" conflict, represents foremost individualism and independence. Other devil-figures, such as Ahriman, notably lack this trait-- they are starkly dualistic and thus eternally bound to the God-figure which they oppose. Satan, on the other hand, strives not merely to overthrow the YHWH/Demiurgos, but to establish his own nature apart from God. He rebels against the norm not for the sake of rebelling, but for the purpose of separating and elevating himself above the spheres of heaven.
Keeping this in mind, you have often (most recently in this thread) stated that Satan is a Judeo-Christian caricature of Set, derived in turn from a Late Egyptian caricature of an earlier, cosmic Set-- in contrast to the diabolic "bad guy" role he plays in Osirian drama.
However from what I've researched, the "pre-Osirian" Set represents an even greater dualism. While not being especially villainous, he seems to have less of an independent presence, instead being viewed as the "Left Hand of Ra" as the cosmic counterpart to Horus, representing darkness and light, respectively. He is almost always invariably depicted alongside Horus, portrayed as an important part of the cosmos, but not the be-all-and-end-all, and certainly not a balanced principle on his own. (Satan, it should be noticed, represents both darkness and light, with his Luciferian aspects taken into account.)
This is why, in my own quasi-theological musings, I have determined the cosmic Set to not be a suitable figurehead for a complete religious philosophy. (His "diabolic" side, on the other hand, could be more useful, but I have yet to explore this framework)
What are your thoughts on the matter, and how do you interpret a pre-Osirian Set as an individual principle?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#36616 - 03/17/10 12:09 AM
Setian Metaphysics
[Re: The Zebu]
|
Michael A.Aquino
veteran member
Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 1247
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
|
Honestly, I must confess that while I admire the Temple of Set's practical philosophies, I'm not too impressed with their first-hand "scriptural material". The Book of Coming forth by Night comes off as being a bland and petty quarrel, making more dated references to Anton LaVey and the Church of Satan rather than any grand Aeonic declarations or profound mystical revelations, or anything else you'd expect from an ancient god of darkness who hasn't had the chance to speak his mind unhindered for the past few dozen centuries.
The record of any GBM working will have a very direct, personal meaning for the magician and a necessarily different one for anyone else (who did not experience it firsthand). I quite understand and accept this where the Book of Coming Forth by Night is concerned. If you have not already done so, I recommend that you read Chapter #2 "The North Soistice Working" concerning it in my Temple of Set ebook, as well as Appendix #3 (my analysis of it).
The "Word of Set" isn't much better, itself being a liberal translation of the Enochian Calls rather than anything original. I have a sneaking suspicion that you're hiding the good stuff from us behind the closed doors of the Temple, but I'm too lazy to seek initiation if curiosity is my only reason.
The Word of Set is also discussed in TOS, but it is indeed the significance of its translation content that is pertinent to Setian initiation. You would probably have to do a great deal of Dee reading, as well as that concerning the Enochian system by a number of magicians and scholars over the years, for it to make sense. I don't say this to be either patronizing or deflective; it's just the essence of the thing. And yes, various Setians have studied & written about it extensively over the decades.
(Sorry, that was a little rant I've had brewing inside me for the past few years. I'll move on to more serious ramblings.)
Be my guest. Both of the above workings have not only been studied positively by persons who found them meaningful, but also been denounced and attacked [along with myself] by persons for all sorts of reasons. That's to be expected. I would be more upset if they were admired for the wrong reasons than condemned for the wrong ones.
... This is why, in my own quasi-theological musings, I have determined the cosmic Set to not be a suitable figurehead for a complete religious philosophy. (His "diabolic" side, on the other hand, could be more useful, but I have yet to explore this framework) What are your thoughts on the matter, and how do you interpret a pre-Osirian Set as an individual principle?
Please see Chapter #3 "Khemistry" in TOS.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino
[On Ignore: Dan_Dread, 6Satan6Archist6, Caladrius, MindFux]
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: Woland, Mercury_Templar, fakepropht, Nemesis, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Morgan, Bacchae, Diavolo, Asmedious, Fist
|
|
