Page 9 of 16 « First<7891011>Last »
Topic Options
#50368 - 03/02/11 09:40 PM Re: Are LaVey's Core SB Principles Outdated? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered




To Dr. Aquino,

Can I ask you some questions if you have time?

You have been on Geraldo and Oprah over the years, have given interviews and appeared on radio programs with Christian’s and other people etc. etc.

How does someone publicly represent Satanism? How did you do it, particularly during the period prior to the 1975 crisis and during the later “Satanic Panic” period?

Did you find that you needed a reasonably fixed definition of what Satanism is or was in order to defend yourself, or Satanism, or to make people understand what you were trying to say?

Did you find that your opponents or your audience had many pre-conceived negative ideas about what Satanism was? How did you attempt to change their point of view?

If I remember correctly you and Dr. LaVey are/were firm supporters of Professor Szasz. I tend to agree with Szasz when he talks about the power of definition. Do you think that Szasz’s comments on the power of definition are relevant to Satanism today?

Top
#50375 - 03/02/11 11:57 PM Re: Anton LaVey's Satanism is "outdated?" [Re: Diavolo]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



To Diavolo,

I do think Satanist’s existed before TSB, though I don’t think many of those people explicitly adopted the name of Satanist. I think TSB describes a certain type of person. I also think it provides the right sort of person with some tools they can start to use and explore.

I do think highly of TSB and feel that the definition of Satanism and of a Satanist is included inside that book.

I feel that there is a fixed definition of Satanism and the only way one can call Nietzsche or anybody Satanic is to assess the person and their actions/words against the standard or definition of Satanism set down. Again, one needs to have a fairly firm definition of Satanism from the outset to determine whether someone or something is Satanic.

(You will get no argument from me on the quality of Nietzsche's thinking. He was profound, Freud was right about him.)

Top
#50391 - 03/03/11 11:40 AM Re: Anton LaVey's Satanism is "outdated?" [Re: ]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: MatthewJ1
Again, one needs to have a fairly firm definition of Satanism from the outset to determine whether someone or something is Satanic.


But of course not, just watching how a person behaves or acts is often enough to know. People are so fixated on definitions that Satanism is slowly sliding into this "mental construct" where being one or not, seems to solely depend upon what one says or prefers while the actuality of Satanism is only, and I'll repeat that; only proven through ones deeds.

No matter how intelligent or "true" one sounds, when they lead a life of averageness, they never understood the point.

D.

Top
#50407 - 03/03/11 04:06 PM Re: Anton LaVey's Satanism is "outdated?" [Re: Diavolo]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



Okay, one last post from me in this thread.

I'm sorry but you do assume a definition when you determine that living fully, or that certain acts, behaviours, and deeds constitute a Satanic lifestyle. Even a Christian assumes that they are living fully as well.

But anyway to each their own. Cheers

Top
#50408 - 03/03/11 04:13 PM Re: Anton LaVey's Satanism is "outdated?" [Re: ]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
No need to not continue, I don't mind the differences in our views.

I don't assume a definition because what I recognize in others (what we practically call satanic in this argument) is a resemblance to what I am. And as such, no definition is needed since I myself am the criteria to define what the other is or is not.

D.

Top
#50409 - 03/03/11 04:23 PM Re: Anton LaVey's Satanism is "outdated?" [Re: ]
Caladrius Offline
member


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 320
Loc: SoCal
 Originally Posted By: MatthewJ1


I'm sorry but you do assume a definition when you determine that living fully, or that certain acts, behaviours, and deeds constitute a Satanic lifestyle.


Cause & Effect maybe?

You first skate board. The subculture of skaters manifests from this Action/deed. Afterwards a definition may follow.

You first Surf. A subculture of Surfing may manifest from this action/deed. Afterwards a definition may follow that Describes.

A person may be gay. Live the "lifestyle." A subculture will manifest from such "lifestyle." A definition of this "lifestyle" may later develop to Describe it.

In all three cases, if there is a definition of the memeplex, it is a definition which describes what a group of people already do naturally when left to their own devices.

When you work backwards and first create a definition, then forced oneself or others to obey or follow that definition or they are "fake/false/heathen/infidel/etc" then that definition is no longer Descriptive of one's Nature or another's Nature. It becomes an Imposition, Assertion, a forcing of oneself or others to follow.

Is Satanism something that comes Naturally to a Satanist or is it a set of defined principles that is imposed or that one must follow to be a Satanist?


Edited by Caladrius (03/03/11 04:24 PM)
_________________________
Chloe 352

Top
#50412 - 03/03/11 06:02 PM Re: Anton LaVey's Satanism is "outdated?" [Re: Diavolo]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



Thank you for your invitation. I will add a couple more posts if you like.

Sometimes it can be difficult to judge the emotion behinds someone’s writing.

I also find that I don’t have that much time during the day, so I usually only post once or twice a day, if at all.

I do indeed think that living authentically and significantly (whatever those terms may mean to each individual) is a cornerstone of what it means to be Satanic.

I also tend to agree with the notion that an individual who has consciously and deliberately declined to blindly follow socially imposed rules, or tablets of good and evil, and who has taken personal responsibility for their choices, and as a result have achieved their own sense of Godhood, is in a position to determine whether someone or something is Satanic, as per their judgement, or their perceived commonality with the individual, thing or action in question.

The question is: how does this godlike individual come to see him or herself as specifically Satanic, rather than as something else?

Another question I have at this time: how does one become a member of the 600 Club for instance?

There must be some sort of commonly held position in order for any sort of community to arise, while acknowledging that a Satanic community may be an oxymoron or a myth or whatever.

Consider the notion of a new member – a male in this case. How does this person go from just living his life, to identifying his specific way of living as Satanic? He surely must go through a process of naming himself, of adopting this word Satanist after identifying himself with others who have already adopted this name and have communicated with him in some form?

Surely he must start by already being a Satanist, of already living as a Satanist, but at some stage he will become aware that his way of living has been described as Satanic by someone else who shares his clarity and his courage.

I feel that The Satanic Bible by Dr. LaVey is the book which people primarily use to identify themselves as Satanist’s, and as such it has not been superseded by any other form of mirror.

Maybe others will identify themselves as Satanist’s through other means – I wish them well with that.

Top
#50415 - 03/03/11 08:47 PM Re: Anton LaVey's Satanism is "outdated?" [Re: ]
Followingme. Offline
lurker


Registered: 02/09/11
Posts: 2
We must ultimately remember that Anton LaVey knows what he is doing. The very fact that he appeared with Ernest Borgnine in the Devil's Rain is testimony to his awareness and discernment. But, the thing is, as Boyd Rice has stated, the Apocalypse that the bible seesms to prophecy is actually going on right now. Anton LaVey, we may assume, is a REAL DEVIL when it comes to planning and strategies...
Top
#50422 - 03/04/11 02:09 AM Re: Anton LaVey's Satanism is "outdated?" [Re: Diavolo]
Dave Pellani Offline
Banned. Moron.
pledge


Registered: 02/27/11
Posts: 66
Loc: Hawaii USA
Actually, in your analogy here you make some very good points about magickal practices. The only way to "understand" the methodology of the sorcerer is to practice it, then share the experience and validation with others, if you should so desire.. Other than that, intellectualizing or ridiculing it is pointless. Nothing wrong with intellectualizing in general, it broadens your horizons, and creates a deeper thought process and a wider open mind. But to the sorcerer, you are not so much interested in public opinion or debate, or theory, especially theory that is not practiced by the theoreticist, who tends to just conceptualize everything, as you are the outcome of your own magickal will and skill, and how that actually works for out for you.

What comes to manifestation is what you could call "proof of the pudding" There are so many signs of magickal workings and their outcome and ability to control the environment around you, just on that front alone, not to mention many others, that makes it more than enough validation that your "connection" to sentient beings is indeed real, and the ability to work with their powers. It can't be psychosis or delusion once you get to that level.

One illustration would be what the typical philospher might consider "co incidence" Well, I thnk we all experience that to a certain degree, where it tends NOT to be frequent. However, where I depart from the realm of co incidence, or "chance" and into the the realm of will to manifestation is when so many things are happening, and falling into a pattern of desired outcome through ritual, it can't possibly be all by chance. Then you have to look around and say; Fuck, there is something pretty dynamic and astounding going on here, Etc Etc.


Edited by Dave Pellani (03/04/11 02:10 AM)
_________________________
Welcome To The Abyss

Top
#50429 - 03/04/11 01:59 PM Re: Anton LaVey's Satanism is "outdated?" [Re: ]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: MatthewJ1
The question is: how does this godlike individual come to see him or herself as specifically Satanic, rather than as something else?

Another question I have at this time: how does one become a member of the 600 Club for instance?

There must be some sort of commonly held position in order for any sort of community to arise, while acknowledging that a Satanic community may be an oxymoron or a myth or whatever.


Behind my writing, expect hardly any emotion at all, I just say my thing fully realizing it is my thing and not intending to force it to be yours.

The question is "why call it satanic?" indeed. There is a difference, as has been mentioned by others and me before, between serving the memeplex and letting the memeplex serve you. This means that while Satanism is an identity to many, and as such, defining what they are, to others it is a means to an end and instead of it defining them, it is a deliberately chosen representation suitable to accomplish intended goals.

As I said before, I judge others upon a similarity to what I am. Satanists share some of those similarities. The very reason I joined the 600, ages ago, was because there was this similarity; not always in what they think as in how they think. It is not that I had a predefined definition of what I am and as such, found people that completely matched that, as that some of those people had more in common with me than others.

Again, there is no clear definition and as you can observe, many of us old-timers are quite different in what we prefer, believe or even like, and it is pretty hard to define Satanism as such that it would fit us all. At least when using the standard definitions of what Satanism is, or is not.

I understand people prefer a clear definition on what it is but the question one should ask oneself is; why does that matter to them? In the answer, you'll often find who is serving or letting serve the memeplex.

D.

Top
#50433 - 03/04/11 03:35 PM SB Analyzed for Outdatedness [Re: XiaoGui17]
nocTifer Offline
pledge


Registered: 11/07/09
Posts: 87
Loc: Khazakstan
Always a pleasure to exchange thoughts with you on topics of relevance, XiaoGui17.
 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17
I wasn't raised a Christian, but the ideas expressed in the Book of Satan are still invigorating to me.

Excellent. I am not arguing that they will serve nobody at all. The problem with exaggerated evaluations such as 'outdated' is that they provide no contextual delimiter or aim for which we might consider this qualitative assessment. We should be asking 'Outdated for what purpose?' or '...from the standpoint of what cutural background?', for example. Obviously for someone like me, who is differently opposed to Christianity (such that I don't want or need it to be part of my theology, my special documents, have sought to revolutionize the whole of the cosmos to my liking in exaggerated opposition to its bases), the SB isn't just outdated, it is ill-fitted, since it participates in or comes from a place that I never have. Therefore when I provide an evaluation of whether or not it seems outdated, my reaction is an extreme which does not apply to people like you and I greatly appreciate your contrast of opinion here. So be it. Next we may attempt to determine if you are exemplary of an important cross-section or segment of some society (US/American I presume), and whether those who are coming to Satanism are as well-served as ever by this document and its contents.

 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17
Slave morality pervades every corner of our culture, far beyond the Judeo-Christian paradigm.

With the empowerment of the individual, the stratification of the cosmos in perceptual filtration, the artificial encapsulation by choice of one's engagements, and globalizing elements of culture breaking down morality, etc., for more and more of us that to which you are referring ceases to be a problem. I suspect that for those who are hooked into certain cultures, those interested and tuned into Fox News or general network television for example, or those who live in the US Bible Belt, this must certainly seem ubiquitous, even though it is not. Where I live in rural California it does not, and yet perhaps this new 'Wild West' burgeons forth the lifeblood of Satanism whether or not it is proclaimed and associates to Bibles.

With my exploration of religion I have stopped thinking of "a Judeo-Christian paradigm" as in any sense real. There are sets of paradigms promoted by these religious, often mutually contradictory. It is this notion in part also to what I was referring by 'outdated', since insofar as it is featured in the SB (and we might issue this criticism about Satanism as a whole), it seems to play to those who believe in such a monolith (a fictitious one propped up by conservative Abrahamic religious, by my assessment).

 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17
The idea that selflessness is virtue is widely accepted, even by non-Christians. Christian metaphor and imagery are useful in that they are commonly recognized, so much that New Testament analogies have now become common colloquialisms (blind leading the blind, pearls before swine, straight and narrow, beam in one's eye, etc).

This is an excellent observation as to the text's value, though it may suppose that these phrases aren't proliferating new meanings through time. Examining the multiplying meanings for colloquialisms (see 'turn the other cheek' for a very eye-opening example of the capacity for culture to twist and tease out multitudinous meanings to terms and catch-phrases), we can observe the repercussion of Protestant struggles amongst smaller and smaller cults using these terms and phrases as bludgeons of plied rhetoric, and endorsing at their most liberal the individual interpretation of not only scripture, but of deity and one's relationship to it. Contrary to dogmatic or simplistic anti-Christianity, there are liberating aspects of most aged and expansive religious systems.

What with the development of state religions, and Abrahamic contention, there are discernments even about FOR WHAT one throws away one's life or will as part of a 'virtuous or noble cause'. The vague or simple idea of 'selflessness' is at base undermined insofar as one may be discerned as being 'misled by the wayward', a 'tool of the wicked'. Several rallying alternatives to this 'selfless virtue' may be found not the least of which is that 'the road to Hell is paved with good intentions!'

All of that said, your emphasis here on what might be called 'the call to selfishness as virtue' (if it can be seen through the exortations of Christian and anti-Christian terminology, most of that for which i care little except to put it in its cultural and historical place and leave it where it was found, not to retain it as a lasting aspect of Satanity!!) is a good one. We might ask, perhaps along with those who favour the expressions of Ayn Rand, whether less polemical and religious contributions such as The Art of Selfishness, The Act of Will, or any number of New Thought sources beyond the rudiments of Crowley could substitute for what is otherwise mired in struggles with Pauline and Synoptic idiocy.

 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17
...LaVey is up front enough that anyone who's ready to hear what he has to say can understand without assistance. I'd hardly consider that a failure.

We're not really discussing failure, to my knowledge. The more vague 'outdated' quality could be clarified by an analysis of what makes a thing outdated, for whom, for use toward what ends, etc., etc., and this is not likely to be done anytime sooner than 'scriptural' exegesis. I'll lend my effort in part to it all, and hope to demonstrate my service to Satanians thereby. Thank you for your excellent responses and criticisms.
_________________________
Troll Towelhead, Grand Mufti of Satanism
http://www.facebook.com/Tr0llT0welhead
http://www.gospel-of-satan.com

Top
#50435 - 03/04/11 04:04 PM Satanic Scripture Exegesis and Analysis [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
nocTifer Offline
pledge


Registered: 11/07/09
Posts: 87
Loc: Khazakstan
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
The SB, SR. & CW all have fairly extensive analytical chapters to themselves in my Church of Satan.

Thank you for pointing this out, Doctor Aquino. I was aware of it, and mentioned your book in my post as of substantial assistance in coming to an evaluation of the SB. I did not seek to downplay your contribution in the slightest, and think it should form the basis of an entire sociocultural and temporal analysis that extends in many different directions.

I was attempting to contrast in part what has been done within extensive religious systems among multiple authors and specialists both inside and outside of religious contexts even in some cases with very recent scripture, and lamenting the lack of attention that these texts (including yours in reflection) have received given that they are truly of import to those supporting them. I do not conclude entirely along the lines of my latter option, that Satanity is comprised of the unintelligent, and yet the reactionary and turn-over quality of it, as compared to something like Scientology or Zen Buddhism, seems to predispose it to certain uses that make scripture at times completely unimportant or decentralised (as compared, say, to the lyrics of Mayhem, Morbid Angel, or King Diamond, or indeed to whatever scripture that one may oneself write; compare yours in The Book of Coming Forth By Night or my own in The Gospel of Satan).

Along with others, I join in congratulating you on what you have put out so far, and, as I think I implied to you privately, what draws my greatest enthusiasm (primarily due to my fondness for the genre to which I hope to have contributed meagerly) is what I am greatly enjoying right now reading: your text The Dark Side, after finishing Wicked by Maguire. I look forward to completing this and then moving on to The Morlindalë. To me, this relates more properly to scripture that I have found inspirational (probably because I like dramas as part of religious fiction, from many of the Jesus stories to those of the Buddha and beyond). One day I hope to put together an essay evaluating the originals as compared to the narrative alternatives so constructed and your work will be afforded a special place within it.

 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
The obstacle to an annotated edition of any of these continues to be its copyright. By comparison, the Crowley copyright was so internationally disputed for so long that all sorts of reprints & annotated editions of his works appeared.

Excellent discernment and point. Did Crowley's Commentaries themselves feature as a bone of legal contention? I know that Motta, Grant and Regardie all published versions. I've not ever heard a request to take down web-versions of these expressions, and would be in a position to have received one (moreso it was about secret documents, sex magic, etc.).
_________________________
Troll Towelhead, Grand Mufti of Satanism
http://www.facebook.com/Tr0llT0welhead
http://www.gospel-of-satan.com

Top
#50437 - 03/04/11 05:28 PM Re: Satanic Scripture Exegesis and Analysis [Re: nocTifer]
nocTifer Offline
pledge


Registered: 11/07/09
Posts: 87
Loc: Khazakstan
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
The SB, SR. & CW all have fairly extensive analytical chapters to themselves in my Church of Satan.

Beyond that already mentioned, here is the detail, as I could summarize it, of what may be referenced within that text inclusive of what lies beyond the chapters you mention, for the interested:
SB Chapter 5, Appendices 1, 10-13
SR Chapter 22, Appendices 2-7, 20, 44, 63, 68-75
CW/SW Chapter 9, Appendices 18, 23-24, 145
_________________________
Troll Towelhead, Grand Mufti of Satanism
http://www.facebook.com/Tr0llT0welhead
http://www.gospel-of-satan.com

Top
#50440 - 03/04/11 09:16 PM Re: Anton LaVey's Satanism is "outdated?" [Re: Diavolo]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
It's like thinking "Rambo" is a great movie; there is nothing wrong with it but when people start to say "Rambo" is about the deepest philosophical cinema there is, others will say "oh really?"

That's only because they haven't personally experienced M60 machine gun nirvana, which is a profoundly enlightening experience, not to mention instantly leveling the karma of all receivers of its Truth.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#50442 - 03/04/11 10:11 PM Re: Are LaVey's Core SB Principles Outdated? [Re: ]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: MatthewJ1
How does someone publicly represent Satanism? How did you do it, particularly during the period prior to the 1975 crisis and during the later “Satanic Panic” period?

It depends upon the audience and the environment (interviewer, other participants, interview context). You have to tailor your response to all of the above, but at all times remember that you're communicating to the audience, not to the environment.

In the average media interview situation, the audience may take away perhaps 5% of what is said, so you need to decide in advance what that 5% should be and emphasize it.

As I have pointed out previously on the 600C, for the overwhelming majority of people on this planet, "Satanism" = "the worst possible kind of evil". Most don't have any idea about it beyond what they see in horror films. So my most essential 5%-point was that "our [the Church of Satan's] Satanism has nothing to do with that kind of behavior, but is a positive, law-abiding religion in its own right". If that point could be gotten across in a general-audience situation, it was successful.

The more sophisticated and pre-informed the audience, of course, the more you could depart from this basic theme. In my Church of Satan appendices there are many examples of more complex & interesting discussions, both verbal and in print, by Anton, myself, and other Satanists. Anton also enjoyed responding to questions in the context of his own character, experiences, and artistry. I on the other hand was [and have remained] very averse to this and prefer to keep discussions impersonal and abstract.

I learned to be very careful about humor, because it can easily be misunderstood as insensitivity or insult, particularly by people who are already frightened of you. Satanism to me was as comfortable as an old pair of Levis, while to many people it is their worst nightmare come to life. In the late 1980s Stephen Flowers and I were invited to Killeen, Texas to discuss Satanism before an auditorium full of law-enforcement officers from several states. For what I thought was "fun" I started it out with a film clip of the main ritual scene from The Devil's Rain. When I turned the lights on and was about to comment on Hollywood imagination, I was startled to see looks of sheer horror on most of the audience. I had to say "McHale's Navy" and "Star Trek" several times to cut through it.

All of the above is why I have said that unless you are absolutely dedicated to Satan and Satanism, and adamant that nothing less reflects who and what you truly are, you should not call yourself a "Satanist". Out in the world beyond the original Church of Satan, or this 600C, it will just do you far more damage than it will bring you pleasure. [As my father used to say: "Sometimes the fucking you get is not worth the fucking you take."]

 Quote:
If I remember correctly you and Dr. LaVey are/were firm supporters of Professor Szasz. I tend to agree with Szasz when he talks about the power of definition. Do you think that Szasz’s comments on the power of definition are relevant to Satanism today?

Of course. That's once again what that 5% is all about. But remember that in the case of "Satanism" where most people are concerned, you're dealing with a subrational emotional image, not a rational/reasoned definition. This is what Stephen and I had reinforced to us in Killeen.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
Page 9 of 16 « First<7891011>Last »


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

Generated in 0.025 seconds of which 0.003 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.