Page 13 of 14 « First<1011121314>
Topic Options
#61092 - 11/04/11 07:19 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Octavian]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3773
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

I don't think belief has much to do with it. Either you apprehend or you don't. I cannot take this existence of Set/Satan, on faith, as that is not the way it works, whether you are a member of the Elect or, on the othet hand, a skeptical Atheist.


Would you mind explaining how this personal apprehension of Set differs from the personal apprehension of Jesus professed by many christians?

I don't notice a difference.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#61095 - 11/04/11 07:37 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Dan_Dread]
Oxus Offline
member


Registered: 04/15/10
Posts: 509
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
 Quote:

I don't think belief has much to do with it. Either you apprehend or you don't. I cannot take this existence of Set/Satan, on faith, as that is not the way it works, whether you are a member of the Elect or, on the othet hand, a skeptical Atheist.


Would you mind explaining how this personal apprehension of Set differs from the personal apprehension of Jesus professed by many christians?

I don't notice a difference.
This is a good point. I like C.G.Jung's theory of archetypal imagery, all these gods, devils, demons, angels, djinn, etc. are all symbolic thoughtforms we have accumulated in our unconsciousness. They are brought to our consciousness by way of symbolism, are they 'real'? What is 'real' and what isn't? Set is as real as any other archetype in our unconsciousness, He can become even more 'real' depending on our desires and magnitude.

Top
#61096 - 11/04/11 07:42 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Dan_Dread]
Octavian Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/30/11
Posts: 81
I don't know Dan. I have apprehended neither Set or Jesus.

My GBM experiences have not led me to an apprehension of Satn/Set, but rather to a picture of my own personal potential.

I think there are, however, a lot of people out there who just believe or have faith in something/someone without having undergone any so called genuine initiatory experience whatsoever. And I don't think just going to church on Sunday constitutes genuine initiatory experience or apprehension of a God or whatever.

Top
#61097 - 11/04/11 07:51 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Octavian]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3773
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
But aren't you just playing word games? 'Having faith in' and ' Having apprehended' seem pretty interchangeable here.

But even assuming these is some sort of difference(which is still unsubstantiated speculation) how would you account for all of these mutually exclusive belief sets getting their knowledge the same way? Surely more christians have 'apprehended' ol jeez than setians set. Why give one more weight than the other?

_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#61098 - 11/04/11 08:11 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Dan_Dread]
Octavian Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/30/11
Posts: 81
Possibly, but there still seems to be a difference between 'having faith in' and 'apprehension.'

Apprehension comes across (to me) as a grasping of the object in itself, via direct personal experience.

Having faith in seems (to me) to imply little or no understanding of the object, apart from what others have said to me about it. I read about it in a book and hence draw my understanding and have faith from that. Or else my faith is confirmed and reinforced by group activity every Sunday.

I think the act of apprehending Satan/Set as an independent intelligent entity is regarded as deeply personal and hence I have to do it myself if I can.

Maybe structurally faith in and apprehension are similar, but the words do have different meanings, at least for me.

***The Book of Coming Forth by Night crops up here in terms of its authority to compel faith***


Edited by Octavian (11/04/11 08:13 PM)
Edit Reason: addition

Top
#61099 - 11/04/11 08:15 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Octavian]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3773
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Well there is a difference in the two concepts surely, but not in this context.

If you can 'apprehend' any sort of religious iconography you choose, then all become layed out on a level playing field. At that point, any such 'apprehension' , in the absence of anything to set it apart from the rest, becomes purely a leap of faith.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#61100 - 11/04/11 08:34 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Dan_Dread]
Octavian Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/30/11
Posts: 81
I must be honest and state that I cannot respond to this with authority as I have not had this sort of religious type experience.

I would think, though, that the level playing field theory is interesting, but that differing metaphysical positions are signified by differing iconographical imagery or traditions. So difference does function here.

I think that Setian philosophy maintains a distinct difference from Christianity in that it is focused on the indviduals direct experience of the individuals' isolate self-consciousness as a gift and an emanation of the form, against the OU, whilst Christianity is deliberately inculcating a philosophy based around the group, the flock with Jeebus as the shepherd and go between with the Father. I don't think the guilt is also working in Setian philosophy, unlike Christianity.

The act of apprehension is of a different order than Christian apprehension, if that's what Christian's do when they find Jeeves.

Sorry man, I am just not close enough to it to give you a close up view. Probably comes off as vacillation.

Top
#61105 - 11/04/11 09:39 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Octavian]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3773
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
I do realize there is a difference between a direct experience of something and the lack of such but, surely some of these claims must be bullshit?

Whether the mythology behind the claim is aesthetically appealing to someone does not make the claim itself any stronger. I guess I am just wondering why you seem to be giving more weight to aqueeno than you would to say, Pat Robertson, when their game is virtually identical.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#61107 - 11/04/11 09:48 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
This is indeed what it is about, and thanks Dimitri but I did know the difference before I asked.

It's not because we use different words to describe something, we do anything different. The moment I accept something without any evidence, I have faith. Whether it appeals to me or not makes no difference. It's rather obvious that it appeals to me because if it didn't I'd not really be attracted to it.

I could of course join the ToS and enjoy whatever they provide but this wouldn't be different from going to church without believing in god. It's not because a part of it is interesting, the mythos surrounding it has truth.

D.

Top
#61108 - 11/04/11 10:15 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Dan_Dread]
felixgarnet Offline
active member


Registered: 10/17/09
Posts: 688
Loc: UK
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
Well there is a difference in the two concepts surely, but not in this context.

If you can 'apprehend' any sort of religious iconography you choose, then all become layed out on a level playing field. At that point, any such 'apprehension' , in the absence of anything to set it apart from the rest, becomes purely a leap of faith.


I think the main difference between apprehension of Jesus by Christians and that of another god-form/archetype is that the former are (most likely) already at least nominally Christian whereas the latter (may) have no previous commitment to, or even interest in the subject of their apprehension.

I had an experience of the latter which is extremely personal and valuable to me and which, ironically enough, is part of the journey which led me to this very site. And no, it was nothing to do with Satan, Lucifer or of any pantheon of which I had previous knowledge, either academically or socially. I'm willing to concur that I may have been mentally "primed" for such an experience due to being a student of the occult for decades but I can honestly say it was the single most powerful force for change and development in my life.

Enough said - I'm not willing to get into a "prove it" argument a la Aquino and Set - I could no more prove it than I can prove my love for my partner by science, but there you go. ;\)
_________________________
"Here's to Artifice!" - Anton Szandor LaVey.

Top
#61109 - 11/04/11 10:28 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Diavolo]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
senior member


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2435
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
... I could of course join the ToS and enjoy whatever they provide but this wouldn't be different from going to church without believing in god. It's not because a part of it is interesting, the mythos surrounding it has truth.

THE ARISTOS OF THE ÆON OF SET:
Of Fowles and Ferraris
- by Michael A. Aquino VI°
The Scroll of Set, June 1990

At the conclusion of the reading list for its first several years I quoted these lines from T.S. Eliot’s “Little Gidding”, made [more] famous by their cryptic use in John Fowles’ The Magus (#6I):

 Quote:
We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.

That Fowles was strongly moved by Eliot’s lines is further demonstrated by his use of them for the concluding statement of the screenplay he wrote for the film-version of The Magus.

Paradoxically, however, it was precisely this goal that proved impossible for Magus protagonist Nicholas Urfe. The teaching of the Magus Conchis was that the quest for a “higher purpose” to human adventure was merely a conceit: there is no “god”; the sea of circumstances and events in which we swim is the product of pure hazard. In The Aristos Fowles developed this theme:

 Quote:
The purpose of hazard is to force us, and the rest of matter, to evolve. It is only by evolving that we, in a process that is evolving, can continue to survive. The purpose of human evolution is therefore to recognize this: that we must evolve to exist.

Fowles faulted all religions, all philosophies as being in some sense machinery to limit the free exercise of human perceptions and genius. He would presumably challenge even the Temple of Set because, despite its commitment to individualism, it nonetheless erects an artificial structure by which this individualism may be defined and strengthened: our system of Recognized initiation. Fowles’ ideal man

 Quote:
... knows everything is relative, nothing is absolute. He sees one world with many situations; not one situation. For him no judgment stands; and he will not permanently join, because if he permanently joins with others, however intelligent, however well-intentioned, he helps to constitute an elect, a Few. He knows from history that sooner or later every congregation of the elect is driven to condone bad means to good ends; then they cease to be a congregation of the elect and become a mere oligarchy.

The means by which the Temple of Set may avoid degenerating into oligarchy is really quite simple: it is to remain itself an existential device: to provide ever more excellent means but never a dictated, common end towards which those means are to be employed. Hence the necessary absence in the Temple of dogma, ideology, or anything else resembling a “common goal”.

A few Scrolls ago I referred to Enzo Ferrari as a Magus. Why? Because he had created the concept (= Uttered a Word) of supercars which, while as excellent as they might be, were nonetheless incomplete and imperfect in themselves. Every one of his cars required the will of an individual human being, not necessarily Enzo himself, to activate and direct it. Individuals who drove Ferraris came away from the experience feeling “extended” in and of themselves - not [as in Metropolis] enslaved to a process, routine, or rhythm dictated by the machines.

The Temple of Set must similarly seek to be a device which “extends” those who experience it - not in a uniform common way, but in directions and velocities unique to each individual. This is perhaps the most difficult aspect of Initiatory Recognition, because each one of us, having undergone an exhilarating experience of personal Initiation, desires/expects others to partake of and therefore understand that same experience. [To the degree that such “mirror-imaged initiation” is perpetuated, of course, a kind of surrogate “immortality” surrounds the originator.] Setian James Sass recently referred to this as “institutionalized charisma”:

 Quote:
The only difference between an organization that will endure in a charismatic way and a mere personality cult is that the personality cult dies with the personality. Who will fill LaVey’s shoes in the “Church of Satan”? I’m sure it will exist for some time after his death, much like the post-Crowley O.T.O., but unless it finds a leader capable of making an impact comparable to LaVey’s, it will inevitably dwindle into a nostalgic charade.

This is the virtue of the Temple of Set: that it is elitist, that it does demand that individuals associated with it be lights in their own right, and that this standard will not be compromised. Thus will it continue to be the Black Order as it is now, long after the fleshly shells of its present Initiates have passed on.

The Achilles’ heel of Fowles’ own aristocratic existentialism was the crushing insignificance which the individual feels in his alone-ness: a mental state which Fowles termed the Nemo:

 Quote:
The nemo is a man’s sense of his own futility and ephemerality; of his relativity, his comparativeness, of his virtual nothingness ... Nobody wants to be a nobody. All our acts are partly devised to fill or mask the emptiness we feel at the core ... We all like to be loved or hated; it is a sign that we shall be remembered, that we did not “not exist”. For this reason, many unable to create love have created hate. That too is remembered.

It is the excellence of the Gift of Set which enables the Setian to transcend existentialism: to dispense with its “Devil”, the nemo. To the Setian, the experience of consciousness itself reflects the divinity of Set, hence one’s own divinity and “necessity supreme”. An individual awakened to Xeper no longer craves profane validation of his or her significance; To Be/To Become in one’s own Self-awareness is a far more sublime validation.

One might well say, therefore, that we have returned to “where we first started”, as ancient recipients of the Gift of Set, and that - through the experience of Initiation - we do indeed “know the place for the first time”. It is the restlessness not to have ceased from exploration that is Xeper, it is the “end” - a continuous consciousness of the ever-evolving, ever-cycling self - that is Remanifestation. To be or not to be: That is the question.

To be: That is the answer.

Top
#61132 - 11/05/11 02:09 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Antigod]
Grayson96 Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/05/11
Posts: 13
Loc: Heywood, England
Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? -No.

People hide their desires. They acquiesce to other peoples wishes. They conform. They believe they're evil because they follow their carnal needs. They live their lives believing in their death they will live a glorious afterlife, instead of enjoying the pleasures of this mortal world. So no, it's not.

The arguments that have been presented during this thread have kept me fascinated, as well as revealing how much more I have to learn. I don't believe in literal Satan, I believe in the representation of the perceived Satan being who we really are. I don't need to perform rituals or believe in magic to do this. I don't mind if anyone else does (not that you should give a shit), because that doesn't affect me. I'm happy learning how to improve my life away from the constraints of popular and religious rationale. If you choose not to see me as a Satanist because I don't believe in Satan, or believe me to be a poseur, good for you. Doesn't make a jot of difference to me.
_________________________
Tears fall but why am I crying
After all I'm not afraid of dying

Top
#61145 - 11/05/11 07:27 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Autodidact Offline
member


Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 428
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
I could take the time and the threadspace to patiently go through this again with you, but I simply don't think we're connecting; and I am not interested in playing word games. Just deal with yourself to your own satisfaction.


I would anyway, of course (but, for the record, it was you that brought up the perceiver versus perceived bit )

 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
It is the restlessness not to have ceased from exploration that is Xeper, it is the “end” - a continuous consciousness of the ever-evolving, ever-cycling self - that is Remanifestation. To be or not to be: That is the question.

To be: That is the answer.


Ah, my good Doctor - we are connecting, which is why I'm bothering to talk to you at all. I, and I suspect many on this list, understand and agree, at least at a high level, with that answer; as well as the general notions of what you call divinity, elitism, and even initiation.

However, I don't understand, or see the need for, the reliance on a god-type consciousness or an everlasting soul in my quest. I do this myself.
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

Top
#61146 - 11/05/11 07:53 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Autodidact]
Octavian Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/30/11
Posts: 81
I must draw the same conclusion, based on my honest understanding of my experience. Behold the becoming of the human Overman - no longer looking up for the meaning of life and no longer looking inwards, expecting that he/she is a less perfect reflection, or individual particularisation, of something more universal and out there somewhere.

I think most Satanist's know the score: you can stand up and be the Satan yourself, whatever Satan means to you, or you can continuing looking for the answer from someone else and avoiding what must be done; that is becoming the Satan yourself.

Top
#61156 - 11/05/11 10:19 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
LeftHandonFeet Offline
member


Registered: 11/05/11
Posts: 109
One truth I must remind myself when surveying the authenticity of an occult, religion or secret society - or one of its agendas for that matter- is the very truth that they all use mysticism and at times we confuse ourselves because we are very hungry for undefiled wisdom. Its as if to say we always want to kick people in the shins and say "get to the fucking point would you?". But lets remind ourselves that not everybody is eager to get strait to THE point like we are as we in this 600 Club are inquiring minds and enthusiasts. Sure I love to fellowship with other inquiring minds but the sinister side of me consoles me to know I can point a finger at a fool who wonders why Im so obscure and dress the way I do and say "YOURE missing out, NOT ME!" This is a great way to mentally masturbate and spooge on a heckler! LMAO
_________________________
"I’m just another hardline psuedo-statistic
Can you feel this?" Slipknot - The Blister Exists


Top
Page 13 of 14 « First<1011121314>


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

Generated in 0.044 seconds of which 0.016 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.