Page 1 of 2 12>
Topic Options
#48512 - 02/09/11 04:30 PM The Adversarial Archetype
SkaffenAmtiskaw Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 06/24/09
Posts: 1318
All people trying to define themselves will at some point come to a crossroads on the road to success. We start out with a goal, be it fast and loose or terse and clear-cut. You need to get there from here, and there are many ways you can take in order to get there. All kinds of ideas are entertained; should you get a solid education with lots of job offers waiting, should you join a cult, should you pick up origami...

The criteria for such choices are not always clear to the prospective human, and so many make haphazard choices and establish a hit-and-miss statistic. They join a religion, or sign up for a self-improvement newsletter or write a blog about their own personal growth.

All of these are fine choices, if you go for that sort of thing. But here's what I don't get.

Imagine a young and confused man/woman (take your pick) struggling to make sense of the world and correctly observing that it - the world - is full of people who would repossess his/her house for beer money and subsequently steal their girlfriend/boyfriend.

Of course it would make the youngster testy and more than a little apprehensive about taking the dive into those particular waters. Some of those youngsters find the expression of most white light-religions to be sickening for their blatant emotional blackmail and transparent web of lies, so they turn to the unconventional and seek out alternative avenues for personal growth.

Enter Satanism. The big, bad wolf on steroids. Guaranteed to piss off your family, your friends and everyone who never took you seriously. Oderint dum metuant.

In observance of this lifestyle choice, they buy their clothes at Hot Topic, quote TSB and wear their hair long to indicate their adherence to a social set, which will reinforce their sense of identity. This is also fine, of course, but it is not Satanism by any stretch of my imagination. It's a social club.

Social clubs are nice, but they are really outlets for psychological needs that cannot be sated in solitude. It's collectivism, however much one may see Satanism as an individualist path.

It's like in "Life of Brian", where the prophet yells to the assembled masses that they don't need to follow him, and that they are all individuals, followed by an orgasmic crowd chant of "Yes! We are all individuals!"

The adversarial archetype view, outlined underneath, is my take on the whole affair.

Coming to Satanism naked, devoid of preconceptions, is pretty much impossible. You see it from the outside in. Satanism is often referred to as 'an adversarial philosophy of self-improvement'. This has several meanings, and I'd like to touch upon just one of them.

Being an adversary does not mean you have to pursue xtians. It does not mean you have to be an asshole. And contrary to what some ousted members of the CoS may think, it does not mean you need facial prostheses to look like the xtian devil. You don't have to pay lip service to father Satan. It's actually quite sad when I see people treat it like every other religion on offer, simply because it is the only way they're used to dealing with the tradition of personal convictions. Obey. Follow. Conform. Agree. Worship.

That's what really gets my goat. The people who turn to Satanism for its otherness are really just doing the same thing that they despise, and in doing so, they succeed in not only painting themselves the same colour as everyone else in their fervent effort to fit in - they also manage to delude themselves that they are the complete opposite of what they are.

And once again, this is their prerogative. It makes them happy. It gives their lives meaning.

It means little to me, though. Applying the adversarial archetype to one's own life means chipping away at old, outdated dogma that have no business cluttering up your life in the first place. It means you don't need to fit in to any one scene, or to think of reality in the same way that everyone else does. It means figure shit out for yourself for once in your goddamn life.

Otherwise you're just parroting what your parents told you, which they were told by their parents and so on. Figuring out your own laws, your own rules and your own regimen is equivalent to standing against the collectivist dictatorship we like to call society. You don't have to fight it, loathe it or in any way seek to destroy it. All you do is say "I'll figure it out for myself, thanks!" and interact with whatever and whomever you find to be rewarding.

The dichotomy with the xtian faith is just window dressing. It's a simple picture of how a Satanist would tell society with impunity that they weren't having any more of that anymore, thank you very much. It's the breaking of taboos for its own sake, showing the world that you find taboos to be the ultimate expression of mental laziness.

Doing such a thing means you get to go on your way, pursuing your own personal Grail Quest and figuring out the world is a far more exciting place than you could ever have imagined with all those roadblocks set up in your head. You look at the world in all its splendour, and you consider its implications. Your mind becomes aware of itself in a new way.

The benefits are quite staggering. But they're my own, and would probably mean less than nothing to another. I know that sounds like I could do a million pushups in my den with all the lights out and nobody looking, but the results don't really matter to anyone but myself anyway. All that matters is that you do this for *you*, and not to satisfy some imagined requirements or perceived standards. Calling yourself a Satanist matters to precisely *one* person, and that's you. You reject the force-feeding and decide to be the one in charge of your life.

If you don't agree with this, that's also fine, but bear in mind what you're disagreeing with.
_________________________
"I'd rather be right than consistent" - Winston Churchill

Top
#48515 - 02/09/11 07:04 PM Re: The Adversarial Archetype [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3935
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Bang on. This is quite similar to my own approach to Satanism, as you probably already know. The adversary, the Satan, is the counter current, the representation of the realization that since all 'truths' are ultimately decided by the self we are free to tear down what is presented to us and rebuild it as we see fit, and further the knowledge that doing so leads to personal power.

I once wrote something here touching on the role of the adversary in Satanism.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#48524 - 02/09/11 08:26 PM Re: The Adversarial Archetype [Re: Dan_Dread]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
If I were Anton LaVey and this were 1969, I would have locked both of you downstairs in the Den of Iniquity (with plenty of raw meat and mead) and not let you out until you combined these excellent challenges (Skaffen Amtiskaw's thread-starter and Animal Mother's linked one) into a single best-of-both fireball. Then I would have thrown Redbeard into the trash and put this [credited] piece into the forthcoming Satanic Bible as the "Book of Satan". Read Anton's intro to that section and you'll see what I'm getting at.

The "BoS" is essential: the "purification by fire", the clearing-out of "useless lumber and wreckage"; and it is a necessary first-step. What you subsequently confront is a pretty big "cleared space", because once you start analyzing conventional indoctrination, you will be amazed at how much of it is insubstantial, or bullshit, or both. [Which is why books on both, such as this and this, have been on the Temple of Set Reading List since 1975.]

Then you run into the big challenge, as we did first in the Church and still in the Temple, of trying to envision and develop Something Better. In short, the switchover from the negative to the positive. And in something like Satanism, there is a strong individualistic, socially anarchistic siren-song - which, while emotionally and intellectually satisfying, isn't very helpful if you're trying to build any kind of viable organization [on the small scale] or society [on the larger scale]. Plato came up with a marvelous blueprint for the perfect polis in The Republic. Then he was invited to actually try it out in Magna Gręcia, where it failed, so he went home and wrote The Laws in disgust. Fade to Dylan singing "There must be some way out of here ..." in All ALong the Watchtower.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#48531 - 02/09/11 09:37 PM Re: The Adversarial Archetype [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
paolo sette Offline
member


Registered: 12/12/08
Posts: 263
Loc: IL, USA
 Quote:
Plato came up with a marvelous blueprint for the perfect polis in The Republic. Then he was invited to actually try it out in Magna Gręcia, where it failed, so he went home and wrote The Laws in disgust.


Take it a couple of steps further than Plato.

The interplay between Masters and monks was the quid pro quo of years past where one found raison d'etat through a summon bonum. Individuals would spend time studying to uncover secrets, if there were any. By life situations, people were made aware even if the person was discouraged either completely or partially. An exordium situation would look as a hindrance rather than as a help to a seeker of study. Through others, they found sympathy in others accompanying and providing assistance for the Knowledge seeker. Conversations between the seeker and others were held to find solutions to life:

"I am willing to help you in every way, but there are some things in which I cannot be of any help to you. These you must look after yourself. For instance, when you are hungry or thirsty; my eating of food or drinking will not fill your stomach. You must eat and drink for yourself. When you want to respond to the calls of nature, you must take care of yourself because I cannot be of any use to you. And, then it will be nobody but yourself that will carry your body along this path your on."

This is matter-of-fact advice. ;\)
_________________________
tathagata-svapratyatma-aryajnana-adhigama
666
[nig]-ge-na-da a-ba in-da-di nam-ti i-u-tu

Top
#49111 - 02/18/11 04:19 PM Re: The Adversarial Archetype [Re: paolo sette]
Solar Offline
stranger


Registered: 02/16/11
Posts: 7
Loc: Western Europe
Even though it is a coincidence, I put a little brain fart on paper while thinking about a few things that I think might add a bit of direction to this, or at the very least might provide some amusing cannon fodder.

At some point in time, some people will feel the urge to find out what is 'real'. They feel they have been lied to by those that claim to be the authority and tell them what is and is not right. Those who feel the need to break free from those bonds that this so-called authority has laid upon them will question their perfect knowledge and break it down brick by brick. In doing so, they take on the mantle of the opponent. Not the friendly sparring partner, but a true adversary, a devils advocate that will try and take everything this authority has put out apart. In taking apart the word of the higher ups, they will assume the position of many of those who have tried and failed, or succeeded and branched off towards their own destinies. Because that is the ultimate goal; to be the master of ones own fate without having to consult or obey anything or anyone else.
But to break those chains, the authority has to be challenged, which is not just a fearsome and daunting task, but also a dangerous one. Challenging the leader, means not only denying his guidance and protection, but also means becoming the target of his wrath and that of those who still follow him. But in the end, it is not the brave who choose to do so, nor those with great intellect. It is those who simply know it is right to do so who finally will. Because they are compelled to do so, by the simple fact that thinking you are in control is not the same as actually being in control.
The world is made up of lies constructed by those who wish to delude and those who have already been deluded. Controlled external religion is a tool, not a given fact. We are told and shown to worship entities outside ourselves because it will make us vulnerable, because we thereby willingly surrender control of our lives to those that would control it for us. The truth, the actual real truth has always been inside. We cannot alter our destinies by bowing down and looking upwards, nor can we decide what path to take by asking gurus, leaders and dictators. The key to true freedom lies within, as do the real deities of the world. Gods are not estranged, alien beings up in an invisible heaven. The gods are within us, part of us as aspects of ourselves, archetypes that resonate with our personalities and motives. They can be revered, yes, but it must be remembered that ultimately we are only revering ourselves, as we are our own superior being. As the Ego is superior to the Id, the Superego is superior to the Ego. These gods are not meant to lavish with treasures, or bury in sacrifice, but rather to communicate with to reach higher levels of awareness and being. They embody the potential of perfection within us and communicating with them expresses the will to become just that.

To become free of outward mastery and engage in the mastery of the cosmos inside of us, steps have to be taken. Firstly, we have to become aware that we are in fact being controlled. Not just by those who would have us worship external gods (and by extension, them), but also the media, peers, friends and family. All outside factors are in the end nothing but influences that detract from us concentrating on our own inner divinity. Granted, some distraction is at times needed to survive and prosper, but measure must be taken, as with everything.
After realization, there is the act of renouncing. To ourselves we must acknowledge that we are the only masters of our being and the only ones who can truly make a difference. To renounce the outside world as utmost important, is to take the first step at distancing ourselves from the negative influences which would detract from our road to perfection.
Finally, realization and renouncement will have a reaction. These two steps can never go unnoticed for very long and at length, they will generate a reaction. The very ones who seek to control us discover they have lost yet another sheep from their flock and will go to find it and drag it back to the herd, at first with soft words and perhaps later with less friendly means. This is where the real trouble starts, for here we have to either fight back and hold our ground, or be able to convince our would be controllers that it is futile and useless to try and drive us back to the blind herd. This is best done by loudly proclaiming the very things we have discovered and subtly influencing those who still are not able to see. If done right, the controller will take its hands off and let the new master of the self be free to do as he sees fit (as long as he doesn't meddle too much in the affairs between the controller and his still existant herd).


Even though I outlined a bit of a reactionary stance in the end of this, it is in no way intended to be a call to be rebellious or adversarial (to connect it a bit with the topic title) in the standard context. Fighting what you want to distance yourself from will only result in you staying connected with it. Distancing yourself will ultimately mean ignoring (or at least trying to) the very thing you seek to leave. Turning to 'different' paths like Satanism (or whatever is even slightly different from the established traditions) means that you simply haven't grown enough to let it go completely. Emotionally and intellectually you are still at a pubescent stage of the relation you have with it. You find it revolting and wrong, you kick and scream and try to defy it with every opportunity you get, only to get it back into your crosshairs again, not being any wiser or further distanced from it.
The true adversary, the actual antithesis of anything is the what completely and totally ignores it. It doesn't seek to fight it, deny it or convince itself or even it that it is wrong or non-existant. It simply won't waste its time with it, because it does not just have no interest in it, but it has progressed past every stage of involvement with it. The true nemesis of anything is not he who wishes its demise, nor the one telling it it is not real. It is he who simply goes on about its business, making no effort, conscious or not, to avoid, destroy or deny it.

Top
#49128 - 02/18/11 10:05 PM Re: The Adversarial Archetype [Re: Solar]
Hegesias Offline
active member


Registered: 02/16/11
Posts: 725
The archetype of Satan, the constant accuser? the opposer? the universal antithesis? Or the blackest emanations of nature, the blackest intrusion into the human psyche/ essence?

His Will is misomaniacal zemblanity, primordial hatred, the adversarial current of pure negativity, He will seek out suffering and death by design. Satan is the antithesis of the demiurgos universe which is only the phenomenal manifestation of it's idea. He is beyond good and evil, He is Natures adversary, Death.

Death of the Ego, Death of the Soul/ astral body, Death of the memory's/ ideas of reality, Death of consciousness/ perception. The fleeting light of the universe is blanketed in absolute dark from the centre timelessly. Death is the link to the ineffable Source outside of the corporeal cosmos.

Lord of the Abyss. I hold the twilight key to the floodgates where the black adrenaline of Satan may flood forth. The deluge of His violent inspiration is irreversible, there is only darkness. Whatever is in reach on the causal plane will be bludgeoned/ stabbed over and over again, friend, foe, dead, alive makes no difference, His hideous inspiration is unstoppable.

Here is an exoteric wording detailing the the illusory nature of the veil of matter and the true nature of the demiurgos illusion; The super-string, multiverse and Chaotic Inflation theories illustrate that the human perceived, settled, linear time universe is not the only one. The aforementioned theories reveal that there is a shadow-universe (universe without the laws of physics) within an eleven-dimensional reality, and that we are living in a multiverse, where new universes are created and where old universes collapse all at once. With all realities present at once, we are occupying an unlimited number of spaces at once. With this understanding, the black magician brings destruction to his personal universe from which he is the centre stage within the infinitesimal multiverse. He and all others will witness cosmic annihilation in his fractal reality whilst his other innumerable causal manifestations which are not experiencing the annihilation of the cosmos are manifest within the unlimited realities of others who are still existing, and thus, the black magician and the Earth, including the reader of this tract, continue to occupy infinite spaces and existences. The Occult keys are sought to unlock that which binds us to the wheel of life, the demiurgos prison. The Occult keys are sought to enter the non-existence—the outer unmanifest acausal darkness, the centre of which is personified by Satan.

Chaos, Emptiness, Darkness.

Without (Dark empathy) Baphomet the Sinister feminine Archetype and blood mistress of earth, Satan will destroy your life and everything in it, this is only a good thing but for balance in the causal continuum one needs to cultivate Dark empathy in correspondence to the hideous dispassion of Satan.
_________________________


Top
#49132 - 02/19/11 01:27 AM Re: The Adversarial Archetype [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Solar Offline
stranger


Registered: 02/16/11
Posts: 7
Loc: Western Europe
 Originally Posted By: "Michael A. Aquino"

Then you run into the big challenge, as we did first in the Church and still in the Temple, of trying to envision and develop Something Better. In short, the switchover from the negative to the positive. And in something like Satanism, there is a strong individualistic, socially anarchistic siren-song - which, while emotionally and intellectually satisfying, isn't very helpful if you're trying to build any kind of viable organization [on the small scale] or society [on the larger scale]. Plato came up with a marvelous blueprint for the perfect polis in The Republic. Then he was invited to actually try it out in Magna Gręcia, where it failed, so he went home and wrote The Laws in disgust.

Honestly, I would think that to be completely beside the point. Creating 'Something Better' as you call it would, in my opinion, not be only against most of the reasoning about what Satanism, to most, embodies, but also to be completely counterproductive of what it is trying to achieve.
The nature of the accuser is to question, never simply accept a decree as it is and studying every rule before even dreaming about applying or obeying it. The very nature of those who question is to be in the role of the pariah, just outside of the herd, because it is there that the faults are most easily seen. Developing something that would support those who never accept things at face value is doomed to crumble under the pressure of that same scrutiny, which would lay bare its faults just as much as the faults of society in general. Any Satanic institution can only exist if it either serves as an objective source of advice and knowledge, to either use or ignore as one sees fit, or as a way to employ the resources of those willing and stupid enough to follow some manipulators words, in other words a cult formed around a person striving for personal power and probably one of the epitomes of influence a person can attain.

Also, I misplaced my Penguin Dictionary, so Hegesias will have to wait a bit for a reply from me. I first need to translate his big grown up words into things silly little me can grasp, so I can tell him I disagree.

Top
#49186 - 02/20/11 01:19 AM Re: The Adversarial Archetype [Re: Solar]
Hegesias Offline
active member


Registered: 02/16/11
Posts: 725
Bear in mind that this is an 'Archetype' related topic and that my post was relating to the personal 'Archetype' that I recognise when in that train of thought.

My personal/ sobering recognition of what is Satan is an Acausal current that is ineffable and can only be understood as the blackest possible intrusion into the human psyche.

But yes, please do make an interesting argument/ addition to this knowledge base feeling free to go beyond whatever I write, to take from or not, but to be inspired to go beyond.
_________________________


Top
#49194 - 02/20/11 02:50 AM Re: The Adversarial Archetype [Re: Solar]
nocTifer Offline
pledge


Registered: 11/07/09
Posts: 87
Loc: Khazakstan
 Originally Posted By: Solar
{Envisioning and developing something better than what was purged during an initial interior analysis (a 'purification by fire'; the reconstitution by testing of one's internal landscape and operating principles) seems} completely beside the point. {That would} not be only against most of the reasoning about what Satanism, to most, embodies, but also to be completely counterproductive of what it is trying to achieve.

As Satanity broadens and widens into cultic dimensions touched upon here in repulsed and exultant manners, so does it demonstrate how completely unimportant it is to generalize or export across another's utility of rebellious and promethean splendour. It is one thing to analyze and detail the parameters of the Adversarial as if it were some reliable component of internal consciousness (an 'archetype') and quite another to wrestle with all post-Christian artistic fashionings of self-liberation and self-empowerment, denying their legitimacy if they don't conform to your, or your cult's, preferences. Thematic semblance is one thing, variation on the theme quite another. This appears to be one of the common pitfalls in corporate attempts at Satanian enterprises (the sabotage of individual sovereignty during praises of universal knowledge).

Your Satanism may well be 'trying to achieve' a single thing you identify and aspire to put behind you (perhaps you have already done so; an Ipsissimus!). Like any of the rest, however, your dominion does not extend into the consciousness or projects of others, and neither did it for all the black popes, grand masters, or other ipsissimi being carried along in the Adversarial Current.

 Quote:
The nature of the accuser is to question, never simply accept a decree as it is and studying every rule before even dreaming about applying or obeying it. The very nature of those who question is to be in the role of the pariah, just outside of the herd, because it is there that the faults are most easily seen.

I applaud your obviously well-developed internal drama.

 Quote:
Developing something that would support those who never accept things at face value is doomed to crumble under the pressure of that same scrutiny, which would lay bare its faults just as much as the faults of society in general. Any Satanic institution can only exist if it either serves as an objective source of advice and knowledge, to either use or ignore as one sees fit, or as a way to employ the resources of those willing and stupid enough to follow some manipulators words, in other words a cult formed around a person striving for personal power and probably one of the epitomes of influence a person can attain.

Granted that any such Satanic institution is possible (I have my doubts), there is no reason it should only serve your preferred purposes. Coalitions of peers, networks of the interested, any number of configurations and functions are not only possible but extant.

Like true wills, archetypes are cognitive tools of beneficial application in sentient isthmuses of personal development. If it pleases you to believe that The Adversarial Archetype dictates or requires by character an abandonment of engagement of That Which You Oppose (/Accuse, whatever), such that you feel you achieve the 'really sinister' relation of ignoring them completely, then have at it.

I can even embrace the principle of philosophic refinement to the point of reconstructing one's epistemology and lexicon from the ground up. I've done it, bereft of a supportive doctrine as I was in my agnostic, nonreligious upbringing. Is this latter 'creation of something better' 'Satanic'? Only by myopic standards. Even popular philosophic text such as that by Robert Pirsig (" Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance") include reference to the project. No, that's too grand a cape to prop up on Old Scratch, I'm convinced, and outfitting the role of alien rebel as 'The Only Real Satanist' is too heavy a weight for this supersinister accuser to bear.
_________________________
Troll Towelhead, Grand Mufti of Satanism
http://www.facebook.com/Tr0llT0welhead
http://www.gospel-of-satan.com

Top
#49204 - 02/20/11 08:26 AM Re: The Adversarial Archetype [Re: Hegesias]
Solar Offline
stranger


Registered: 02/16/11
Posts: 7
Loc: Western Europe
In response to Hegesias.

 Originally Posted By: "Hegesias"
His Will is misomaniacal zemblanity, primordial hatred, the adversarial current of pure negativity, He will seek out suffering and death by design. Satan is the antithesis of the demiurgos universe which is only the phenomenal manifestation of it's idea. He is beyond good and evil, He is Natures adversary, Death.
In this perspective, I think Satan would be the same as gods like Ahriman and Thanathos, being a personification of Death.
The way I see Death, it wouldn't be the opposing force of Nature, but rather a sinister accomplice. Death is one of the strongest forces that propels life, because of the latters fear of it, and because Death is the foundation upon which a new generation can grow. In regard to calling Satan the adversary of Nature, it might be an idea to look at Nature not simply as life, but as existence. Is Nature is the collective existing of all things, then Satan must be the nonexisting. Not just that has never been, but also and foremost that which does not exist anymore. Satan would be the absolute destruction, dissolving and removal of Nature. Not simply Death, but complete dissolution. I might say Satan is the eternal void that surrounds everything that exists, at the fringes of the universe, of Nature, clawing away at the threads of existence. He would be the great Unraveling of things.

 Originally Posted By: "Hegesias"
Death of the Ego, Death of the Soul/ astral body, Death of the memory's/ ideas of reality, Death of consciousness/ perception. The fleeting light of the universe is blanketed in absolute dark from the centre timelessly. Death is the link to the ineffable Source outside of the corporeal cosmos.
If this weren't a forum about Satanism and you wouldn't in some way call yourself a Satanist, I would almost call you a Hindu or a Buddhist. It seems to me that you are referring to Satan as the conduit between the living world and the eternal source of all things, usually known as Brahman. Satan would be the process of liberation from the corporeal world and the return of one's Atman, or soul, to Brahman. I find it very interesting that one would find a personal philosophy so akin to another religion, which itself is very much about personal enlightenment and release.

 Originally Posted By: "Hegesias"
With this understanding, the black magician brings destruction to his personal universe from which he is the centre stage within the infinitesimal multiverse. He and all others will witness cosmic annihilation in his fractal reality whilst his other innumerable causal manifestations which are not experiencing the annihilation of the cosmos are manifest within the unlimited realities of others who are still existing, and thus, the black magician and the Earth, including the reader of this tract, continue to occupy infinite spaces and existences. The Occult keys are sought to unlock that which binds us to the wheel of life, the demiurgos prison. The Occult keys are sought to enter the non-existence—the outer unmanifest acausal darkness, the centre of which is personified by Satan.

So even when we find destruction and death of one projection of our existence, there still are innumerably more versions of us, binding us to the phase of existence we call life. In our search of answers to the secrets of everything, we seek ways to eradicate ourselves from every plane and to break the shackles that keep us from the source of all things.
 Originally Posted By: "Hegesias"
Without (Dark empathy) Baphomet the Sinister feminine Archetype and blood mistress of earth, Satan will destroy your life and everything in it, this is only a good thing but for balance in the causal continuum one needs to cultivate Dark empathy in correspondence to the hideous dispassion of Satan.
So if I see correctly, Satan would be the the goal, being the centre of all nothingness and unmaking and Baphomet the one who enables is to find the way knowingly and in a controlled fashion, so we might orientate ourselves and discover that this destruction of Self is not the only one necessary to find complete release. The question then of course would be if these Selfs are aware of each other, either through theoretical knowledge as this, or because of a certain empathy with each other.

In response to nocTifer.

 Originally Posted By: "nocTifer"
Your Satanism may well be 'trying to achieve' a single thing you identify and aspire to put behind you (perhaps you have already done so; an Ipsissimus!). Like any of the rest, however, your dominion does not extend into the consciousness or projects of others, and neither did it for all the black popes, grand masters, or other ipsissimi being carried along in the Adversarial Current.
Although a good point, trying to influence others by convincing them that one's way of seeing things is the only true or right way, is not what I, and I bet anyone, am trying to achieve here. Rather, I try to bring across the way I see things and because of that perhaps might make it seem like trying to advocate some 'real' truth. The fact of the matter is that everything is questionable and discussable.
 Originally Posted By: "nocTifer"
Granted that any such Satanic institution is possible (I have my doubts), there is no reason it should only serve your preferred purposes. Coalitions of peers, networks of the interested, any number of configurations and functions are not only possible but extant.
The reason I suggest it as such, is because if the collectively agreed upon statement that a Satanist exists to serve, exalt and perhaps deify his own Self is true; a Satanist would not be moved to be part of such organizations, because working for one's own Self would be best done alone. Perhaps with the aid of others, but certainly not while aiding others. Because I see it as such, I would find it logical that if anything as such would be able to continually exist, it would be something that could be entered and exited and entered again by one's own will, without contracts that could potentially work against one's own Great Work. A collective knowledgebase would in my mind be one of the few things workable, as when you work for yourself and it (the organization) enables you to store and access the publications of others, you would be able to work for yourself and the helping of others would simply be a secondary effect and a passive accomplishment at that.
 Originally Posted By: "nocTifer"
If it pleases you to believe that The Adversarial Archetype dictates or requires by character an abandonment of engagement of That Which You Oppose (/Accuse, whatever), such that you feel you achieve the 'really sinister' relation of ignoring them completely, then have at it.
It is not my wish to damage another institution by either actively engaging it or ignoring it. By ignoring something that wishes to influence me, I try to minimize the damage it could do to to me. It is not some 'sinister' purpose that I seek to achieve. If damaging would be my goal, it would not be the existence of it that would aggravate me, but its message. To do damage is to intimidate, convincing it to stop bringing that particular message across or to change the contents of the message. The true problem here is the actual message. Just like you found my way of bringing my opinion of things across as too arrogant or pedantic, in the same way do I find the will of such bodies to try and force their message on others as 'evil', as they truly try to convince others to believe it, instead of simply acknowledging it and using it as a tool instead of a goal.

Top
#49232 - 02/20/11 02:37 PM Re: The Adversarial Archetype [Re: Solar]
Hegesias Offline
active member


Registered: 02/16/11
Posts: 725
I appreciate your summarisation and well thought out clarification of terms. My contributions were not set in stone beliefs but part of a Gnostick understanding once sown into every fibre of my microcosm not only from experiencing clinical death, but from the resulting existential nihilist paradigm that irreversibly unravels the fabric of all things preconceived, an epistemic distrust of the openly visible, as if matter and causal time were a moth eaten veil whence the irreversible Dark seeps in, swathing perception/ understanding, permeating the psyche with knowledge that the senses cannot perceive.

I'm just biased with a morbid Death-worship/ recognition that permeates most all of my personal Satanic philosophy, that black paradoxical enlightenment was/ is to be found blooming in the absolute Darkness of ones unconscious essence. To seek the blackest intrusion into the human psyche.

In disregard of the monotheists wishful thinking worship of Death, they who disregard the laws of Nature and try to renounce her cruel harshness all in favour of an eternal smothering at the flaccid bosom of some anthropomorphic being in a paradise representing stasis. If we look at Death directly and realise that the consciousness dies there and that this will be the eternal Dark Aeon, the ineffable blackness of Hell/ Chaos, Wild and unknown infinitesimal terror. We strive to live with severity/ appreciation with this in our being while we are here. For some of us this ruthless desire to live while we can, manifests in what will be regarded as disruptive, adversarial or even dangerous behaviour, to act while one still can.

We are heresy, we are adversely Sinister.
_________________________


Top
#49401 - 02/22/11 06:52 PM Re: The Adversarial--Definiendum [Re: Hegesias]
paolo sette Offline
member


Registered: 12/12/08
Posts: 263
Loc: IL, USA
Cannot Satanism be so explained that a teacher can lead all pupils to further Knowledge through explanation?

Yes, it is an experience which explanation or arguements can make communicable to others whom themselves had it previously. If Satanism is amenable to analysis in the sense by so doing it becomes perfectly clear to another who has never had Satanism, then Satanism will be complete. Therefore, all we can do in Satanism in the way of instruction is to indicate or suggest or to show the way so that one's attention may be directed towards the goal. As to attaining the goal and taking hold of the thing itself, this must be done "by one's own hands"--for nobody else can do it for another. When one's Mind is matured for Satanism, it tumbles everywhere. The secret lies everywhere.

All the causes, all the effects of Satanism are in the Mind, they are waiting for maturing. When a Mind is ready, one discovers one's real Self. From the very beginning nothing has been kept from one, all that one wished to see and know has been there all the time. Moreover, there is in Satanism something to explain and teach that will add to one's Knowledge.

666
_________________________
tathagata-svapratyatma-aryajnana-adhigama
666
[nig]-ge-na-da a-ba in-da-di nam-ti i-u-tu

Top
#49442 - 02/23/11 03:08 AM Re: The Adversarial Archetype [Re: Solar]
nocTifer Offline
pledge


Registered: 11/07/09
Posts: 87
Loc: Khazakstan
 Originally Posted By: Solar
 Originally Posted By: "nocTifer"
If it pleases you to believe that The Adversarial Archetype dictates or requires by character an abandonment of engagement of That Which You Oppose (/Accuse, whatever), such that you feel you achieve the 'really sinister' relation of ignoring them completely, then have at it.
It is not my wish to damage another institution by either actively engaging it or ignoring it. By ignoring something that wishes to influence me, I try to minimize the damage it could do to to me. It is not some 'sinister' purpose that I seek to achieve. If damaging would be my goal, it would not be the existence of it that would aggravate me, but its message. To do damage is to intimidate, convincing it to stop bringing that particular message across or to change the contents of the message. The true problem here is the actual message. Just like you found my way of bringing my opinion of things across as too arrogant or pedantic, in the same way do I find the will of such bodies to try and force their message on others as 'evil', as they truly try to convince others to believe it, instead of simply acknowledging it and using it as a tool instead of a goal.

Well, I was referring to this:
 Originally Posted By: Solar
The true adversary, the actual antithesis of anything is the what completely and totally ignores it. It doesn't seek to fight it, deny it or convince itself or even it that it is wrong or non-existant. It simply won't waste its time with it, because it does not just have no interest in it, but it has progressed past every stage of involvement with it. The true nemesis of anything is not he who wishes its demise, nor the one telling it it is not real. It is he who simply goes on about its business, making no effort, conscious or not, to avoid, destroy or deny it.

I find this completely unconvincing. It is obvious what one opposes by what one does in response to a thing. Ignoring a thing, or paying it no attention whatever is not 'the actual antithesis' or nemesis of anything. It is perhaps a noncompliant and/or non-participatory resister, at best, but it doesn't seem to me to indicate any kind of 'Adversarial Archetype', however euphemistic. The obvious epitome of this is something armoured, fanged, weaponed, and snarling, or full of composure as to cow any opposition by virtue of its supremacy. Even this is a resting adversary. Black Metal albums have tons of imagery of opposition to Christianity in symbolism: humiliated or violated Christs, nuns, priests, monks, or more generic symbols like crosses made objectionable. Extremists associate the Christian with the Jewish and push this all the way into Iron Crosses, fascist, nazi regalia, associating with Volkische 'pagan' thule thundergod anti-semitism, anti-Judaism, and anti-Christianity; the proud nordic warrior in the Armageddon of Ragnarok (cf. Diabolus Rex Church?).
_________________________
Troll Towelhead, Grand Mufti of Satanism
http://www.facebook.com/Tr0llT0welhead
http://www.gospel-of-satan.com

Top
#49448 - 02/23/11 08:45 AM Re: The Adversarial Archetype [Re: nocTifer]
Solar Offline
stranger


Registered: 02/16/11
Posts: 7
Loc: Western Europe
At nocTifer: I think we may both have a different take on the shape of the archetype. To you, it is that which seeks to destroy it completely, be it by tearing its philosophy apart, to ridicule it or to physically harm it. This might make it weaker and perhaps eventually destroy it.
To me, to oppose something is not to simply hurt and destroy it, it is to deny its existence altogether. Isn't that the most hurtful thing? To be ignored. If it is ignored, it loses support from one, if all ignore it, it will lose all support and therefore its reason to exist,since its goal is to convince people it is needed. It will then have failed and there will be no reason for it to exist.
We can go to lengths to harm it, seek out its root and tear it out, but why bother when it is so simple to eradicate it from ones mind? If it doesn't exist in the mind, it may still exist in the world, but will have no place in that persons subjective view of existence.

When I look at the dictionary I see the definition of adversary like this:
 Code:
: one that contends with, opposes, or resists : enemy

To rival, to fight or to resist, all three forms of the adversary.

To you, it is he who speaks out against the church, authority, general consensus or anything that requires us to fall in line.
To me, it is he who refuses to comply, who turns his back at it and walks away. The powers that be want to rule over us. Denying them that so-called right is to oppose them, but in a different way.

Top
#49466 - 02/23/11 03:47 PM Re: The Adversarial Archetype [Re: Solar]
nocTifer Offline
pledge


Registered: 11/07/09
Posts: 87
Loc: Khazakstan
 Originally Posted By: Solar {shuffled}
To rival, to fight or to resist, all three forms of the adversary.

It's common to promote certain "forms" of things, especially in religious contexts, but the reality is that key terms in language have a net of meaning in association, through various vectors of literature, art, and expression within any language containing the term or its relatives. After that, people begin their religious promotions of 'forms' (as of gods) for their own personal reasons. You're doing that here by mentioning 3 modes 'the adversary', and I'm mentioning 2 (resting/passive, aggressing/active) of adversaries in general. These are interesting to compare and contrast, but as regards 'the Adversarial archetype' they aren't fleshing out anything eternal as I understand it, so much as conceptual from within our cognitive frameworks. Referring to it as 'the Adversary' or 'the Adversarial archetype' ensconces it in a glamour of universalism which implies more ubiquitousness than actually exists.

 Originally Posted By: Solar
...we may both have a different take on the shape of the archetype. To you, it is that which seeks to destroy it completely, be it by tearing its philosophy apart, to ridicule it or to physically harm it. This might make it weaker and perhaps eventually destroy it. {and later} To you, it is he who speaks out against the church, authority, general consensus or anything that requires us to fall in line.

There were two basic modes I am describing of the Adversary archetype, so called: 1) passive or resting, and 2) active or aggressive. I explained some of the symbolism of each. I did not say what these symbolisms sought, or what the necessary aims of these might be. The resting or passive adversary appears to be what most closely resembles what you're describing.

 Originally Posted By: Solar
To me, to oppose something is not to simply hurt and destroy it, it is to deny its existence altogether. Isn't that the most hurtful thing? To be ignored. If it is ignored, it loses support from one, if all ignore it, it will lose all support and therefore its reason to exist, since its goal is to convince people it is needed. It will then have failed and there will be no reason for it to exist.

There is no 'most hurtful thing'. Perhaps you have issues with being ignored, and so you consider it to be the 'most hurtful thing', but I don't find your contentions here convincing across the board. Some are harmed by being ignored, others are not. I gather you're primarily focussing on religious propaganda promoters, and so since they may have an investment in getting you to listen to them, then of course you can 'hurt' them by ignoring them, asking them to 'talk to the hand'.

 Originally Posted By: Solar
We can go to lengths to harm it, seek out its root and tear it out, but why bother when it is so simple to eradicate it from ones mind? If it doesn't exist in the mind, it may still exist in the world, but will have no place in that persons subjective view of existence.

This is an important question, because you are asking what the effects that an adversary (any?) might have in terms of impingement to your world. If you can't imagine any more extensive influence on your world, then consider yourself lucky. People such as Neopagans have had their children taken from them due to 'being satanists'. During the Satanic Panic people were imprisoned. Harassment offline too harsh to merely ignore occurs. Adversaries come in many forms of aggression beyond dealing with doorknocking Witnesses whose propaganda one may efficiently choose to ignore until it stops its broadcast.

 Originally Posted By: Solar
To me, it is he who refuses to comply, who turns his back at it and walks away. The powers that be want to rule over us. Denying them that so-called right is to oppose them, but in a different way.

If they are truly 'powers that be', then of course they can have much more extensive influence upon us than that from which we may merely ignore and walk away. I'm not here arguing that you are wrong in what you are saying, only that it is limited to a very particular context and may serve you where it does not serve others.
_________________________
Troll Towelhead, Grand Mufti of Satanism
http://www.facebook.com/Tr0llT0welhead
http://www.gospel-of-satan.com

Top
Page 1 of 2 12>


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

Generated in 0.034 seconds of which 0.009 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.