Page all of 14 12345>Last »
Topic Options
#60004 - 10/12/11 05:55 PM Isn't Satanism what people do anyway?
Antigod Offline
stranger


Registered: 09/27/11
Posts: 12
I like Satanism, but isn't it pretty much what people do by default if their minds haven't been corrupted by religious crap?

I mean, isn't it basically Atheism with rituals?

Top
#60007 - 10/12/11 08:30 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Antigod]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1641
Loc: Orlando, FL
Satanism is only Atheism (which by itself is mostly meaningless) inasmuch as it does not accept the mainstream definition of God. Contrary to the null hypothesis of Atheism, there is a definite mythos and occult current to Satanism, reinforced by a strong antinomian philosophy that makes it rather unlikely for people to merely "do by default".

Granted, one takes the label "Satanist" upon themselves freely, understanding that they aren't going to get themselves tripped up over nomenclature.


Edited by The Zebu (10/12/11 08:33 PM)
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#60011 - 10/12/11 11:08 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Antigod]
felixgarnet Offline
active member


Registered: 10/17/09
Posts: 688
Loc: UK
I agree with The Zebu here; someone may be raised in a God-free environment and still be a shiftless moron. Ergo, they will not be practising Satanism by default, even if they throw in a few rituals to spice things up.

Walking the Left Hand Path requires endless introspection, diligence and common sense; it is not simply hedonism without responsibility whether or not one believes in some sort of survival of bodily death.

What "people do anyway" is, from my observation: absorb constantly changing cultural memes as if they were facts; refuse to question anything if doing so will cause them emotional and/or intellectual discomfort and sleep most soundly when they feel secure in the knowledge that they are like everybody else. \:\)
_________________________
"Here's to Artifice!" - Anton Szandor LaVey.

Top
#60493 - 10/27/11 10:20 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: felixgarnet]
Raziel Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/27/11
Posts: 5
so in a nutshell, Satanism or a satanist is more or less an educated athiest, who doesnt just fall by default?
Top
#60494 - 10/27/11 11:05 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Raziel]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3841
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
A satanist is not more or less an educated Atheist. Lacking a belief in deity is really neither here nor there, nor is education per say.

Your nutshell seems to be full of fail.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#60498 - 10/27/11 11:22 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Dan_Dread]
Raziel Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/27/11
Posts: 5
well before I open my mouth and fail some more I will most definitely read more into it and educate myself more \:\)


One line posts are frowned upon here. There is a lot of information available on this site. The Satanic Bible is free in the media room. That would be a good start....Morgan


Edited by Morgan (10/28/11 12:02 AM)
Edit Reason: warning/information

Top
#60501 - 10/28/11 12:06 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Antigod]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
Satanism is the worship of and allegiance to Satan the metaphysical being. Anything else is something else, which includes atheists/materialists who find Atheism/materialism intolerably dull, so don a Halloween costume to make themselves interesting [to others, but also to themselves]. The anger and desperation of such poseurs when this is pointed out merely spotlights it.

In the 600 Club you will find both Satanists and poseurs. The former are both exploring and expressing a clearer understanding of their religion. The latter are either somewhere along the path to summoning up the moral and intellectual courage to become authentic Satanists, or are trying to legitimize their hypocrisy by repetitive noise: If they assert their redefinition loudly and constantly enough, they hope, everyone else will eventually give in and accept it too.

This is a common-enough practice in contemporary society, of course. Where Satanism is concerned, the issue is further complicated that by 1975 avowed Satanists had come up against the limitations and distortions of Judæo/Christian imagery, hence found themselves having to take both their perception and their dedication beyond it, to an extremely abstract and profound metaphysical conceptualization. [We in the Temple of Set call this "Set" for a number of traditional and philosophical reasons, but essentially this is a term of linguistic representation, just as phi signifies the Golden Ratio in all of its sublime magnificence.]

This said, the ordinary human being interested in Satanism per se will find a lot of meat to chew on in the 600 Club. You will be exposed to Satanist ideas and arguments as well as Atheist/materialist ones, all of which will season you towards deciding which you yourself are or want to be. When all is said and done, you are the one who must confront yourself in the mirror every day. Your own essential integrity is all that matters; any artificial image that you project, or attempt to project to anyone else is "dust in the wind".
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60503 - 10/28/11 12:29 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
A grown man who still believes in fairy tales has no business insulting others. Only a fool would worship a symbol of rebellion. Genuflecting is the realm of those too scared and/or weak to stand on their own two feet without the need for a supernatural security-blanket.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#60506 - 10/28/11 01:03 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3841
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Don't mind mike, he is still butthurt over events that took place in the 70s. Keep in mind this is a man that claims to have spoken with a deity first hand...

Needless to say there is a distinct heterodox tradition that has been around a long time, of which Satanism, for some, is a powerful vehicle of expression.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#60507 - 10/28/11 01:12 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Dan_Dread]
Zach_Black Offline
member


Registered: 05/14/11
Posts: 541
Loc: San Diego, California
35 years of butthurtness! That might be an all time record in the Satanic community . Aquino had his hey day . Time to move on . Satanism evolves. Those who still believe in imaginary friends do not.
_________________________
http://satanicinternationalnetwork.com/

Top
#60514 - 10/28/11 02:42 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1641
Loc: Orlando, FL
 Quote:
Satanism is the worship of and allegiance to Satan the metaphysical being. Anything else is something else, which includes atheists/materialists who find Atheism/materialism intolerably dull, so don a Halloween costume to make themselves interesting [to others, but also to themselves].


I will hold back on the caustic rhetoric on this one, but it is rather flabbergasting that you put Satan in such an itty bitty box, but have absolutely no problem defining Set (and the LHP) and in such a modernistic and nontraditional way. While your definition is true on a basic level, it belies the importance of Satanism in regards to the Path of the Left Hand, which transcends forms of "worship" and "allegiance", and renders atheistic/materialistic issues moot.
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#60516 - 10/28/11 03:23 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
Satanism is the worship of and allegiance to Satan the metaphysical being.


Obviously this definition is based on the writers own experiences of what he considers the true version of Satanism. This definition is tiny in scope and is obvioussly there to justify Aquinos own personal beliefs rather than having a working definition of what Satanism can be.

As with all religions there are major differences in belief and practice and to minimize Satanism to only being the worship of Satan specifically as a metaphysical being seems rather close minded.

My own definition could probably be regarded as to inclusive, but it is more true to the nature of the Satanic milieu as "a system that celebrates and build a worldview based on Satan (by this name or any other closely related term derived from Judaeo-Christian mythology)".

If you try to define Satanism as that which is true in regards to your own specific beliefs (I am assuming here that the one to define here also calls him or herself by the term Satanist or something closely related) then the term becomes meaningless except in relation to the very individual that makes the claim. And since Satanism has no clear historical origin, as in a shared history, a common scripture or even a common use of the very word Satanism, the definition has to be alot wider than the one Dr. Aquino suggests.


Edit:

If we go back to what Satanism meant originally we will probvably just end up with a definition of "everything that is un-christian in the eyes of Christians themselves". This would include anything - a different theism, Atheism, sexual practice, attitude, gluttony, music, dancing or whatever. And as such this definition becomes quite meaningless which is why we cant really go back to the origins of the word itself.


Edited by TheInsane (10/28/11 03:27 AM)

Top
#60529 - 10/28/11 09:42 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Antigod]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Humpty Dumpty, in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass
When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.

The chorus of indignation following my citation of Satanism's original, centuries-established meaning above rather, I think, Q.E.D.s my point about "Satanist"-poseurs. We live in an H.D.-age in which convenient redefinition is common; and because it is so common, the rabble do not really care.

To those of us who were members of the original 1966-75 Church of Satan, however, the concept of Satanism, and the name of Satanist, were profoundly, explicitly, and precisely respected. In short, we did care. This was a commitment which demanded a great deal from each Satanist, and frequently at substantial personal cost. This adventure, which may be examined in my Church of Satan ebook, made heroes of all of them.

As previously, the 600 Club accommodates both Satanists and poseurs, as well as curious-others who just think there's a lot of lively dialogue here. What it will not do is to authenticate anyone.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60533 - 10/28/11 10:36 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3841
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino

As previously, the 600 Club accommodates both Satanists and poseurs.

Indeed, some of the latter audacious enough to claim direct experience chatting with the prince of darkness himself.

As for the 'centuries established' definition of Satanism, I think I put that little nugget to bed HERE , unless you want to start claiming Anton actually meant something else when he liberally started describing Satanism as a left hand path tradition.

Best of luck with that.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#60535 - 10/28/11 10:41 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I'm willing to accept there are poseurs and satanists here but if Lucy really exists, do you think the guys coloring between the lines are his type of people?

If you think The Horned Guy exist, great, but if you're not doing the wicked stuff, are you really serving him?

Top
#60549 - 10/29/11 02:18 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1641
Loc: Orlando, FL
 Quote:
The chorus of indignation following my citation of Satanism's original, centuries-established meaning above rather, I think, Q.E.D.s my point about "Satanist"-poseurs.


Actually you've made a mistake, here. Prior to the 1800s, Satanism never really referred to a specific praxis or ideology- rather, "Satanism" was mostly a byword for rebellion, heresy, and wrongdoing. The apparent traits of Satanism-- veneration of the devil, black masses, blood pacts, etc, were simply considered to be a subset of Witchcraft. The idea of Satanism as a religious system itself did not gain currency until it became used to defame Freemasonry. By the time LaVey got his hands on the word, it had already been circulated extensively by the likes of Taxil, Montague Summers, and Dennis Wheatley, who are largely responsible for the contemporary conception of Satanism.

In fact, the first known name for a diabolic religion is Luciferian, as written in the Papal Bull entitled Vox in Rama.


Edited by The Zebu (10/29/11 02:25 AM)
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#60553 - 10/29/11 03:53 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
 Originally Posted By: Humpty Dumpty, in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass
When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.

The chorus of indignation following my citation of Satanism's original, centuries-established meaning above rather, I think, Q.E.D.s my point about "Satanist"-poseurs. We live in an H.D.-age in which convenient redefinition is common; and because it is so common, the rabble do not really care.

To those of us who were members of the original 1966-75 Church of Satan, however, the concept of Satanism, and the name of Satanist, were profoundly, explicitly, and precisely respected. In short, we did care.


1. If you put your own value into words they will mean nothing in the end when talking to others. The main point of language is to get your point across and for that to happen we must accept that we cant define or redefine words ourselves.

2. "Satanism's original, centuries-established meaning"? Really? Where is the evidence for this claim? If we go back to the oldest meaning of Satanism - from the time when the term was coined - it is more about anything opposing Christianity in the eyes of the people in power. This means it could be almost anything.

3. It is also interesting that you bring up the CoS as a support for your claim. I agree with you that the atheistic stance of the latter Church wasnt as prominent pre-1975 - and in general the Chruch seemed more open and less ruled with an iron hand. However Anton LaVey himself would claim it was always this way (atheistic that is) and indeed there is no direct proof of any theism in his writings. So we have two people, one higher up in the CoS pre-1975, and also the founder and member for life in Anton LaVey and you would argue the exact opposite points.

 Originally Posted By: The Zebu

In fact, the first known name for a diabolic religion is Luciferian, as written in the Papal Bull entitled Vox in Rama.


This is the praxis that was banned by Gregorius IX and it is probably a myth. Konrad von Marburg was an inquisitor and had been recieving reports about supposed "luciferianism" through questionable methods while interrogating heretics. This lead to an official description of their methods and a ban of the same in the Vox in Rama. There is no evidence of such a practice actually existing except for the confessions of percieved heretics under inquisitory interrogations and we all know what kind of confessions those interrogation produced.


Edited by TheInsane (10/29/11 04:07 AM)

Top
#60559 - 10/29/11 09:57 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: TheInsane]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
Again we see the same old canard that "pre 1975 LaVey believed in..." when we have his own voice telling us exactly what his feelings are regarding the literal existence of "Satan." This from Nat Frieland's 1973 LP THE OCCULT EXPLOSION, but recorded at least in late 71 or in 1972:

http://www.darkryde.com/Audio/LaVey-OccultExplosion1973.mp3

He says what the stance of the Church is, that some in the Church still see Satan as an anthropomorphic being, and why he does not discourage this. His words. Direct testimony. Now, it is true that he wrote to Michael Aquino in a stilted and sometimes almost comically corny way referring to Satan in a way that sounds as if LaVey is referring to Satan as an anthropomorphic being. Aquino takes this as PROOF that LaVey believed in SATAN.

But again, we have LaVey's OWN WORDS, direct testimony, of what he believes, but that others of the Church still believe in an anthropomorphic manifestation of Satan, and so on... so LaVey, in his writings to Aquino is simply WRITING TO HIS AUDIENCE IN WORDS THE AUDIENCE COULD UNDERSTAND. He was using Aquino's on belief in Satan as real metaphorically. Simple as that. That Aquino took everything LaVey said as a validation of his own naivete, does nothing to bolster his case, but only shows that LaVey was indeed able to read people and custom tailor his message to his audience, both through the spoken word and through the written word as well.

Aquino remains deluded in the belief in an anthropomorphic devil to this day. Pre or post 1975, we have direct proof in LaVey's own words that Aquino has simply projected his beliefs onto those of LaVey, when clearly, no such corresponding belief existed for LaVey.

He cannot change his stance because to do so would negate a 35+ year old campaign to share his delusion as truth, despite the obvious facts against his claims. He'll go to his grave with his delusion. It's all he has.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#60566 - 10/29/11 01:01 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Antigod]
voxintus Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/29/11
Posts: 7
Loc: northern california
people really dont do Satanism at all. self delusion,guilt,herd conformity, these are not satanic tenets and most of soceity fits that mold. Atheism is just lack of belief, its not even a philosophy. Satanism is what people CAN become, but most aren't satanic IMO.
_________________________
"Trust those who claim to seek the truth and doubt those who claim to have it."

Top
#60569 - 10/29/11 01:49 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: TheInsane]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1641
Loc: Orlando, FL
Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that the accusations were true; only to emphasize that, historically, the idea of "Satanism" labeled as such is a recent one, and that the things we commonly associate with Satanism were usually called by different names.

Overall, I think, it is important to take into account both the historical and contemporary meanings of a word, and realize that even a single name can convey different meanings. One will obviously favor the meaning that has the most value to them, but should not waste time fighting against the currency of other meanings.

I'm sure Dr. Aquino is well aware of the currency of other Satanic perspectives-- he just gets a kick out of trolling us. (Is it really still fun after so many years of doing it, or does the modern ability to instantaneously prod Satanists over the internet make it all the more fun?)


Edited by The Zebu (10/29/11 01:50 PM)
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#60577 - 10/29/11 03:36 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: The Zebu]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: The Zebu
I'm sure Dr. Aquino is well aware of the currency of other Satanic perspectives-- he just gets a kick out of trolling us. (Is it really still fun after so many years of doing it, or does the modern ability to instantaneously prod Satanists over the internet make it all the more fun?)

As I have previously observed, anyone can call himself anything he likes. If bored atheists want to glamorize their image by styling themselves "Satanists", they are assuredly at liberty to do so. Some men who wish they were women put on dresses and stumble around in high heels too. Whatever makes you happy.

At issue here are two principles: legitimacy and hypocrisy. The former may be established by law, or over time by custom.

Satanism-as-such proposed to become purely atheistic/symbolic after 1975, when Anton LaVey, after betraying his High Priesthood of Satan, had no ego-acceptable alternative except to disavow him. Prior to that there was no question of either his sincere belief in Satan, as amply evidenced in COS, the Satanic Bible, the Satanic Rituals, etc. That he simultaneously publicly discussed Satan/Satanism's symbolism did not bother any of us in the least; it was simply a social-survival mechanism, as Anton acknowledged with his "nine parts social-respectability to one part outrage" formula. [So did I on appropriate occasions.]

Characteristic of Jake's post-1975 "Church of Satan" is, throughout all of its publications and Anton's own statements, the complete absence of Satan. The noun was now an adjective, used to describe whatever Anton LaVey himself thought, said, or did. It also attracted a new kind of disciple: one who admired Anton's personality and lifestyle in lieu of being a believer in Satan and a practitioner of Black Magic. The glamor of the 1966-7 Church was there for the basking, but now one could live safely within the "nine parts" without worrying about that pesky, and dangerous, "one part". The post-1975 "Satanist" could now have his Devil's-food cake and eat it too.

Since then this convenient and safe "Satanism without Satan" has continued to be fashionable. It is certainly the strongest commonality between Peter Gilmore's "Church of Satan" and the 600 Club; and precisely because it reduces "Satanism" to a matter of complete personal whim, it also makes the term ultimately meaningless. The question which began this thread accordingly generated automatic agreement.

Whether this morphology means anything to each of you is, as also previously, a purely-personal decision. I said above that this is also a question of hypocrisy, but that is only if you do not really believe in the legitimacy of your convenient redefinition. If that is indeed all that you can see, at least you are not a hypocrite.

I am going to risk a one-time violation of the 600C's ban of poetry to conclude with this, written by my mother at age 13:

 Originally Posted By: Betty Ford, Pegasus in Pinfeathers, 1925
FORCED ENTRANCE

There came a time when they were not content
To shriek against the portals and the shrine.
They crushed the silver gates, and in they went,
Hot-handed, on a search for the Divine.

And the white portals opened ceaselessly,
And the great purple curtains flapped and fell,
And the great mass of people swept to see
Naked Untruth, but how they could not tell.

Still they found nothing godlike, but a throne
Empty and time-worn, in an empty hall,
And a white heap of manuscripts, alone,
And the Sun’s rays that fell, nor ceased to fall.

And, in one sheltered crevass they went by,
A flight of stairs that wound into the sky.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60579 - 10/29/11 04:01 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
And still you didnt really adress mine or Jake's comments or questions. How come?
Top
#60580 - 10/29/11 04:09 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: TheInsane]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I think this is rather interesting for those pondering about Satanism or satan.

 Quote:
The Geryne of Satan

Order of Nine Angles

The Geryne of Satan

Introduction

This brief essay will outline a few interesting facts about the terms Satan and Satanism (and thus Satanist), including their historical usage in the English language, and thus may guide the sagacious to an understanding of the geryne [1] of Satan: that the mysterious secret of Satan is the simple heretical, japing, and confrontational reality of being or becoming a satan.

Satan

The scribes of the Septuagint mostly rendered the Hebrew שָׂטָן as ὁ διάβολος/τω διάβολω – and which Greek term implies someone who is an adversary and who thus is pejoratively regarded (by those so opposed) as scheming, as plotting against them; that is, the sense is of ἐπίβουλος - scheming against/opposed to (the so-called ‘chosen ones’). Someone, that is, who stirs up trouble and dissent.

Only in a few later parts – such as Job and Chronicles – does the Hebrew seem to imply something else, and on these occasions the word usually occurs with the definitive article: hasatan – the satan: the chief adversary (of the so-called ‘chosen ones’) and the chief schemer, who in some passages is given a fanciful hagiography as a ‘fallen angel’.

Now, given that the earliest known parts of the Septuagint date from around the second century BCE [2] – and thus may well be contemporaneous with (or not much older than) the composition of most of the Hebrew Pentateuch (the earliest being from around 230 BCE [3] ) – this rendering by the scribes of the word satan as ὁ διάβολος/τω διάβολω is very interesting and indicative given the meaning of the Greek, and supports the contention that, as originally used and meant, satan is some human being or beings who ‘diabolically’ plot or who scheme against or who are ‘diabolically’ opposed to those who consider themselves as ‘chosen’ by their monotheistic God, and that it was only much later that ‘the satan’ became, in the minds of the writers of the later parts of the Old Testament, some diabolical ‘fallen angel’.

Thus, it is generally accepted by scholars that the Hebrew word satan (usually, a satan) in the early parts of Old Testament means a human opponent or adversary (of God’s chosen people, the Hebrews) [4] or someone or some many who plot against them.

Now, as has been mentioned in several previous ONA texts, in heretical contradistinction to others and especially to contradict the majority of modern self-described Satanists, the ONA asserts that the word satan has its origin in Ancient Greek.

That is, that it is our contention that the Hebrew word derives from the old (in origin Phoenician) word that became the Ancient Greek αἰτία/αἴτιος – as for example in the Homeric μείων γὰρ αἰτία (to accuse/to blame) or as in “an accusation” (qv. Aeschylus: αἰτίαν ἔχειν) – and that it was this older Greek form which became corrupted to the Hebrew ‘satan’ and whence also the ‘Shaitan’ of Islam. Furthermore, in the Greek of the classical period αἰτία and διαβολή – accusation, slander, quarrel – were often used for the same thing, when a negative sense was meant or implied (as in a false accusation) with the person so accused becoming an opponent of those so accusing, or when there was enmity (and thus opposition, scheming, and intrigue) as for example mentioned by Thucydides – κατὰ τὰς ἰδίας διαβολὰς (2.65).

Given that, for centuries, שָׂטָן as described in the Old Testament of the Hebrews was commonly written in English as sathans [5] and thus pronounced as sath-ans (and not as say-tan) it is perhaps easy to understand how the Greek αἰτία – or the earlier Homeric αἴτιος – could become transformed, by non-Greeks, to שָׂטָן

In respect of this God and this ‘fallen angel’, as mentioned in another ONA text:

” There is good evidence to suggest that, historically, the writers of the Old Testament drew inspiration from, or adapted, older stories, myths and legends about a Persian deity that came to be named Ahriman, who could thus be regarded as the archetype of the Biblical Satan, and also of the Quranic Iblis. Similarly, there is evidence that the God – Jehovah – of the Old Testament may have been based upon myths and legends about the Persian deity who came to be named Ahura Mazda.” A Short History and Ontology of Satan

Furthermore, despite claims by some Hebrew and Nazarene scholars, it is now becoming accepted that the oldest parts of the Old Testament were probably written between 230 BCE and 70 BCE, and thus long after the time of Greeks such as Aeschylus and long after Greek word aitia was used for an accusation.

It is also interesting that there is an early use, in English, of the plural term satans as adversaries, which occurs in the book A paraphrase on the New Testament with notes, doctrinal and practical published in London in 1685 CE and written by the Shropshire-born Richard Baxter:

” To hinder us in God’s work and mens Salvation, is to be Satans to us. O how many Satans then are called reverend Fathers, who silence and persecute men for God’s work.” Matthew, xvi. 23
In an earlier work, published in 1550 CE, the chyldren of Sathan are corralled with heretics:

“Dyuers Bysshoppes of Rome beynge Annabaptystes, heretyques, scismatiques, & chyldren of Sathan.” John Coke. The debate betwene the heraldes of Englande and Fraunce. 1550, g. Givv [Débat des hérauts d'armes de France et d'Angleterre. Paris, Firmin Didot et cie, 1877 ]

Thus, satan/sathan/sathanas as a term – historically understood – describes: (1) some human being or beings who diabolically plot or who scheme or who are opposed to those who [6] consider themselves chosen by their monotheistic God; and/or (2) some human being or beings who are heretical and adversarial, against the status quo, and especially, it seems, against the religion of the Nazarenes.

Satanism

The earliest use of the term Satanism in the English language, that is, of the suffix -ism applied to the word Satan – so far discovered – is in A Confutation of a Booke Intituled ‘An Apologie of the Church of England’ published in Antwerp in 1565 CE and written by the Catholic recusant Thomas Harding:

“Meaning the time when Luther first brinced to Germanie the poisoned cuppe of his heresies, blasphemies, and sathanismes.” A Confutation, Antwerp, 1565, ii. ii. f. 42v

Three things are of interest, here.

(1) First, the spelling, sathanismes – deriving from sathan, a spelling in common usage for many centuries, as for instance in Langland’s Piers Plowman of 1337 CE:

“For þei seruen sathan her soule shal he haue.” Piers Plowman B. ix. 61

and also, centuries later, in the 1669 CE play Man’s the Master by William Davenant:

“A thousand Sathans take all good luck.” (v. 87)

(2) The second point of interest is that, as the above and other quotations show, the term sathan was also commonly used to refer to someone or some many who was a schemer, a plotter, a trickster, or an adversary.

(3) The third point of interest is that the first usage of the suffix – by Thomas Harding – as well as the common subsequent usage of the term Satanism has the meaning of an adversarial, a diabolical, character or nature or doctrine. That is, the earliest meanings and usage of the term Satanism are not ‘the worship of Satan’ nor of some religious or philosophical belief(s) associated with the figure of Sathan.

Furthermore, as mentioned previously, an early (1685 CE) usage of term Satans also imputes the foregoing meaning of adversarial or diabolical character:

“To hinder us in God’s work and mens Salvation, is to be Satans to us. O how many Satans then are called reverend Fathers, who silence and persecute men for God’s work.” Richard Baxter. A paraphrase on the New Testament with notes, doctrinal and practical. London, 1685 CE, Matthew, xvi. 23

Indeed, in 1893 CE the writer Goldwin Smith used the term Satanism in this older general sense to refer to a type of destructive social revolution:

” That sort of social revolution which may be called Satanism, as it seeks, not to reconstruct, but to destroy.” Goldwin Smith. Essays on questions of the day. (Macmillan, 1893 CE)

Similarly, an earlier 1833 CE article in Fraser’s magazine for Town and Country used the term in connection with Byron:

” This scene of Byron’s is really sublime, in spite of its Satanism.” Vol 8 no. 524

Thus, the English term Satanism/sathanism – historically understood – describes: (1) a blasphemy, a heresy or heresies; (2) a destructive (that is, practical) type of opposition.


Satanist

The earliest usages of the term Satanist, that is, of the suffix -ist applied to the term Satan – so far discovered – also imputes a similar meaning to foregoing; that is, of an adversarial, a diabolical, character or nature, of heretics, and of heretical/adversarial doctrine:

” The Anabaptistes, with infinite other swarmes of Satanistes.” John Aylmer. An harborowe for faithfull and trewe subjects agaynst the late blowne blaste concerning the gouernment of wemen. London, 1559, sig. H1v

“Be ye Zuinglians, Arians, Anabaptistes, Caluinistes, or Sathanistes?” Thomas Harding. A Confutation of a Booke Intituled ‘An Apologie of the Church of England’ . Antwerp, 1565.

“By nature an Athiest, By arte a Machiuelist, In summe a Sathanist, loe here his hire.” Marphoreus. Martins Months Minde. 1589, [7]

Only much later, from around 1896 CE onwards, was the term Satanist used to describe those who were alleged to worship Satan:

” There are five temples of Satanism in Paris itself.” Arthur Lillie. The worship of Satan in modern France. London 1896.

” It is believed on the Continent that apostate priests frequently consecrate for the Satanists and Freemasons.” Joseph McCabe. Twelve years in a monastery. London, 1897.
Thus, the English term satanist/sathanist – historically understood – describes: (1) an adversarial, a diabolical, character; (2) those who adhere to or champion heretical/adversarial doctrines.

Conclusion

As someone wrote over two thousand years ago – εἰδέναι δὲ χρὴ τὸν πόλεμον ἐόντα ξυνόν, καὶ δίκην ἔριν, καὶ γινόμενα πάντα κατ΄ ἔριν καὶ χρεώμενα. [8]

Anton Long
Order of Nine Angles
122 Year of Fayen
(Revised 2455853.743)

Notes

[1] The Old English word gerȳne – from Old Saxon girūni – means “secret, mystery”.

[2] The earliest MS fragment – Greek Papyrus 458 in the Rylands Papyri collection [qv. Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 20 (1936), pp. 219-45] – was found in Egypt and dates from the second century BCE.

[3] It is, of course, in the interests of both Nazarenes and Magians to maintain or believe that the Hebrew Old Testament of the Hebrews was written centuries before this date, just as such early dating is a common mundane assumption perpetuated by both those who consider the Internet is a reliable source of information and by those who have not studied the subject, for some years, in a scholarly manner. Had such a scholarly study been undertaken, they would be aware of the scholarly disputes about the dating of Hebrew Old Testament – and of the Septuagint – that have existed for well over a hundred years, as they would also be able to make their own informed judgement about the matter.

My own informed judgement is that there is good evidence to suggest that 230 (± 50) BCE is the most likely earliest date for the Hebrew Old Testament. I should, however, add, that this is still a ‘minority opinion’, with many academics still favouring the more ‘safe’ (that is, the currently more acceptable) opinion of 350 (± 30) BCE.

[4] For example – καὶ ἦσαν σαταν τῷ Ισραηλ πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας Σαλωμων (3 Kings 11:14)

[5] See the section on Satanism, below.

[6] καὶ ἔστη διάβολος ἐν τῷ Ισραηλ

[7] See The Martin Marprelate Tracts (1588–89) and the Cambridge History of English Literature, volume III - Renascence and Reformation, Cambridge UP, 1920, p. 394f

[8] One should be aware that Polemos pervades, with discord δίκη, and that beings are naturally born by discord. [Trans DWM.]



Anton Long - The Geryne of Satan



Top
#60584 - 10/29/11 05:07 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Diavolo]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1641
Loc: Orlando, FL
Long makes a very valid case for the variety and depth of the term.

I only have one small problem with his logic, in regards to this:

 Quote:
in heretical contradistinction to others and especially to contradict the majority of modern self-described Satanists, the ONA asserts that the word satan has its origin in Ancient Greek.


The Satanism of the ONA does, in fact, present Satan as being a name for a metaphysical/acausal being-- which only has precedent in Hebrew/Christian religion... but to his credit, the practical aspects of Satanism (heresy, transgression, antinomianism) outweigh the esoteric embellishments thereof (rituals, entities, occult correspondences, etc).


Edited by The Zebu (10/29/11 05:08 PM)
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#60598 - 10/29/11 10:35 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 862
Loc: Nashville
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
As I have previously observed, anyone can call himself anything he likes. If bored atheists want to glamorize their image by styling themselves "Satanists", they are assuredly at liberty to do so. Some men who wish they were women put on dresses and stumble around in high heels too. Whatever makes you happy.

At issue here are two principles: legitimacy and hypocrisy.

You dismiss Satanists who don’t believe in the existence of Satan as poseurs, yet you recognize those in your organization who don’t believe in the existence of Set as Setians. No hypocrisy there…
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#60599 - 10/29/11 11:50 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: William Wright]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: William Wright
You dismiss Satanists who don’t believe in the existence of Satan as poseurs, yet you recognize those in your organization who don’t believe in the existence of Set as Setians. No hypocrisy there…

None at all. The term "Setian" refers specifically to formal affiliation with the Temple of Set, and neither the I° or II° of such affiliation requires apprehension of the source of our metaphysics - rather just an understanding of and commitment to our ethics, an interest in becoming skilled in [hence an Adept of] the Black Magic we teach, and a trust in the Priesthood of Set that its perception of and dedication to Set are authentic and sincere.

This is indeed much the same scenario as existed in the original 1966-75 Church of Satan. In short, if you became Satan's Priest, you became Satan's Priest. If you were a Satanist I° or Witch/Warlock II°, it was entirely permissible for you to take rituals or Black Magical workings on trust. A "blind faith" belief would have been [and was, when it occurred] viewed as inappropriate: a mere mirror-flip from the slave religions.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60600 - 10/30/11 12:18 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: TheInsane]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
And still you didnt really adress mine or Jake's comments or questions. How come?

Your echoing of Mr. Dumpty doesn't require any further comment from me.

Jake's status as an intimate of Anton LaVey's post-1975 is well-known, as is Jake's admiration for Anton during and subsequent to that association. I have no reason to impugn this in the least. Does it make Jake a Satanist? Not unless Jake's actual allegiance and dedication was to Satan, not Anton. Otherwise, strictly speaking, he is an "Anton LaVeyist". Indeed, for Jake to reject that more accurate but less metaphysical term would be hypocritical, and arguably insulting to Anton as Jake knew him post-1975.

"Satanist" is a glamorous and powerful label, so lots of people think using it is cool. If they can figure out or rationalize a way to assert it without actually swearing their souls to the Prince of Darkness, they'll do it. This can be by attempted redefinitions of the term, or by "adjectiving" it to Anton's personality, or simply by wearing a T-shirt with a Baphomet on it.

If what pleases you, Jake, or anyone else here truly fulfills you, then by all means enjoy it and don't pay any attention to me.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60601 - 10/30/11 12:26 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Zach_Black Offline
member


Registered: 05/14/11
Posts: 541
Loc: San Diego, California
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
And still you didnt really adress mine or Jake's comments or questions. How come?

Your echoing of Mr. Dumpty doesn't require any further comment from me.

Jake's status as an intimate of Anton LaVey's post-1975 is well-known, as is Jake's admiration for Anton during and subsequent to that association. I have no reason to impugn this in the least. Does it make Jake a Satanist? Not unless Jake's actual allegiance and dedication was to Satan, not Anton. Otherwise, strictly speaking, he is an "Anton LaVeyist". Indeed, for Jake to reject that more accurate but less metaphysical term would be hypocritical, and arguably insulting to Anton as Jake knew him post-1975.

"Satanist" is a glamorous and powerful label, so lots of people think using it is cool. If they can figure out or rationalize a way to assert it without actually swearing their souls to the Prince of Darkness, they'll do it. This can be by attempted redefinitions of the term, or by "adjectiving" it to Anton's personality, or simply by wearing a T-shirt with a Baphomet on it.

If what pleases you, Jake, or anyone else here truly fulfills you, then by all means enjoy it and don't pay any attention to me.


Sorry we all can not all be as devoted to an imaginary friend Dr. Aquino. Be it whatever dark name you choose to call it.


Edited by blackzach (10/30/11 12:31 AM)
_________________________
http://satanicinternationalnetwork.com/

Top
#60603 - 10/30/11 12:56 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Zach_Black]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
Michael Aquino defining me... novel. Here's a little tip for you, Aardvark boy. Nobody
gives a rats ass what you think they SHOULD be. We don't live in YOUR world. You go right ahead and pontificate, strut and puff out your chest about who is and who is not a Satanist. It matters to no one but yourself.

You are, quite clearly deluded and a man with significant issues. I really suggest you see a psychiatrist... no, not the VA... go see a civilian one. They work with people having invisible friends all of the time. Have Lilith fix you a box lunch. It's gonna be a long session.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#60604 - 10/30/11 01:10 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 862
Loc: Nashville
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
 Originally Posted By: William Wright
You dismiss Satanists who don’t believe in the existence of Satan as poseurs, yet you recognize those in your organization who don’t believe in the existence of Set as Setians. No hypocrisy there…

None at all. The term "Setian" refers specifically to formal affiliation with the Temple of Set, and neither the I° or II° of such affiliation requires apprehension of the source of our metaphysics - rather just an understanding of and commitment to our ethics, an interest in becoming skilled in [hence an Adept of] the Black Magic we teach, and a trust in the Priesthood of Set that its perception of and dedication to Set are authentic and sincere.

This is indeed much the same scenario as existed in the original 1966-75 Church of Satan. In short, if you became Satan's Priest, you became Satan's Priest. If you were a Satanist I° or Witch/Warlock II°, it was entirely permissible for you to take rituals or Black Magical workings on trust. A "blind faith" belief would have been [and was, when it occurred] viewed as inappropriate: a mere mirror-flip from the slave religions.

You can’t have it both ways, Dr. Aquino. Either you must believe in Satan/Set to be a Satanist/Setian, or you don’t have to. You can’t say that the Satanist without Satan/Setian without Set is a poseur, then say that you recognize them as a Satanist/Setian as long as they trust that the priesthood of their organization is authentic and sincere. Well, I guess you can say it if you want, but the less gullible here will see through your double-speak.
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#60605 - 10/30/11 02:44 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1641
Loc: Orlando, FL
Dr. Aquino, could you speak at any length about Satanism without referring to your heyday in the CoS? You seem to be preoccupied with the ToS/CoS split several decades ago, which really isn't relevant to many forum members here, aside from a couple of old-timers like Jake.

I think Diavolo's and other' posts have illustrated the breadth of Satanism categorically, that exist outside the basic models espoused by the pre/post '75 CoS. What is your response to these, such as the article quoted from Anton Long?


Edited by The Zebu (10/30/11 02:46 AM)
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#60606 - 10/30/11 02:51 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Zach_Black Offline
member


Registered: 05/14/11
Posts: 541
Loc: San Diego, California
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
[quote=Humpty Dumpty, in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass]
To those of us who were members of the original 1966-75 Church of Satan, however, the concept of Satanism, and the name of Satanist, were profoundly, explicitly, and precisely respected. In short, we did care. This was a commitment which demanded a great deal from each Satanist, and frequently at substantial personal cost. This adventure, which may be examined in my Church of Satan ebook, made heroes of all of them.


This kinda reminds me of the generation on its way out saying " Back in my day we had real music. We had real rock n' roll! Not this noise you dweeber snappers listen to today!"

No doubt times have changed. And Dr. Aquino wants to hold fast to the principles and beliefs he solidified himself in that era.

I fail to see how the evolution of Satanism makes one a poseur. I do not see how atheistic Satanism makes one less of a Satanist than a theistic Satanist. And you mention Dr. Aquino something about poseurs wearing Baphomet T-Shirts. I seem to remember you wearing some really large Baphomet medallions dressed up like it was Halloween . How is that different? If not entirely more comical all together.

I have checked out your E-Book ' The Church of Satan .'Several years back. From what I remember it is a colossal volume of epic proportions. Granted I only thumbed through it. But I could not help but feel I was only gonna find a little meat floating around in that word soup of butthurtness. Just sayin ....







Edited by blackzach (10/30/11 02:54 AM)
Edit Reason: type-o
_________________________
http://satanicinternationalnetwork.com/

Top
#60608 - 10/30/11 04:12 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
And still you didnt really adress mine or Jake's comments or questions. How come?

Your echoing of Mr. Dumpty doesn't require any further comment from me.


You made claim "of Satanism's original, centuries-established meaning" without providing any proof. Others here have provided information of the actual historic origins of the word Satanism and it doesnt support your claim at all since it has nothing to do with metaphysics or a sentient being.

Furthermore you keep claiming that Anton LaVey did believe in an actual Satan pre-1975 and while I too would say hes pretty vague in discussing the subject the audio snippet Jake provided pretty much spells it out.

You really have no comment at all on either of these two things? Both seems to prove you wrong - unless you have some unknown information from somewhere. How can you go around and claim something as true when you know the facts does not support your viewpoint? Is it that you cant defend your position? Or are you afraid to look silly if you change your mind after all these years?

 Originally Posted By: blackzach
I have checked out your E-Book ' The Church of Satan .'Several years back. From what I remember it is a colossal volume of epic proportions. Granted I only thumbed through it. But I could not help but feel I was only gonna find a little meat floating around in that word soup of butthurtness. Just sayin ....


Regardless if you agree with Aquino or not I would strongly recomend his CoS e-book. It provides a nice insight, a first hand perspective from one of the early high ranking members. And alot of people gets their voices heard since most of the book is built on correspondance in the form of letters.


Edited by TheInsane (10/30/11 04:15 AM)

Top
#60612 - 10/30/11 09:48 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: The Zebu]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: The Zebu
The Satanism of the ONA does, in fact, present Satan as being a name for a metaphysical/acausal being-- which only has precedent in Hebrew/Christian religion... but to his credit, the practical aspects of Satanism (heresy, transgression, antinomianism) outweigh the esoteric embellishments thereof (rituals, entities, occult correspondences, etc).


I don't know, if you read Eira; you'll encounter this:

 Quote:
Thus, Satanists do not follow gods. So what then of Satan, that greatly mis-understood living symbol? Satan is not tied to cultural phases, and does not in image represent a once great society.

Instead, Satan is the timeless flow of the cosmos, seeking existence. Satan is the grail itself, that secret guarded by the inadequate gods of our past.

Satan is the very essence of the striving to become a god - Satan is the arrogance within that enables us to leave behind the archaic gods, and to find the courage to be the new gods. Satan is how we live, how we die, and how we shall be after causal life. Satan is the word that when invoked presences the very essence of our striving and defiance. As a living Being, Satan desires new life, new expression, and the constant surpassing of each shadowy archetype created to represent Him.

As living Beings, when we are living right, we are Satan - both as individuals and collectively, as the new species of Human that is yet to be. Let us stop grovelling to old archetypes, stop forming fan-clubs for the Old Ones, and discard the superstition and academia that is so precious and so useless. We possess the creative genius to set in motion new Earth-shattering forms, and the arrogance to behave as the embodiment of the future that we, in essence, are.

The future implies an upward surge away from the near medieval times we still live in, and in this becoming of evolution, we do not need to seek answers from anywhere but within ourselves.

The future gods bear our names ...


That doesn't appear as a very Hebrew Satan to me.

Top
#60613 - 10/30/11 11:59 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Diavolo]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1641
Loc: Orlando, FL
I was referring to this statement:

 Quote:
According to this tradition [1], the being now known by the exoteric name Satan is one of The Dark Gods (a.k.a The Dark Ones), who are entities existing, living, in the acausal continuum [2]. This Satan [3] is The Prince of Darkness and of Chaos, and He – along with some other Dark Gods – is portrayed as a shapeshifter, capable of assuming human form, Who has visited, or been manifest, on Earth. at various times throughout our human history.


I would like to put this in proper context, in that the ONA's portrayal of Satan is multifaceted and can be expressed in different ways for different purposes.

Anton Long makes a very good case for the Occidental origins of Satanism, and he is mostly right. However, there is still some Hebrew/Nazarene influence mixed in there-- otherwise Satan would not be considered an "entity", or be called the Prince of Darkness, or be invoked in Black Masses, and the like.

Of course, these foreign elements are not central, and any Satanist with the slightest apprehension of noumena will soon find that Satan is much more than that, and can be described as the adversarial essence of reality, of which Satanists strive to partake.
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#60614 - 10/30/11 12:47 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: The Zebu]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Of course there is a Nazarene influence, largely because our whole culture is infested and as such, it expresses itself in our language and our metaphors.

Personally I don't find this very important, just like Satanism is useful but not essential. The whole essence could easily be moved into another cultural paradigm without losing potency. It would, as an example, be quite easy to switch the form and use Kali and the Panchamakara in the same sense as Satan and the Black masses are used now, even when this form wouldn't be that handy for us Westerners.

Top
#60622 - 10/30/11 02:16 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Diavolo]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1641
Loc: Orlando, FL
Exactly. The Sinister Current has manifested in a variety of environments, from the early cults of Dionysos and antinomian Gnosticism to radical tantra and Aghori asceticism. Satan has been the most potent embodiment of the Left in the Western soul for several centuries. The forms change but the essence remains the same.
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#60624 - 10/30/11 03:31 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: The Zebu]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Indeed, it manifests itself in a variety of environments.

I'm of the opinion, even when it is just my interpretation, that the origins of Satanism lead to the Far East and that there has been some cross-breeding of ideas during the times of early Gnosticism.

I see no praxis like this in the Nazarene, Hebrew, or Egyptian culture. As such, the claim that Set precedes Satan is a bit empty since the essence in those forms and the similarities of praxis lead in quite a different direction.

Top
#60630 - 10/30/11 04:45 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: The Zebu]
Latvian Offline
member


Registered: 07/15/11
Posts: 475
Loc: EU, Latvia, Riga (old town)
 Originally Posted By: The Zebu
...Satan has been the most potent embodiment of the Left in the Western soul for several centuries. The forms change but the essence remains the same...
I think I'm going to learn and someday quote! \:\)

Do I have to write Your nickname?!?
_________________________
In Sorte Diaboli

Top
#60649 - 10/30/11 08:14 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Diavolo]
Octavian Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/30/11
Posts: 81
Diavolo, that Eira quote moves me. That is getting close to how I see things. Did Long write that or someone else associated with ONA?

That is the Satanism of an old soul, of someone who sounds as though they have lived a thousand years; rather than some rebel without a cause or some punk, yelling about their revolution, fighting the system, culling, or whatever.

I more or more see Satan as that other behind the definitions and labels which have been forced upon "him."

"He" is nothing but the flesh and blood of humans who have, or can and will take the next step up towards greatness, towards their own Godhood.

Top
#60650 - 10/30/11 08:38 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Octavian]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
The version I got is dated 98 and the author is Beest.

If you google Eira and ONA, you'll find the whole piece quite easily.

Top
#60651 - 10/30/11 09:01 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Diavolo]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1641
Loc: Orlando, FL
 Quote:
I think I'm going to learn and someday quote! ... Do I have to write Your nickname?!?


Sure, go to town. ^^

 Quote:
I'm of the opinion, even when it is just my interpretation, that the origins of satanism lead to the Far East and that there has been some cross-breeding of ideas during the times of early Gnosticism.


It is well known that some Hellenic philosophers interacted with Hindu mystics in classical times. It is also speculated by a couple academics that the Bacchanalia (the ur-Black-Sabbat, in my opinion) was an import from the cult of Rudra-Shiva. Manichean religion spread as far east as China; who knows how mobile other currents were? Of course such links are mostly conjectures.

 Quote:

I see no praxis like this in the Nazarene, Hebrew, or Egyptian culture. As such, the claim that Set precedes Satan is a bit empty since the essence in those forms and the similarities of praxis lead in quite a different direction.


There are some elusive fragments here and there, but nothing definite. The problem with a reconstructionist approach is that you end up either falling back on outdated romanticism, or the absurdity of changing around your paradigm every time a historian publishes a new study.

It could be possible that there might have been some sort of a radical, anti-authoritarian cult to Set several thousand years ago, but such things remain purely in the realm of speculation.

I do not think it is possible to accurately grasp the essence of Set, because we are not privy to the subtleties of the Kemetic weltanschauung. A westerner who feels an affinity for Kali can at least go to India, immerse themselves completely in Hindu culture, and participate firsthand in Her mysteries (one such American even ended up becoming an Aghor monk), but until we invent a time machine (or kill Michael J. Fox and take his), there is not much we can do besides read books by people who have looked at carvings on a wall.

There is a certain tendency, I think, with pagans and occultists to go for the most "ancient" gods, because they seem somehow more authentic. But if you go back far enough, everything is a literal blur, and all you have to rely on are pottery shards and hieroglyphs in some forgotten tongue that may be the Romanised name of a local war deity, or it might be the Gallic word for "ass-pirate". Then neopagans write a book about the Ass-Pirate religion which is mostly recycled New-Ageism because you can't make a comprehensive system of metaphysics based on a pottery shard, then it somehow gains currency among hippies and a couple Llewellyn deals later, BAM, you have just made yourself a new god that for all you know, could just actually mean "Ass-Pirate". There is no sense spending so much effort digging around in the past, if you end up filling too many gaps with memes from the present.

This is an exaggeration, of course, but the reality isn't too far off. Not everyone has to roll with Satan, but there's no sense in reinventing the wheel, either.


Edited by The Zebu (10/30/11 09:04 PM)
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#60652 - 10/30/11 09:45 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: The Zebu]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
There have indeed been plenty or revivals of religions which people knew and still know close to nothing about. I only have to think of all those druids appearing during the 80ies who suddenly had whole reconstructed religions. Where I live some town names still remind us of their roots but besides some coins and pottery and some mentions in Roman documents, we know close to nothing about any religious practice. But that doesn't hinder those that really really wanna be like them.

It's a tricky affair trying to find the origins of what we call the satanic praxis because we are all great at only picking that what fits.

The way I see it there are two sorts of (religious) praxis; you got the slave approach where the followers are honoring their gods and fulfilling their desires and you got the scholar approach where the praxis is a quest for understanding. Most of these scholar approaches are situated in the Far East while the other parts are much more slave-inclined.

Gnosticism is like a crossbreed of both in which you clearly see some Hindi elements like the Brahman-Kali-Maya trinity. I wouldn't find it unlikely that Satanism, or at least a praxis as such whatever it was called before, originated there. There are many elements which have a similarity to specific Tantra approaches.

Of course, you can read into it whatever you like but if you start comparing the key-elements, to me they point obviously to the East.

Top
#60655 - 10/30/11 10:22 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Jake999]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Jake999
Michael Aquino defining me... novel. Here's a little tip for you, Aardvark boy. Nobody gives a rats ass what you think they SHOULD be. We don't live in YOUR world. You go right ahead and pontificate, strut and puff out your chest about who is and who is not a Satanist. It matters to no one but yourself.

Evidently my post mattered enough to you to prompt an insulting response. Nevertheless my comment concerning you was intended as a precise description of your actual dedication, ideology, and commitment, not as an insult. Throughout your posts here you affirm your admiration of and affection for Anton the man. Never once do I recall your expressing the slightest interest in Satan, the Prince of Darkness, in the Invocation within the Satanic Bible, the Baptism within the Satanic Rituals, or anything else pertaining specifically to Satan. Ergo you are logically not a Satanist, but an Antonist. If this correctly describes you, and if to you "Satanic" is actually an adjective which only goes as far as Anton's lifestyle and post-1975 nonSatan writings, what are you sore about - unless it is that you simply prefer the glamor, mystery, and Black Magical aura of calling yourself a Satanist?

As for my standing to speak for who is and is not a Satanist, I was an ordained Priest of Mendes III° and ultimately as a Magister Templi IV° the single highest Initiate of the Church next to Anton himself. So yes, actually, I think I am better qualified than anyone else on this planet to authenticate those who claim to take Satan's name. Since you ask.

 Quote:
You are, quite clearly deluded and a man with significant issues. I really suggest you see a psychiatrist... no, not the VA... go see a civilian one. They work with people having invisible friends all of the time. Have Lilith fix you a box lunch. It's gonna be a long session.

If Satan to you is a "delusional invisible friend", then I once again question your taking of his name. When you call yourself a "Satanist" to others, they naturally assume that you believe in and worship the Devil. [Except in the Humpty-Dumptyland of the 600C, of course.] You have the option to shatter this glamorous image with a followup Gilmoreism: "I'm a Satanist, but I don't believe in or worship Satan." Which, frankly, just makes you sound as ridiculous as he does when he blurts it.

Getting mad at me for pointing this out may serve to let some steam off, but when it subsides, the simple, basic semantic issue remains. It is a question of personal intellectual honesty.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60656 - 10/30/11 10:33 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3841
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
I find it flabbergasting that even after all this time, mikey here can't open his mind the iota it would take to realize the heterodox tradition manifest as Satanism does not fit his goofy strawman dichotomy.

Old dogs, new tricks and all that. Just for the record though, Set just called me up and ordained me as his new rep on earth. Sorry mike the gig is up.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#60657 - 10/30/11 10:41 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
Yeah, "Satanist" has to mean one who worships Satan because Buddhists worship Buddha. ;\)


 Quote:
When you call yourself a "Satanist" to others, they naturally assume that you believe in and worship the Devil.


Yeah, people are pretty stupid. Hell, you believe you have actually had contact with "Set".
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#60658 - 10/30/11 10:49 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
As for my standing to speak for who is and is not a Satanist, I was an ordained Priest of Mendes III° and ultimately as a Magister Templi IV° the single highest Initiate of the Church next to Anton himself. So yes, actually, I think I am better qualified than anyone else on this planet to authenticate those who claim to take Satan's name. Since you ask.


Which of course implies that when me and my buddies start some church and declare ourselves VIII°, then we become the next authority in Satanism.

Claiming authority upon fictitiousness never was a strong argument.

Top
#60659 - 10/30/11 10:59 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1641
Loc: Orlando, FL
 Quote:
As for my standing to speak for who is and is not a Satanist, I was an ordained Priest of Mendes III° and ultimately as a Magister Templi IV° the single highest Initiate of the Church next to Anton himself. So yes, actually, I think I am better qualified than anyone else on this planet to authenticate those who claim to take Satan's name.


And who do you think ordained you, and patched together the arbitrary psuedo-hierophancy into which you were ordained? Wait for it....

You sound like an 80s Wiccan at this point, going on about who-initiated-who like you're the heir to some unbroken ancient heritage handed down by Old Nick himself, when in reality you were just a bunch of nerds reading secondhand library books making everything up as you went along.

And also, you are far from the highest living authority on Satanism. You bailed out early in the game, and in the decades since then, countless other Satanists have gained more Sinister insight and experience than you ever could hope to have.

Many Satanists (myself included) are willing to give you a tip of the hat out of sheer respect, but please don't push your luck.

 Quote:
When you call yourself a "Satanist" to others, they naturally assume that you believe in and worship the Devil.


And when you say you are a Setian, they will give you a blank stare, and maybe ask if you're in "that weird Tom Cruise religion".

Furthermore, by that logic, should we start eating babies and sacrificing virgins because that's what Satanists are "supposed" to do?

Besides, I think most of us know what we're getting into when we take the title upon ourselves, nor do we care terribly for any innocent misconceptions the profane might make about our individual paths.

 Quote:
It is a question of personal intellectual honesty.


Any intellectually honest person knows that words have different layers of meaning. It is possible to accept the depth of Satanism without being afraid of ontological anarchy-- you should try it sometime.

Honestly, you're starting to sound like my granduncle, a stereotypical old man who often subjected me to half-senile rants about why modern music isn't actually "music" just because it doesn't sound like the stuff he listened to when he was younger.


Edited by The Zebu (10/30/11 11:24 PM)
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#60660 - 10/30/11 11:54 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: The Zebu]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: The Zebu
Dr. Aquino, could you speak at any length about Satanism without referring to your heyday in the CoS? You seem to be preoccupied with the ToS/CoS split several decades ago, which really isn't relevant to many forum members here, aside from a couple of old-timers like Jake.

My interest and credentials in Satanism per se derive specifically from my Priesthood and experience within the consecrated, literal Church of Satan 1966-75. Thereafter I went beyond its Judæo/Christian limitations finally and completely, as I think that any intelligent individual would do, having explored them as far as we did in those ten years.

So for the last 36 years I have never called myself a "Satanist". I see this term's continued use by others as either a sincere-but-limited aspiration (such as energized us in the Church) or more casually since the 1980s as a mere glamor affectation: the stuff of rock concerts and T-shirt Baphomets.

What interests me in this is the realization that many such expressions are a symptom of some individuals' isolate consciousnesses, of which, within a J/C cultural idiom, Satan is the personification.

Indeed, as I have mentioned before, I sense a great deal of this metamorphosis among 600Cers. Including from several of those who yell the loudest that they are locked into dead-end [not a bad double entendre] Atheism/materialism. Without this dawning realization of a great adventure awaiting them, what is the point of this forum? Just to natter on about amusing irrelevancies with other dead-enders? No, it's that weird, unique rush you get when you click on this URL and see that faint Baphomet staring back at you from atop the page.

Take Jake's anger at me above. What did I say about him that wasn't accurate? Yet his self-assessment is, I think, significantly beyond that of an ASLV-groupie. He sensed, I suspect, a significance in Anton LaVey that trancended his intelligence, personalty, and eccentricity: a door to the essence of humanity that he, however oddly, had found and pried open. Indeed I rather think that if Jake and I were discussing our frustrations over coffee, we'd find them to be much the same. And if either of us were asked about Anton "Why did you give that con-man the time of day?", both of us would feel an educational answer utterly beyond the questioner.

 Quote:
I think Diavolo's and other' posts have illustrated the breadth of Satanism categorically, that exist outside the basic models espoused by the pre/post '75 CoS. What is your response to these, such as the article quoted from Anton Long?

As amply demonstrated throughout COS, I am well aware that authentic Satanism was, and primitively still is, a function of the isolate consciousness in many cultures, including of course non-J/C ones. Wherever and whenever this impulse has surfaced, under whatever name, it is ultimately the same phenomenon.

This is an entirely different matter than merely generating excuses for glam-exploitation of the terms "Satanism/Satanist" by people who have not been driven by this ecstatic introspection, but just want a sinister social image.

As for David Myatt's writings, ask the ONAers here.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60662 - 10/31/11 12:31 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: The Zebu]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: The Zebu
... Many Satanists (myself included) are willing to give you a tip of the hat out of sheer respect, but please don't push your luck ...

Considering your obviously superior knowledge of all such matters, I really think you should dismiss all of my posts here as beneath the bother of reading. And of course go right on calling yourself a "Satanist". There, wasn't that easy?
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60663 - 10/31/11 01:09 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Octavian Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/30/11
Posts: 81
Dr, I sometimes really wish I could make that connection between my own unique isolate consciousness and a form/principle/Neter of isolate consciousness. If there is such a thing as a step across the abyss then that may be it for me, at least at this time.

I cannot quite apprehend Satan in the way you mention, though those who resonate with Satan I think necessarily engage in a form of becoming, of a process of moving ever towards greatness and individuated divinity, toward greater consciouness.

For better or worse it is all based on Atheism/materialism for me. As I mentioned above I feel that Satan is the silent other underneath the imposed definitions. Satan is the darkness within the immature characterisations, the doodlings and the drawings. It is this consciousness of Satan which interests me, along with other qualities of course.

Your invitation to apprehend the universal/form is the most challenging invitation I have been provided with here.

Top
#60665 - 10/31/11 01:51 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Octavian]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
Aardvark boy fails to mention that he gained those grand titles he so proudly proclaims as a member in good standing of the Church of Satan. When he left, they did not follow him in any way, except in his mind. He has NO standing. None. The only titles and associations he can rightfully claim are those he no holds by granting them to himself under the auspices of the Temple of Set. That and a buck will get you a cup of coffee in most cheap donut shops.

Really, man, have you no shame? You've reduced yourself to a joke here and probably elsewhere on the web as well. That's right. People ARE laughing at you. The cartoon I put up once of LaVey calling you a "Putz" was indeed farcical on its face, but how he came to see you.

To assume that you would anger me with your bullshit is farcical itself. You are a clown and a disgrace. You are a pompous, swaggering hot air bag whose entire
post 1975 life has been dedicated to self promotion at the expense of others. You've been shown to be a fraud, but in true Aquino fashion, think that people will ignore your bullshit be cause after all, you are "Mikey," which is what we called you post 1975... not Dr., or Magister or Priest... "Mikey."

I personally see you as pathetic, but I don't pity you. You've made yourself look like a damned fool. And now you wallow in it. I also personally think you might very well have been gay for LaVey... sorry, Charlie, but the boss didn't swing that way.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#60674 - 10/31/11 04:40 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
Dr. Aquino once again failed to adress the historical proof provided here that disproves his own position.

Did he forget or can it be that you do not have an answer? Bo-ho!

I find it interesting when a person is acting like an intellectual superior but cant really answer the most basic critique of the ideas he puts forth.

What is the meaning of discussing anything with you if you disregard valid arguments against your own standpoint? Why are you even here to discuss? Perhaps you have spent to much time in your "subjective universe". Is it already isolated from everything else? Is it that you now consider yourself a creator of worlds so you can define things the way you want without regard of what they actually mean to us lower level humans?

Top
#60676 - 10/31/11 06:47 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Antigod]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3125
 Quote:
I like Satanism, but isn't it pretty much what people do by default if their minds haven't been corrupted by religious crap?

I mean, isn't it basically atheism with rituals?

No it is not.
If it were Atheism with rituals it would be called along the lines of "ritualistic Atheism" or some blend of (a)gnosticism.

I can follow mikey with his statement of "believing in Satan to be Satanist", but it should be added that the interpretation of Satan is up to the readers own (dis)liking.


Edited by Dimitri (10/31/11 06:51 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#60679 - 10/31/11 08:11 AM Jake vs. Aquino, round ?? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Jason King Offline
Banned/Martyrdom Denied
active member


Registered: 10/24/10
Posts: 731
Loc: 65?1%833Q!92A24 (It's a code)
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
Does it make Jake a Satanist? Not unless Jake's actual allegiance and dedication was to Satan, not Anton. Otherwise, strictly speaking, he is an "Anton LaVeyist".


To me, this really nailed it. Not just the interpersonal thing, but the OP as well. Philosophers generally refer to themselves by school, which tend to be named after their founder(s) - e.g. a follower of Immanuel Kant is a Kantian; a follower of Aristotle is an Aristotelian. Religionists tend to refer to themselves by deity/tribe/dogma - e.g. a worshiper of the Cosmic Christ is a Christian; one who submits to Allah is a Muslim (one who submits . . .).

Now what does that make a Satanist? Was Satan a philosopher? Milton may be so dignified, and his character may have reached heights (depths) of understanding, but at the end of the day, there was never a "Satan Black," philosopher. In fact, the roots of LaVeyan philosophy are both well known and well documented. One part Epicurean, one part Randian (objectivist), one part Desmond . . . hell, just get an old SB or read Flowers' Lords of the Left Hand Path, chapter 9 (lol).

Here's what Aquino was saying (I think), and why it matters:

If a person self-designates as a "Satanist," then they should have some metaphysical reason for doing so. If their reasons are only romantic, vis a vis a literary figure reinterpreted, then perhaps they should adopt a better label. One more apt to their personal worldview.

Why? Well, in this case, I could ask why a person would choose the single greatest cultural Albatross in existence as their religious totem? Just because society took a shit on you?

"I'm a Satanist because God picked on Satan and I was picked on and I wear all black and listen to death metal and have a lot of piercings and I'm really into the Satanic Bible because it describes my angst perfectly and . . ."

How many times have we seen this exact dude (chick)? Anywho . . .

When I look to systems which intuit metaphysical vergences of Satan, I look first to Howard Bloom. Not Anton LaVaey. He was born a generation too early.

Any real Satanism must begin with a foundational understanding that the world is metaphysically adversarial. Not that it is un-anything, but that it is exactly what it is: The strong win, and the weak lose. And that this fact is given as the UR-philosophy of Satanism. Not because some dude said so, or "codified" anything, but because it is just the Nature of things.

And then, one might begin to get how such a thing is called a GOD.

JK
_________________________



Top
#60680 - 10/31/11 08:24 AM Re: Jake vs. Aquino, round ?? [Re: Jason King]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Jason King
Any real Satanism must begin with a foundational understanding that the world is metaphysically adversarial. Not that it is un-anything, but that it is exactly what it is: The strong win, and the weak lose. And that this fact is given as the UR-philosophy of Satanism. Not because some dude said so, or "codified" anything, but because it is just the Nature of things.

And then, one might begin to get how such a thing is called a GOD.


Not that I disagree but in such a case, one embraces true (or blind) adversarialism if one embraces Satanism. It's not that you then can pick and choose your Satan as done in what could be considered romantic Satanism. This is a process that just is, without any limitation. Milton's Satan is just as much as Set, as countless others, just someone's personal Jesus.






Top
#60681 - 10/31/11 09:26 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1641
Loc: Orlando, FL
 Quote:
As for David Myatt's writings, ask the ONAers here.


I refer to this article, which Diavolo quoted in full, but I'm guessing you didn't see because he's on your 'ignore' list. (Thanks for reminding me, D)

The Geryne of Satan

It establishes the case for a more historically-accurate analysis of the term "Satanism" as an adversarial approach in general, rather than a purely occult/religious phenomenon. Basically what we've been saying in a more organized way, with footnotes and citations to boot.

What are your thoughts on this?


Edited by The Zebu (10/31/11 09:45 AM)
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#60683 - 10/31/11 09:35 AM Re: Jake vs. Aquino, round ?? [Re: Jason King]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Jason King
To me, this really nailed it. Not just the interpersonal thing, but the OP as well. Philosophers generally refer to themselves by school, which tend to be named after their founder(s) - e.g. a follower of Immanuel Kant is a Kantian; a follower of Aristotle is an Aristotelian. Religionists tend to refer to themselves by deity/tribe/dogma - e.g. a worshiper of the Cosmic Christ is a Christian; one who submits to Allah is a Muslim (one who submits . . .).



Actually this is what has always been done even when not all agree with the categorizations. Satanists of the "school" of Lavey are mostly called Laveyans, just like the theistic "schools" are considered Traditionals. Moderns would be the school originating in Laveyan Satanism. The prefix is just there to indicate what line of thinking is represented in that sort of Satanism.

D.


Top
#60685 - 10/31/11 11:29 AM Re: Jake vs. Aquino, round ?? [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3841
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
I too agree that Satan is important to Satanism. From where I sit though, walking his walk, the walk that has been defined as evil, wrong, adversarial, transgressive, antinomian, heterodox, etc right here in the real is far more meaningful than assigning him to something as arbitrary as being self aware.

That whole 'man is uniquely special because he has been favoured and blessed by a diety' mess is best left to those other guys anyway.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#60686 - 10/31/11 12:20 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 862
Loc: Nashville
Dr. Aquino, I spent a lot of time visiting the ToS forum when I was a member. Not once do I recall you insulting members who did not believe in a literal Set by referring to them as Setian wannabes, "Setians without Set". Maybe you couldn’t bring yourself to it because they were so busy kissing your ass, or maybe you didn’t want a mass exodus on your hands. Regardless, the word hypocrisy again comes to mind.

If belief in Satan is fundamental to being an authentic Satanist, the same should hold true with regard to Set and Setians.
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#60687 - 10/31/11 12:28 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: William Wright]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
The criticism is somewhat silly and quite "pot-kettle". Now I'm no expert on Egyptology but I don't think I'm wrong if I say that the Temple of Set has little to do with the ancient religious approach towards the Set of those days. So when he criticizes satanists for not believing in Satan, one can ask him why he made up his own Set and doesn't limit himself to the practice around the old one. It's not because you pick something that was something in the past, a new created version suddenly get credentials.

Even Sethianism was well-defined before the Setians came along.

D.

Top
#60694 - 10/31/11 01:51 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Diavolo]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 862
Loc: Nashville
Aquino regards Set as a more accurate portrayal of Satan, without the boogeyman name and reputation. Aquino’s Temple of Set is, in his view, the sequel to the 1966-1975 Church of Satan – the CoS “grown up”. Therefore, it would seem that to Aquino, “worship of and allegiance to” (belief in) Set would be as fundamental to being an authentic Setian as belief in Satan is to being an authentic Satanist.
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#60696 - 10/31/11 02:04 PM Re: Jake vs. Aquino, round ?? [Re: Diavolo]
Goliath Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/26/10
Posts: 93
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
 Originally Posted By: Jason King
Philosophers generally refer to themselves by school, which tend to be named after their founder... Religionists tend to refer to themselves by deity/tribe/dogma...


Actually this is what has always been done even when not all agree with the categorizations. Satanists of the "school" of Lavey are mostly called Laveyans, just like the theistic "schools" are considered Traditionals. Moderns would be the school originating in Laveyan satanism. The prefix is just there to indicate what line of thinking is represented in that sort of satanism.


That's true, but it doesn't really address what Jason C. King was saying.

It's quite common for religious denominations and sects to be named after their founders. Within Christianity, for example, we find the Lutherans (named after Martin Luther) and the Calvinists (named after Jean Calvin), along with many smaller groups named after their founders. But what unites all these groups is their devotion to God and Jesus Christ, and if you ask any of them what they believe, they'll tell you that they're Christians.

Philosophies and philosophical schools, by contrast, are never named after some metaphysical or legendary figure. They're either named after their founder (e.g. Platonism or Epicureanism), or after some essential point of their teaching (e.g. empiricism or utilitarianism). The Stoics got their name from the painted porch where their founder, Zeno of Citium, taught his philosophy.

There are a few exceptions to this rule, such as Zoroastrianism, Manicheanism, and even Raelianism. And Buddhism, of course, is named after the Buddha--but Buddhists reject the notion of a supreme god. So, exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis. It's worth noting that Muslims reject the terms "Mohammedan" and "Mohammedanism," precisely because they worship Allah and not Mohammed.

The reasons for this should be clear. Gods are at the centers of religions, while philosophers and philosophical teachings are at the center of philosophies. Epicureans are Epicureans because they follow the teachings of Epicurus. Empiricists are empiricists because they believe there is nothing in the mind that was not first in the senses.

Christians, by contrast, are Christians because they worship Christ. This is why most Christians have always firmly rejected Unitarianism, or indeed, any doctrine that holds that Jesus of Nazareth was anything less than God Himself. It's also why conservative Christians continue to reject the insipid neo-Christianity of the Moderate Enlightenment, which tries to reduce religion to ethics, and worship to conduct--throwing out the Baby Jesus, but keeping the bathwater, as it were.

It seems to me that Dr. Aquino is arguing that philosophical Satanism is (at best) essentially the mirror-image of the Moderate Enlightenment's Christianity-without-Christ. And that, just as it makes no sense to talk of Christianity without Christ, it makes no sense to talk of Satanism without the Devil.

It's certainly possible to have a philosophy that's inspired by Devil worship, in the same way that Enlightenment Deists kept what they understood as Christian ethics, while rejecting Christian metaphysics. But Deism is not the same thing as Christianity--and given this fact, it seems inconsistent to use the name "Satanism" to describe a philosophy that was merely inspired thereby. If you subscribe to the teachings of Anton LaVey, then perhaps you should just call yourself a Laveyan. If your goal is to "manifest as the Adversary," then perhaps you should just call yourself an Adversarialist, or something.

I'm not sure that I agree with Aquino's argument. But I see his point.
_________________________
An illusion--with intelligence! A malignant vision, with a will of pure evil!

Top
#60700 - 10/31/11 02:33 PM Re: Jake vs. Aquino, round ?? [Re: Goliath]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
You say yourself there are exceptions. So yes you could say that if (Laveyan) Satanism is a philosophy, it should, conform the tradition, be called Laveyism and if it is religious, Satanism is the correct label.

But, and this is where it differs, Satanism is a praxis and as such, satan symbolizes this praxis, identical as Tao in Taoism. In Tao, the path is the only importance and this does not differ in Satanism. Therefor I see absolutely no conflict in the use of Satan in Satanism. It even becomes more logical when considering the roots Long provided for Satan. Satan is the Tao in Satanism.

D.

Top
#60703 - 10/31/11 02:48 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Jake999]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Jake999
Aardvark boy fails to mention that he gained those grand titles he so proudly proclaims as a member in good standing of the Church of Satan. When he left, they did not follow him in any way, except in his mind ...

You really should take the time to read COS. I disassociated myself from the Church organization when Anton made his decision to corrupt its initiatory degrees, including the Priesthood itself. I [and the approximately 100 others who left with me] regarded the Temple of Set as the legitimate continuation of the Church, albeit expanded "into a larger universe". So I no more left my Priesthood behind me than I left my doctorate behind me when I left the University of California.

 Quote:
The only titles and associations he can rightfully claim are those he no holds by granting them to himself under the auspices of the Temple of Set.

Set Recognized me to the V° of Magus in the Book of Coming Forth by Night, a document and decision which I and the other founders of the Temple of Set regarded as authentic. As for the degree of Ipsissimus VI°, please note in Appendix #8 of TOS that it [as all the other Setian degrees] involves a very methodical and careful evaluation process prior to formal Recognition.

 Quote:
That and a buck will get you a cup of coffee in most cheap donut shops.

Unfortunately, unlike the "Church of Satan" degrees after 1975, there is no cash value whatever to any of the Setian degrees. You would have to rely upon just your $1 bill.

 Quote:
Really, man, have you no shame? You've reduced yourself to a joke here and probably elsewhere on the web as well. That's right. People ARE laughing at you. The cartoon I put up once of LaVey calling you a "Putz" was indeed farcical on its face, but how he came to see you.

I don't hear much laughter, actually, and that which I do comes from those who really have no accurate idea why they are laughing. Thus it is merely an emotional defense mechanism to reassure their ignorance.

As for Anton LaVey, he disgraced himself and his High Priesthood in front of the entire Church, and I was in the unenviable position of having to reject his actions - not just privately, but in front of the entire Church, whereupon it immediately and completely disintegrated outside the front door of 6114 California Street. Whatever cartoons of me Anton drew to share with sycophants at that point don't concern me.

 Quote:
To assume that you would anger me with your bullshit is farcical itself. You are a clown and a disgrace. You are a pompous, swaggering hot air bag whose entire post 1975 life has been dedicated to self promotion at the expense of others.

This and your previous post are awash in purely-emotional insults and denunciations, which usually means anger.

For my post-1975 life please see my Vitæ. Such promotions as I have received have come from institutions such as the Army and Golden Gate University.

 Quote:
You've been shown to be a fraud, but in true Aquino fashion, think that people will ignore your bullshit be cause after all, you are "Mikey," which is what we called you post 1975... not Dr., or Magister or Priest... "Mikey."

Actually that nickname was originally applied to me in 1988 by Chaplain Adams-Thompson in his attempt to frame Lilith and myself for his fictitious "SRA" scam. When investigators later interviewed Anton, he made it a point to repeatedly call me "Mikey" throughout the interview, as well as accusing me of trying to rape Karla and perform fellatio on him. All of which was easy to refute with years of his informal letters & notes to "Michael", Karla's & my close-friendly correspondence through 1975, my correspondence with Anton & Diane through 1975, and my lifelong heterosexuality. All Anton's performance showed was how low he had sunk, to try so disgustingly to further the frame (which, had it been successful, could have resulted in Lilith's and my deaths in prison). So much for "Mikey".

 Quote:
I personally see you as pathetic, but I don't pity you. You've made yourself look like a damned fool. And now you wallow in it.

Well, we shall have to let others here judge as to which one of us has lessened his stature in this exchange.

 Quote:
I also personally think you might very well have been gay for LaVey... sorry, Charlie, but the boss didn't swing that way.

As noted above, Anton already tried that line with the FBI, and it fell as flat then as now. If this is what you're reducing yourself to, Jake, my sympathies.

And all just because I suggested that your actual loyalty was to Anton and not Satan, hence should not technically be called a "Satanist"?
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60705 - 10/31/11 03:08 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Diavolo]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
I don't think I'm wrong if I say that the Temple of Set has little to do with the ancient religious approach towards the Set of those days.

Cf. Chapter #2 of Black Magic and Chapter #3 of TOS. Actually over the decades the Temple of Set has done a substantial amount of research into many aspects of ancient Egypt involving or reflecting the ancient awareness of Set. This has resulted in many papers, Scroll of Set articles, etc. - far too numerous to address here.

The popular image of the "Egyptian Set" is simply the Osirian-cult version, spread through writings dating from the post-XX Dynasty Egyptian decadence. We have been interested in the original, which dates to predynastic times.

Is today's Temple of Set something evolutionary when compared to back-then? Of course. Nevertheless we are satisfied that we continue to acknowledge and respect Set's earliest, as well as his contemporary significance.

While all this is very interesting, I think it departs from the actual thread topic of the "Satanism/Satanist" label.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60706 - 10/31/11 03:23 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1641
Loc: Orlando, FL
 Quote:
I [and the approximately 100 others who left with me] regarded the Temple of Set as the legitimate continuation of the Church, albeit expanded "into a larger universe". So I no more left my Priesthood behind me than I left my doctorate behind me when I left the University of California.


Yes, but such titles are worthless to us, because the CoS priesthood (along with that of nearly every other upstart cult) was totally bunk. I'm sure it was a nice group psychology exercise, but I'm not going to give any sort of spiritual credence to an upstart NRM that hadn't even been around for a decade. Seriously. Did Anton "lay his hands" on you? (On second though, I don't think I wanna know)

 Quote:
Set Recognized me to the V° of Magus in the Book of Coming Forth by Night, a document and decision which I and the other founders of the Temple of Set regarded as authentic.


Wouldn't it be nice if everybody learned from Crowley's mistakes, instead of deliberately repeating them? Really. Anyone can pull automatic writing out of their proverbial (and sometimes literal) ass. An iconoclastic libertine produces a "spiritual revelation" that looks like it was written by an iconoclastic libertine. A disgruntled CoS member produces a "spiritual revelation" that looks like it was written by (...and here's the kicker) a disgruntled CoS member. Who woulda thunk it?

Satanism is not a "religion" like that of the Nazarene. There are no churches, no seminaries, no ancient convoluted dogmas, no bogus claims of authority, no holy gurus to adulate.

 Quote:
Is today's Temple of Set something evolutionary when compared to back-then? Of course. Nevertheless we are satisfied that we continue to acknowledge and respect Set's earliest, as well as his contemporary significance.


Exactly. And I'm sure most of us also acknowledge and respect the significance of Satan.


Edited by The Zebu (10/31/11 03:25 PM)
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#60707 - 10/31/11 03:40 PM Re: Jake vs. Aquino, round ?? [Re: Goliath]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: Goliath
It seems to me that Dr. Aquino is arguing that philosophical Satanism is (at best) essentially the mirror-image of the Moderate Enlightenment's Christianity-without-Christ. And that, just as it makes no sense to talk of Christianity without Christ, it makes no sense to talk of Satanism without the Devil.


I would agree with this. There is no Satanism without Satan. What I was reacting to, and still havent gotten an answer to, was the narrow definition of what Satan is and how this definition would somehow be the original (for ”centuries established”). There is nothing to support this claim.

However a few years back I was discussing the Satan issue alot with people and soemtimes with LaVeyans as well. At the time it seemed like most LaVeans made the claim that ”Satanism has nothing to do with Satan” or that ”we dont believe in Satan”. This is obviously proposturous and not very well thought through.

With only a tiny bit of knowledge on the Satan charachter its easy to see how even LaVeyan Satanism is ultimately resting on an interpretation of said carachter. How anyone could miss this is beyond me.

However, this is not to say that they neccessarily believe in a metaphysical being. I think a Satanist can be an Atheist or a theist. I myself tend to view my own belieft in a more philosophical light. There is an aspect of what I regard as Satan that I cannot prove to be true beyond all doubt (the boundless darkness, original chaos from which order stems from etc). Am I a theist? No, I dont consider Satan to be a god or a being or something concious. It just is and in this regard I can share the general view that Jason King seems to have on the subject.

The second part of this is the view on the method of gaining insight and knowledge. The mythical part of Satan provides a certain path, or paths even, to gain insights (”adversarial, transgressive, antinomian, heterodox”). This has been called by many names but the traditional left hand path concept embodies this the best purely as a method.



I hope the spelling was alright. My spell checker doesnt work atm. \:\/

Top
#60708 - 10/31/11 03:52 PM Re: Jake vs. Aquino, round ?? [Re: TheInsane]
dust-e sheytoon Offline
member


Registered: 08/23/11
Posts: 206
Loc: NYC
I'm interested in pragmatic scientific applications of Dark Energies, by whatever names. I realize that semantics, philosophy, public relations and even celebrity are important, but the intersection of metaphysics, metamind and logic captures my interest most.

Edited by dust-e sheytoon (10/31/11 03:55 PM)
_________________________
Fly for your lives! A great magician comes! He summons armies from the earth itself! ~ ArabianNights

Top
#60709 - 10/31/11 03:57 PM Re: Jake vs. Aquino, round ?? [Re: TheInsane]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
I would agree with this. There is no Satanism without Satan. What I was reacting to, and still havent gotten an answer to, was the narrow definition of what Satan is and how this definition would somehow be the original (for ”centuries established”). There is nothing to support this claim.


The problem here is that you don't necessarily have to look at Satan as a deity. In Sophism some entity called Sophy isn't the element but something meaning "a dude that deals in wisdom". If you don't think of Satan as an entity but also as "a dude that deals in opposition", it is quite similar.

And this is much closer to what Satanism is. It isn't some philosophical school of thinking but a practical manner of living and as such, either the manner of living, or the label for living as such, is central.

Of course to Mike Satan has to be "real" because else Set can't be real. By linking them, the one falls with the other.

D.

Top
#60710 - 10/31/11 04:11 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino

You really should take the time to read COS. I disassociated myself from the Church organization when Anton made his decision to corrupt its initiatory degrees, including the Priesthood itself. I [and the approximately 100 others who left with me] regarded the Temple of Set as the legitimate continuation of the Church, albeit expanded "into a larger universe". So I no more left my Priesthood behind me than I left my doctorate behind me when I left the University of California.

You might consider yourself sane as well, however, that does not make it so, and your actions and delusions clearly point to that NOT being the case. Just because YOU consider the use and retention of Church of Satan titles to be legitimate in some way or form is irrelevant. You can consider money stolen from a bank to be legitimately yours, but that make it so.


Set Recognized me to the V° of Magus in the Book of Coming Forth by Night, a document and decision which I and the other founders of the Temple of Set regarded as authentic. As for the degree of Ipsissimus VI°, please note in Appendix #8 of TOS that it [as all the other Setian degrees] involves a very methodical and careful evaluation process prior to formal Recognition.

SET recognized you? The Aardvark talks to you... delusional. Whether you consider the recommends of some invisible friend to be legitimate or not is a matter between you and a mental health professional. Those of us who are thinking and rational human beings will of course need proof... no your book is not proof. Your book is simply a record of that delusion as it occurred to you.


[quote}

I don't hear much laughter, actually, and that which I do comes from those who really have no accurate idea why they are laughing. Thus it is merely an emotional defense mechanism to reassure their ignorance.

You really should look into Beltone hearing aids. I understand you can get them in a variety of colors these days.

 Quote:

As for Anton LaVey, he disgraced himself and his High Priesthood in front of the entire Church, and I was in the unenviable position of having to reject his actions - not just privately, but in front of the entire Church, whereupon it immediately and completely disintegrated outside the front door of 6114 California Street. Whatever cartoons of me Anton drew to share with sycophants at that point don't concern me.

The only disgrace was in bringing a clown like you into the Church of Satan. LaVey was a man, prone to mistakes as any, yet more of a mensch than some wannabe Ipsissimus who had to couch his personal vanity and unoriginality in the visitations of some invisible friend. Jesus, Mars, Odin, Set... they are man made constructs, yet you simply couldn't get people to listen to what YOU had to say without claiming some direct line to divinity. That, to my mind is FAILURE.

[quote]
This and your previous post are awash in purely-emotional insults and denunciations, which usually means anger.

LOL! If I was angry, I make housecalls.

For my post-1975 life please see my Vitæ. Such promotions as I have received have come from institutions such as the Army and Golden Gate University.

I think I can speak for many here when I say, "WHO GIVES A RATS ASS?"

[Quote]
Actually that nickname was originally applied to me in 1988 by Chaplain Adams-Thompson in his attempt to frame Lilith and myself for his fictitious "SRA" scam. When investigators later interviewed Anton, he made it a point to repeatedly call me "Mikey" throughout the interview, as well as accusing me of trying to rape Karla and perform fellatio on him.

LOL! Good story though... if it had happened, either one of them would have kicked your ass, Mikey.

[quote]
Well, we shall have to let others here judge as to which one of us has lessened his stature in this exchange.

I'm standing tall. I have no doubt that that those who've interacted with me for years will know that I call 'em like I see 'em. Some have questioned when I have supported you in some attacks against you... but I did it because in those instances you were right. And I don't have to like someone to be fair.

[quote]I also personally think you might very well have been gay for LaVey... sorry, Charlie, but the boss didn't swing that way.


If you didn't come off like a whiny, jilted lover, people would not get that impression. And no, I am not the only one who's though it.

[quote]
And all just because I suggested that your actual loyalty was to Anton and not Satan, hence should not technically be called a "Satanist"?

What you suggest of me is of little or no consequence. You have no right or authority. You have no idea about me... you suppose. You have no authority to determine what any one thinks or feels beyond the one that looks back at you from your mirror.

Yes LaVey was my friend and my mentor, and yes I follow his system of Satanism. What of it? When you admit that your Aardvark encounter was simply delusion and you used it as a literary construct around which you formed the Temple of Set, perhaps you will have some credibility. SOME... not much.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#60711 - 10/31/11 04:44 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
 Quote:
Set Recognized me to the V° of Magus in the Book of Coming Forth by Night, a document and decision which I and the other founders of the Temple of Set regarded as authentic.


This just in: Set has recognized me to the DCLXVI° of Ultimate Satanic Bad Ass of Ultimate Satanic Bad Assery PhD Esq. LLC Inc.^∞! This has just been documented here, on this very forum. And all of you WILL recognize it as legitimate or I will piss and moan henceforth, call all of you posers, write an E-book which I will plug at any and every opportunity and lord over each and everyone of you with my imaginary title and smug emoticons. >[:|]

 Quote:

Unfortunately, unlike the "Church of Satan" degrees after 1975, there is no cash value whatever to any of the Setian degrees. You would have to rely upon just your $1 bill.


Clearly, that one was way over your head.


Edited by 6Satan6Archist6 (10/31/11 04:47 PM)
Edit Reason: Lengthening my imaginary title
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#60712 - 10/31/11 04:49 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
Dan:

Lest we forget...

_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#60713 - 10/31/11 04:50 PM Re: Jake vs. Aquino, round ?? [Re: Diavolo]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
I would agree with this. There is no Satanism without Satan. What I was reacting to, and still havent gotten an answer to, was the narrow definition of what Satan is and how this definition would somehow be the original (for ”centuries established”). There is nothing to support this claim.


The problem here is that you don't necessarily have to look at Satan as a deity. In Sophism some entity called Sophy isn't the element but something meaning "a dude that deals in wisdom". If you don't think of Satan as an entity but also as "a dude that deals in opposition", it is quite similar.

And this is much closer to what Satanism is. It isn't some philosophical school of thinking but a practical manner of living and as such, either the manner of living, or the label for living as such, is central.

Of course to Mike Satan has to be "real" because else Set can't be real. By linking them, the one falls with the other.

D.


I agree which is why I consider Satanism to possibly be atheistic or theistic - or something in between or totally other. It is not the existence or non-existence of a being that is central but the very path that one walks.

Top
#60714 - 10/31/11 05:45 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
Cf. Chapter #2 of Black Magic and Chapter #3 of TOS. Actually over the decades the Temple of Set has done a substantial amount of research into many aspects of ancient Egypt involving or reflecting the ancient awareness of Set. This has resulted in many papers, Scroll of Set articles, etc. - far too numerous to address here.

The popular image of the "Egyptian Set" is simply the Osirian-cult version, spread through writings dating from the post-XX Dynasty Egyptian decadence. We have been interested in the original, which dates to predynastic times.

Is today's Temple of Set something evolutionary when compared to back-then? Of course. Nevertheless we are satisfied that we continue to acknowledge and respect Set's earliest, as well as his contemporary significance.

While all this is very interesting, I think it departs from the actual thread topic of the "Satanism/Satanist" label.



That's all good but we both know that ancient Egypt was polytheistic, except that short interlude. So if we assume Set to be an "entity", why would it be different for all those other gods? Why not accept them all?

The same goes for Satan. One can hardly consider Satan as real and not acknowledge the one he is opposing.

D.

Top
#60715 - 10/31/11 06:06 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Diavolo]
Octavian Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/30/11
Posts: 81
To be fair, I think the Temple of Set does accept these other divinities. I believe they are the Neteru, or principles or Platonic type forms of the Objective Universe.

Set is regarded as the form/principle which is distinguished against the Neter's of the objective universe, since "he" is the neter of isolate consciousness and hence can only be apprehended subjectively.

I am a rationalist/Darwinist and require evidence to support assertions. In this case none can be provided, however, with regards to Set as it has to be something happening in your own head which you perceive/apprehend. It is therefore Frustrating to me at times.

I certainly take your point on the opposer of a real Satan being a real God/Jeebus. That is one reason why I cannot accept Satan as real in the Christian sense.

Top
#60718 - 10/31/11 06:28 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Octavian]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Octavian
To be fair, I think the Temple of Set does accept these other divinities. I believe they are the Neteru, or principles or Platonic type forms of the Objective Universe.

Set is regarded as the form/principle which is distinguished against the Neter's of the objective universe, since "he" is the neter of isolate consciousness and hence can only be apprehended subjectively.


That's all good but we run into some problems through the linkage. Let's assume Set is the smart cookie but since he is the predecessor of Satan, how does he end up not only created but also serving some higher force; god? As Satan he had to rebel and didn't really turn out to be the strongest. So when Satan isn't the smartest cookie, Set isn't either. God is. And when we have to accept that god as real, he was there too when the Egyptians ruled.

Of course it's all myth and we could start to toy with it, but either we call it all bullshit and accept the origins of all those stories were probably much more humane than divine or we call it all true because you can't say one is false without all being false.

D.


Edited by Diavolo (10/31/11 06:31 PM)

Top
#60719 - 10/31/11 07:16 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Diavolo]
felixgarnet Offline
active member


Registered: 10/17/09
Posts: 688
Loc: UK
For a look at the historical and cultural to Satan over time, tonight's documentary looks interesting:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b016ptr6es

I don't know if this is accessible to international users of BBC on line but I'll be catching it and will report back. \:\)

Sorry, seems the link is broken.. Google "Hamilton BBC in search of Satan".


Edited by felixgarnet (10/31/11 07:17 PM)
Edit Reason: link
_________________________
"Here's to Artifice!" - Anton Szandor LaVey.

Top
#60721 - 10/31/11 08:10 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Diavolo]
Octavian Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/30/11
Posts: 81
I may have misunderstood Setian metaphysics, but I believe that the Neter's of the objective universe are non-conscious principles. They are mechanistic, non-conscious principles which in a sense regulate the functioning of the OU.

Set is so weird and distinct and out of place precisely because "he" is the universal of consciousness, which is non-natural and distinct/against the OU.

I don't think there is a God which Set reports to or rebels against. That thinking is a part of the J/C metaphysics which the Setian's have stepped out of I think.

I don't think Set was created, nor were any of the Neteru created as they are timeless universals.

Top
#60722 - 10/31/11 08:23 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Octavian]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3841
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
You are correct, The thing about creative writing is you can use plot devices to recant it how you like, and a grounding in any sort of reality is not really important.

The fact is that is a very creative story, but it is an article of faith to draw a distinction between (human)consciousness and everything else.

A leap of faith no different than accepting a nazarene redeemer or the will of lord xenu and really bares little in common with historical examples of heterodox tradition. That the ToS is a tax exempt religion makes it defacto an orthodoxy, which leaves any claim ol mikey here makes to the philosophical high ground
quite tenuous.

The mans boner for being self conscious does not tie into the devils providence in any meaningful way that I can tell.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#60723 - 10/31/11 08:31 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Octavian]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Octavian
I may have misunderstood Setian metaphysics, but I believe that the Neter's of the objective universe are non-conscious principles. They are mechanistic, non-conscious principles which in a sense regulate the functioning of the OU.

Set is so weird and distinct and out of place precisely because "he" is the universal of consciousness, which is non-natural and distinct/against the OU.

I don't think there is a God which Set reports to or rebels against. That thinking is a part of the J/C metaphysics which the Setian's have stepped out of I think.

I don't think Set was created, nor were any of the Neteru created as they are timeless universals.



But that's not the point. This is all well if Set had nothing to do with Satan but because of that claim, one runs into a load of inconsistencies, especially when upholding Satan as a reality.

The argumentation for a real Satan is identical to the argumentation for a real god so either you take them both, or you take none. And Satan is defined in those myths, even when fragmented. If you take the key-elements of Set, like the gift and his ethical framework, the distinction of man from all other animals and look for those in the Biblical myths, the entity most fitting is actually Yahweh. Because Satan is nothing Set is; he's not a nice guy and humanity isn't his favorite toy. It's the other guy that provided all.

Of course, this would attract a whole different crowd.

D.

Top
#60725 - 10/31/11 09:57 PM Re: Jake vs. Aquino, round ?? [Re: Goliath]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Goliath
.. It seems to me that Dr. Aquino is arguing that philosophical Satanism is (at best) essentially the mirror-image of the Moderate Enlightenment's Christianity-without-Christ. And that, just as it makes no sense to talk of Christianity without Christ, it makes no sense to talk of Satanism without the Devil.

Well put; and as noted we live in a time of widespread sloppy & convenient redefinition of a great many terms. Traditionalists or purists are frequently shrugged off as dinosaurs if anyone bothers with them at all.

Take "terrorism". When I went through Special Forces & PSYOP training in the 60s/70s, this had a very specific meaning: acts of violence against a civilian populace by a guerrilla organization to intimidate them into silence and cooperation. Today "terrorism" is just a label slapped on anyone inconvenient or annoying to any established government. [Ask your friends what "a terrorist/terrorism" is and note the vacant stares.]

A generation ago the knee-jerk term was "Communism" (with a capital-C), and before that "Fascism" & "Naziism", all of which were played to evoke hysterical public salivation.

"Satanism" itself went through a seriously-dangerous spasm of this sort in the 80s-90s with the infamous "Satanic Panic", during which it was popularly, if dimly understood to be an international cannibalistic baby-sacrificing, child-raping generational conspiracy. It took those of us who had credentials in the modern Satanic religion years of effort to refute this, often at considerable personal danger [as in the attack against Lilith & myself].

Any term, any concept, must first be clearly defined, then judged whether it is worth standing up for. In this process each person must necessarily decide whether it applies to him, and if so how. In short, you will have to live with the result, so if you are going to take up a cause, take the time to understand it first - which doesn't mean just waving the Sign of the Horns at an Ozzy concert.

The 600C gets good marks for coming to grips with this problem. Where Satanism is concerned, I may be an anachronistic fundamentalist from the 1960s, but I do see a great deal of serious thought here, including from some of the jerks. All this is good; it shows that whatever else may be said about it ["Favorite porn sites"!?], the 600C is certainly not a Pavlov dog kennel.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60735 - 10/31/11 11:26 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Diavolo]
Octavian Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/30/11
Posts: 81
Obviously Dr. Aquino and Jake can speak about this better than I can, but I believe that the CoS pre and post 1975 regarded Yahweh/Jehovah/God etc. as merely a balancing principle or a non-conscious non-caring balancing principle.

I am not going to get into the whole pre 1975 thing about the meaning of Satan that the CoS as a whole held. I leave that to Jake and Dr. Aquino to present. Aquino states that what the Church said publicly is different from what they came to experience over time regarding the nature of Satan.

From the point of view of Dr. Aquino, going from my understanding of his writings, it appears that the division between the SU and OU and the division of Satan as the God/principle/form of consciousness, against the non - conscious Yahweh as the God/form/principle of the OU was there right from the CoS days. It was clothed in the imagery of J/C tradition and more or less its metaphysics.

I won't talk about LaVey, Jake can do this better than me. But as Jake pointed out there is plenty of stuff out there where LaVey made himself very clear regarding his views on Satan.

Sorry, this probably comes across as waffling, but the tradition of a real conscious Satan against a real conscious God appears to have been transcended right from the very start of the CoS. And by that I mean there was no belief in God because God was just a non-conscious balancing principle.


Edited by Octavian (10/31/11 11:39 PM)
Edit Reason: Marked again

Top
#60736 - 10/31/11 11:36 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Diavolo]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
... That's all good but we both know that ancient Egypt was polytheistic, except that short interlude. So if we assume Set to be an "entity", why would it be different for all those other gods? Why not accept them all?

As previously discussed, yes indeed; the distinction being that they are forces/principles/Forms of nature (the OU), while Set is the neter distinct from the OU.

 Quote:
The same goes for Satan. One can hardly consider Satan as real and not acknowledge the one he is opposing.

This was one of, if not the central metaphysical problem within the original Church of Satan. Obviously it was not started as the consequence of some exhaustive theological symposium, but rather because Anton and his pre-1966 "Magic Circle" friends were becoming more focused on & fascinated with humanity as the Joker in the deck of nature. That totality-of-nature was the nonconscious, deistic "God" of the "Book of Lucifer", while Satan was whoever or whatever, within or without individual humans, enabled their separate perspective and discretionary will.

This was a very simple "initial equation", and after the Church was formally started, no one felt any compelling need to complicate or refine it. Most of what we did was to simply have fun with it, and to tweak the noses of those who weren't.

The slave religions, after all, are profoundly fucked up in both concept and application. Very few Satanists - just those who had had bad religious indoctrination experiences, etc. - wanted to bother with them beyond an occasional Black Mass or whoopie cushion (essentially the same thing). Rather we wanted to explore everything about Satan, who/which quickly assumed dimensions far beyond the classical J/C Devil-cartoon. This quest, along with continuing to have fun, sums up the 1966-75 Church.

Black Magic was thus an applied aspect of this. We discovered the reality and effectiveness of both LBM & GBM, so used them. Over time we also sought to understand what they actually were and why they worked, but in the meantime we were perfectly happy just doing them.

Understand: None of us had the slightest expectation that the Church was going to terminate in 1975. We all assumed that we had plenty of time to zero in on the physics and metaphysics of what we were doing.

What characterized and distinguished the Satanic Priesthood III° in this was a sense of awareness and conviction that what we were, and what we were doing, had an authentic metaphysical consecration to it: that it was not just an interesting and entertaining quest, but a sacred one as well. In this sense, "sacred" meant that it had an excellence and a virtue beyond its various incidental and apparent manifestations. If this applied to and ultimately motivated you, you were its Priest or Priestess. If you didn't experience it, and were simply satisfied to use and explore Black Magical tools, you were a Satanist I° or Witch/Warlock II°.

This is much the same distinction between the I°/II° and III° in the Temple of Set, incidentally, though the toolbox is now much bigger and the experience of Priesthood significantly more explicit.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60737 - 11/01/11 12:15 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
This was one of, if not the central metaphysical problem within the original Church of Satan. Obviously it was not started as the consequence of some exhaustive theological symposium, but rather because Anton and his pre-1966 "Magic Circle" friends were becoming more focused on & fascinated with humanity as the Joker in the deck of nature. That totality-of-nature was the nonconscious, deistic "God" of the "Book of Lucifer", while Satan was whoever or whatever, within or without individual humans, enabled their separate perspective and discretionary will.


The metaphysical problem remains. One can interpret Satan as a conscious agent in a non-conscious all-encompassing “God” but there is very little mythological evidence supporting this unless one accepts Satan as Ha-Satan, “The Satan”, he who represents a specific type of human. Which has more evidence pointing into that direction. But such would imply that Satan is only real when being manifested by humans; only when becoming the Satan, there is a Satan. Of course such would exclude Satan as an entity, and god for that matter.

D.

Top
#60738 - 11/01/11 01:19 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 862
Loc: Nashville
Dr. Aquino, do you consider members of your organization who do not believe in a literal Set, who think of Set only in symbolic terms, to be authentic Setians? If so, why do you consider Satanists with a similar take on Satan not to be authentic Satanists?
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#60739 - 11/01/11 01:54 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: William Wright]
Aznebtra Offline
lurker


Registered: 05/03/11
Posts: 1
This may not be the appropriate thread for this topic, but since many have already resorted to name calling that should not matter too much.

I joined the Temple of Set two months ago, curious to find out the truth for myself after having heard such mixed reviews. I was very surprised to discover this thread, with Dr. Aquino having posted only 15 minutes before I clicked. I have not seen maquino active on any forums or temple communications, (that I have access to as a first degree) since I’ve joined the Temple. Even more surprising is that this seems to be a mutual act of trolling, by the disagreeing parties. (The two particularly bitter ones around the same age perhaps? I try to imagine my dad of this age doing this and it is completely absurd, and these people are supposed to embody a better state of being that the path of Satanism says you can achieve?) My main concern is, what is someone who is supposed to be as enlightened as the temple claims, doing trolling the internet during their evenings?

I don’t remember where I read this, as I’ve read a lot lately from different sources, but to paraphrase, you can judge the worth of a (magical/philosophical) system by the quality of its students/practitioners. I’m still in the state of “mutual evaluation” with ToS and this discovery seems a bit silly.

Perhaps it’s an example of students surpassing their teachers? He can provide a jumping off point, a different point of view at times, things obtained after lots of thought and work, and people have only to gain from that and move farther and hopefully beyond what he was able to achieve, especially if that resulted in trolling the internet for dissenters to his philosophy when he’s in his sixties.

Another note is that ToS has rules against simple bashing, so perhaps this is the more interesting forum to participate in? But still, really? Petty internet fights? What is this Ipssissimus if it’s not gotten past engaging in this behavior?

Top
#60744 - 11/01/11 03:16 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Aznebtra]
SkaffenAmtiskaw Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 06/24/09
Posts: 1318
I understand the expression of concern for the direction this thread is taking, but for anyone new to this thread, bear in mind that this disagreement is more than four years old on this forum. This is not to say the disagreement isn't older per se, but the way it stands, Dr. Aquino persists in plugging his personal interpretation of the physical and metaphysical nature of Set, contrasting it with what he considers a less-evolved perception of Satan, ca. golden-era Church of Satan. To Jake, this debacle represents a four-year-stint of cruisin' for a bruisin' in that its only supporting evidence lies in the Book of Coming Forth by Night, a book that was produced by Dr. Aquino in a trance-like state, and in that it is a blatant attempt at revisionism.

This is not to say the debate hasn't been heated before, but since the tactics involved include elaborate straw man arguments and elaborate reinterpretations of the 1975 schism, I really don't see the need to warn anyone about their general naughtiness. In fact, sometimes the only way to describe a manual, one-man entrenching tool is by calling it a spade.

As for the above concerns of the probationary member of the ToS, the Temple encourages personal experience above adherence to established dogma. You do not need to agree with Dr. Aquino, in other words. However, in order to ascend to the higher degrees (III and up) you must apprehend Set. I hope this clarifies things.

On the whole of it, the debate on the theological implications of Satanism can be interesting, but it all depends on your personal take on the issue to begin with. Personally my take on the nature of Satan has never harmonized more with Jake's than it does now, but by now the argument has played out in all manner of variations, invariably with Dr. Aquino concluding that his revelation from the neteru was vouchsafed him by the Egyptian deity Set. This is, in essence, the whole crux of the disagreement. Dr. Aquino, while valued for his many and interesting contributions, was also central to the 1975 schism with the CoS/ToS, and as such, is hardly an objective source of information. In fact, to those observant of the "ancien regime", he appears to revise historical events.

Jake's bone of contention here is that Dr. Aquino seems to smear and denounce the original CoS and LaVey in ways that are cheap, made-up and self-aggrandizing on a whole different level. It is unequivocally offensive and dismissive to present matters in such a fashion, so he responds in kind.
_________________________
"I'd rather be right than consistent" - Winston Churchill

Top
#60747 - 11/01/11 11:20 AM Re: Jake vs. Aquino, round ?? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Goliath Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/26/10
Posts: 93
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
Well put; and as noted we live in a time of widespread sloppy & convenient redefinition of a great many terms. Traditionalists or purists are frequently shrugged off as dinosaurs if anyone bothers with them at all.


That's because questions like these are ultimately decided by power, and power alone. People shrug off traditionalists and purists because they can: that is to say, because traditionalists and purists lack the authority to demand other people's attention, or the influence to persuade them to pay attention, or the force to compel them to pay attention.

As a university professor, for example, I have the power to compel my students to write and speak in my sociolect instead of their own. But if I went around demanding that people speak and write in formal English outside of the classroom, they'd laugh at me, or call me a grammar Nazi, or just tell me to fuck off--and rightly so. Unless you have some kind of power over people, there's really no reason why they should pay any attention to you at all.

It's also worth remembering that the question of "What is Christianity?" has always been settled (or left unsettled) by force. Much like Satanism today, the early Christian movement was deeply divided over basic questions of doctrine and practice. Early Christians couldn't even agree over who or what "Christ" was. Was he God? Was he a man? Both? Neither? And as Bart Ehrman has shown, each side went so far as to re-write their scriptures, and even fabricate new ones, to support their position in this many-sided dispute.

Where fraud failed, force succeeded. These Christological controversies were only resolved when one faction--what Ehrman calls the "proto-orthodox" faction--gained influence with the government of the late Roman Empire. It was then able to use the power of the world's first totalitarian state to stamp out its competitors: the Theodosian Revolution eradicated alternative Christianities along with paganism. And once this struggle was over, the victors wrote the history, as they always do. That's why, for example, we can still read Tertullian's polemic against the Marcionite heretics today, while Marcion's own writings have been consigned to oblivion. And why even the word "Christianity" means one thing, and not another.

When no one has the power to pass judgment and enforce their verdict, arguments like these are almost never resolved. Indeed, I can see the other side's point in this dispute just as well as your own. Unless someone has the power to stop them, there's really no reason why a philosophy can't or shouldn't adopt Satan as its symbol, and call itself Satanism. It's certainly unusual, but it's no different in principle than, for example, the ways in which republicans and libertarians have adopted and adapted the ancient Roman goddess Libertas for their own purposes. The Statue of Liberty is just the most famous example of this.

Or take, for example, the symbolic importance of Spartacus to the early communist movement in Europe. The German Communist Party adopted Spartacus as it symbol, and at first called itself the Spartacus League: its members became known as Spartacists, and gave their name to the Spartacist Uprising in Berlin in 1919. This left-wing fascination with Spartacus continued afterward, as can be seen in Arthur Koestler's novel The Gladiators, Howard Fast's novel Spartacus, and even in Stanley Kubrick's film adaptation of the latter, in which Spartacus dies on the cross, like some kind of secular proletarian Christ. (The man who wrote the script for Spartacus, Dalton Trumbo, had been blacklisted for his involvement with communism.) And all this despite the fact that, if you went back in time to discuss communism with the historical Spartacus, he wouldn't have understood what you were talking about.

I'm starting to ramble here, so I'll just make one final point. I think there's a pervasive confusion in this and similar discussions between what Satanism is and what Satanism should be. You, for example, say that Satanism is the worship of Satan as a metaphysical being. Diavolo says that Satanism is a praxis, with Satan as its symbol. I would say that both of these claims are true, in one important sense, and false in another.

They're both true, because Satanism really is both of those things--and many other things besides. Jesper Petersen has argued that there are three main tendencies in contemporary Satanism: Rationalist, Esoteric, and Reactive (by which he means "adolescent/rebellious"). I would go even further, and add:

--Criminal/Deviant (as practiced by the likes of General Butt Naked in Liberia);

--Artistic/Literary (ranging from Milton's Paradise Lost to Chuck Palahniuk's latest novel, Damned);

--and even Stereotypical--the "Satanism" that exists only in the febrile imaginations of Christian witch-hunters. That kind of Satanism exists only in their minds--but ideas in the mind are facts in the world.

Where both you and Diavolo err, I think, is in arguing that Satanism "is" one thing only. Perhaps it ought to be one thing, or another--but it isn't. And it never will be, until someone or some thing has the power to settle this question, the way the Emperor Theodosius and his successors settled the question of "what is Christianity". I will leave it up to you to decide if that is actually a desirable outcome.
_________________________
An illusion--with intelligence! A malignant vision, with a will of pure evil!

Top
#60748 - 11/01/11 11:41 AM Re: Jake vs. Aquino, round ?? [Re: Goliath]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I'm not really arguing it is one thing only as it being one thing not. I just can't accept Satan as a metaphysical being because that would be quite ridiculous. Not alone because of it being a metaphysical being but because this sort of acceptance opens a “can of gods” who all should be accepted according the same sort of argumentation. We'd, in no time, end up with a rather enormous pantheon.

We could solve that problem by redefining everything, disregarding all myths, and as such, create a new myth but such is called fantasizing and again, if by such an argument Satan becomes true, the moment someone does the same with Voldemort, he is as true.

So what other rational option is there but to conclude there is certainly one thing he can NOT be?

D.

Top
#60754 - 11/01/11 12:53 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Octavian]
Autodidact Offline
member


Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 428
 Originally Posted By: Octavian
[...] but I believe that the Neter's of the objective universe are non-conscious principles. They are mechanistic, non-conscious principles which in a sense regulate the functioning of the OU.


Speaking of definitions, the distinction here is important. Forms, or Neteru, or whatever you want to call them, are creations of Man, recognitions of general principles and perceived patterns in our environment.

They exist only in your head. To transform them from an idea to something that has independent existence is unwarranted. To conclude that a perceived pattern necessarily indicates a purposeful "regulation of the functioning of the OU" is likewise unwarranted (this is the "intelligent design" argument).

 Originally Posted By: Octavian
Set is so weird and distinct and out of place precisely because "he" is the universal of consciousness, which is non-natural and distinct/against the OU.


There is no "non-natural". (In the context of this discussion,) there's the OU and the SU, the latter of which exists only in your head. If Set is not a distinct entity in the OU, guess where he is?

Any claims that <fill in diety here> exist in the OU are the same tired old confluence of the human brain's pattern-matching heuristic trying to map his tribal need for a leader to tell him what to do onto the real world.

 Originally Posted By: Goliath
That's because questions like these are ultimately decided by power, and power alone. People shrug off traditionalists and purists because they can: that is to say, because traditionalists and purists lack the authority to demand other people's attention, or the influence to persuade them to pay attention, or the force to compel them to pay attention.


Probably the most useful paragraph in this thread these past few days
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

Top
#60756 - 11/01/11 03:04 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Aznebtra]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Aznebtra
... I have not seen maquino active on any forums or temple communications, (that I have access to as a first degree) since I’ve joined the Temple ...

I do monitor the Temple's internal forum, and offer comments when I think them necessary or helpful. But I think you will find throughout the forum areas that Setians are extremely sophisticated in dealing with such questions as are raised, often more so than myself. If you or any other Setian ever has a question that you think only I can answer, you are always welcome to ask it, of course.

My interest in the 600C is, as I have said here many times, primarily a historical one. As you can read in my The Church of Satan, I was intensely involved with the original Church of Satan (1966-75), the predecessor to the Temple of Set. Hence I am interested in both the history and the philosophy of pre-Setian [in both the conceptual and the time/linear sense] Satanism being correctly understood and represented.

Note that this is not the same thing as prospecting the 600C for new Setians, which I would consider improper. Setian philosophy and Satanism are connected in that the former evolved from the latter, but the latter by its nomenclature and concepts remains within Judæo/Christian culture, if only as a reaction to/rejection of it. Setian philosophy has no interest in any slave-religion ideology except as a curiosity and social pathology.

Since 1975 Satanism per se has been subject to a number of "identity crises". First there was Anton LaVey's announced switch to "nonSatan Satanism", essentially treating it as a mere catchall for his lifestyle, fetishes, and opinions. Then there was the rock-music world's dalliance with it - Black Sabbath, Mötley Crüe, Marilyn Manson, et al. - as a glamor device. There followed the vicious, international "Satanic Panic" of the 1980s-90s, in which it was equated to extreme criminality.

So today "Satanism" is a rather battered-and-bandaged term. The 600C caught my interest because only here have I seen individuals personally focused on Satanism attempting seriously to come to grips with it. I feel at least some nostalgic motivation to help.

As every credentialed/experienced university professor knows, there is always a tension between teacher and students. Smart students may decide they know as much as/more than the teacher, hence feel it more a measure of success to take him down than to merely get an "A". Stupid students are forced to confront their stupidity, which makes them angry at the teacher who exposed it. Some ego-inflated people feel that the very notion of subjecting their opinions to any sort of "classroom" is an intolerable insult.

So here I am adamantly not a "teacher", just a "resource": something like Plato's daimon whispering advice in his mind. Eventually I expect to fade quietly away, leaving behind not M.A.A.-students but just individuals whose perception of and interest in Satanism is that much less blurred, confused, and imprecise. What they do with that P&I is, as ever since having a bite of fruit in the Garden of Eden, their decision.

 Quote:
Even more surprising is that this seems to be a mutual act of trolling, by the disagreeing parties. (The two particularly bitter ones around the same age perhaps? I try to imagine my dad of this age doing this and it is completely absurd, and these people are supposed to embody a better state of being that the path of satanism says you can achieve?) My main concern is, what is someone who is supposed to be as enlightened as the temple claims, doing trolling the internet during their evenings?

It's nonsense to consider either Jake or myself "trolls", as we've both been here quite some time [him far longer than myself], and have engaged in many perfectly ordinary forum discussions.

I feel no "bitterness" whatever towards Jake. He had a close relationship with Anton LaVey during what I think was a very stressed period of Anton's intellectual life: the disintegration of the Church of Satan because of his 1975 decisions, the breakup of his intensely-close marriage with Diane, tensions with Zeena and Nikolas Schreck, the progressive self-insertion of Sharon Densley & relations, and probably the continued and spectacular flourishing of the Temple of Set in the background.

Jake has shown himself here to be a straightforward, honest, and no-bullshit kind of guy, which was I think just what Anton needed as a friend and confidante. I think Jake should have stayed around and Densley tossed out the door, but then I also think that Anton & Diane should have kissed & made up, and that Zeena & Anton should never have become estranged. As long as I'm in the realm of 'druther-fantasy, I would have liked to see Anton & Diane as guests of honor at a Temple of Set international conclave, and presented with Honorary Setian medallions. So there.

I think Jake just has a burr up his ass about me right now because this discussion has forced him to confront some problematic questions, that's all. Blaming the fire-alarm for the fire has been going on ever since Rosemary & Guy Woodhouse got pissed at Hutch for alerting them to the Bramford's unsavory history.

 Quote:
What is this Ipssissimus if it’s not gotten past engaging in this behavior

Well, let's take a look at that:

 Originally Posted By: M.A.A., Black Magic/The Crystal Tablet of Set
The degree of Ipsissimus - VI° Temple of Set, (10)=[1] A.'.A.'./G.'.D.'. - was treated evasively by Aleister Crowley, most probably because his claim to the lower grade of Magus had already caused him such difficulty. [Initiates of higher degrees soon learn to their annoyance that a proportionate percentage of their time is devoted to defending their suitability for such exalted titles. The temptation is to refuse to admit to them altogether, so that one may get on with one’s work unpestered.] In any case, an Ipsissimus is essentially a “successful Magus”: one whose Task is complete.

Inherent in such completion is a unique perception of the new æonic inertia which has resulted, placing the Ipsissimus at once within and without the æon itself. To function as an Ipsissimus, he must work to perfect and harmonize not only the created or modified æon, but also its entire relationship with preexisting and potential æons. Thus he enhances the Work of the Magi; thus he ensures that the Understanding of the Masters of the Temple is not futile because of factors beyond the æon in which they tend their gardens.

It is the Curse of a Magus not to be Understood, in that he has set out to define and promulgate something alien to the existing inertia of magical philosophy. It is the doom of an Ipsissimus to Understand a great many æons simultaneously: to see how they may be exclusive yet complementary, independent yet interrelated, sequential yet coincidental.

The Æon of Set was immediately preceded by the Age of Satan, so I am indeed doing a bit of Ipsissimusing by interrelating and harmonizing the two, as elsewhere with the Æon of Horus in my dialogues over the years with the O.T.O. and other Thelemites, etc.

I appreciate your forthright questions and trust I have answered them. Enjoy your personal initiatory adventure in the Temple of Set!
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60757 - 11/01/11 03:19 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Autodidact]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Autodidact
... Forms, or Neteru, or whatever you want to call them, are creations of Man, recognitions of general principles and perceived patterns in our environment.

They exist only in your head. To transform them from an idea to something that has independent existence is unwarranted. To conclude that a perceived pattern necessarily indicates a purposeful "regulation of the functioning of the OU" is likewise unwarranted (this is the "intelligent design" argument).

First you say that patterns in/of the natural environment [=OU] are "perceived". Then you say they exist "only in your head". Note the contradiction here.

It is indeed the collective Forms/Principles (or "patterns" if you prefer) of the OU which constitute the OU-neteru, or "God" collectively in the deistic sense. Human intellects, by virtue not only of being intelligent but also having an outside-perspective, indeed can perceive these patterns. We can give them scientific-law names, Platonic-Form names, neter-names, or whatever else identifies them.

At the risk of getting into PSYOPland here, human beings think primarily and overwhelmingly via pattern-perception/recognition, and only occasionally and with much more deliberation and difficulty in algorithms (="reasoning"). You are far more entangled with the neteru than you realize, which ought to keep you awake nights from now on. ;\)
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60758 - 11/01/11 03:30 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
Note that this is not the same thing as prospecting the 600C for new Setians, which I would consider improper. Setian philosophy and Satanism are connected in that the former evolved from the latter, but the latter by its nomenclature and concepts remains within Judæo/Christian culture, if only as a reaction to/rejection of it. Setian philosophy has no interest in any slave-religion ideology except as a curiosity and social pathology.


I can't help it, I just like a good debate, so sue me for jumping upon the opportunity.

The criticism that Satanism is rooted in the Judæo/Christian culture is correct. One can't deny that Satanism is expressed in our cultural form which is infested by it. But the claim that the Temple of Set completely abandons this culture is not so correct.

If we look at the key-elements of the ToS, we notice a quite familiar tradition.

There is a godhead/creator, there are the chosen, there is choice. There is life as a transitional phase, the prophet receiving and sharing the path to submit to, which ultimately, when done right leads to a reunion with the godhead.

This is a very traditional Magian approach (Spengler's Magian). We see these same key-elements in Hebrew, Christian and Muslim slave-religions. What makes it appear different is a bit like chocolate milk. Chocolate milk looks dark, tastes slightly different but the key element is still white milk. In the ToS, regardless of visual imagery, we can't deny noticing these same key elements.

So besides the cultural form, couldn't we say that maybe Satanism left much more of the Judæo/Christian culture behind than the ToS did?

D.

Top
#60759 - 11/01/11 03:42 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino

I think Jake just has a burr up his ass about me right now because this discussion has forced him to confront some problematic questions, that's all.


The only burr up Jake's ass is a pompous claiming by YOU that others aren't what they claim to be because they don't fit your perceptions. If you ever got off of your high horse and acted like your weren't the arbitrator of Satanic acceptability, it would go a long way towards others accepting you as something more than a blow hard.

You just "ain't all that," as the kids used to say. What you have to say regarding satanic acceptability might mean something to those who have drunk your bath water with you, but beyond that, nobody really give a fuck what you have to say about who is or who isn't a Satanist. If you want to lord over your bloodless Setians, have at it. They joined your show of their own free will, so let them sit quietly and eat their popcorn while that farce plays out.

But when you start telling people what they have to believe who HAVEN'T signed on to your particular brand of bullshit, we have every right to say FUCK YOU. If you don't like that, don't let the screen door hit you in the ass on your way out.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#60760 - 11/01/11 03:48 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Autodidact]
Octavian Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/30/11
Posts: 81
I have put my own personal view about Set and the Neteru forward earlier in this thread.

My comments in the later part of the thread were to have a conversation with D and try to present my own understanding of Setian metaphysics, thinking that might help the conversation.

The non-natural is a Setian way of describing Set and I think all of the sixth degree Setian's have used it describe how Set is so seemingly out of place, in a sense, as compared to the Neteru of the OU. Set has to be apprehended/perceived through the head to be known I think. Consciousness is regarded as so bizarre, so different/alien and seemingly against the non-conscious mechanistic functioning of the OU. Hence it is non-natural.


Edited by Octavian (11/01/11 03:56 PM)
Edit Reason: Marked

Top
#60763 - 11/01/11 04:09 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Jake999]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Jake999
The only burr up Jake's ass is a pompous claiming by YOU that others aren't what they claim to be because they don't fit your perceptions.

Well, that's easily enough resolved, as with Zebu: Believe and style yourself whatever you like, for any or no reason at all.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60769 - 11/01/11 04:50 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
First you say that patterns in/of the natural environment [=OU] are "perceived". Then you say they exist "only in your head". Note the contradiction here.


Ah, you see a contradiction because you assume the SU spans the boundary between the OU and "something else". I contend the SU is a subset of the OU - there is no "outside". Hence, there is no contradiction.

 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
Human intellects, by virtue not only of being intelligent but also having an outside-perspective, indeed can perceive these patterns. We can give them scientific-law names, Platonic-Form names, neter-names, or whatever else identifies them.


I actually find this to be detrimental to, rather than supportive of, your argument. In the absence of evidence (as it appears to me), Occam's Razor suggests to me that it's more likely that humans merely apply their heuristics against current input, rather than there being a host of pre-existing Forms that humans recognize (including something as specific as a conscious entity serving as a template for all other conscious entities).

 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino

At the risk of getting into PSYOPland here, human beings think primarily and overwhelmingly via pattern-perception/recognition, and only occasionally and with much more deliberation and difficulty in algorithms (="reasoning"). You are far more entangled with the neteru than you realize, which ought to keep you awake nights from now on. ;\)


I've been a programmer and engineer for more than twenty years now, so I'm keenly aware of when humans are reasoning versus reacting emotionally. Watching or reading any coverage of politics is exercise enough in that regard.
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

Top
#60770 - 11/01/11 04:55 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Diavolo]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
The criticism that Satanism is rooted in the Judæo/Christian culture is correct. One can't deny that Satanism is expressed in our cultural form which is infested by it. But the claim that the Temple of Set completely abandons this culture is not so correct.

You are correct right out of the starting-gate insofar as Western social culture is overwhelmingly based upon Judæo/Christian assumptions and values, most of them unconsciously taken-for-granted.

This was another of the problems we recognized early-on in the Church of Satan. If you're going to reject everything derivative of J/C, you're going to wind up [unless you choose another slave-religion, like Hinduism or Buddhism] with an anarchist or totalitarian society. The USSR is an obvious example.

So we set about somewhat awkwardly, if not hypocritically, keeping the good stuff and tossing the bad stuff. We did that for ten years; the Temple of Set has continued. So does everyone in the 600C.

 Quote:
If we look at the key-elements of the ToS, we notice a quite familiar tradition. There is a godhead/creator, there are the chosen, there is choice. There is life as a transitional phase, the prophet receiving and sharing the path to submit to, which ultimately, when done right leads to a reunion with the godhead.

Set is not the creator of humanity - simply the provider/awakener of each individual's isolate self-consciousness. The extent to which each individual examines, explores, and extends this capacity is a purely-personal option. Most aren't aware and don't bother. The incarnate, physical/OU shell (the body and its senses) provides a vehicle of convenience for the ba to become fully aware of itself and its distinction, but is not strictly necessary [as for instance in sensory-deprivation situations such as isolation tanks]. After the shell is discarded, the ba>ka remains as isolate and conscious as it previously was; there is no "reunion" with Set.

Further, unlike [and necessarily so] the slave-religions, the Gift of Set is completely individual-discretionary. Everyone has it; everyone can use it, usually unconsciously, in any number of creative and/or destructive ways.

The Temple of Set, which is based upon enlightened apprehension and exercise of the Gift, indeed advocates ethics accordingly. But these are also, necessarily, individually developed as one progressively dispenses with J/C or other non-consciously indoctrinated traditions, customs, and laws.

 Quote:
So besides the cultural form, couldn't we say that maybe Satanism left much more of the Judæo/Christian culture behind than the ToS did?

It might seem that way to the extent that Satanism seems to advocate anarchy; that's certainly the emotional theme of the Satanic Bible's "Book of Satan". However, as noted, the Church in practice immediately replaced this with Anton's "9 parts social respectability to 1 part outrage" formula, and even that 1-part was very carefully indulged in.

The Temple of Set inherited a decade of 9/1 experience, but also operates in a context which has much less relationship with ordinary human society. We perceive, assign meaning to, and utilize different things for different reasons; and we have become experienced at keeping all of this from clashing with the various social systems around the planet in which Setians physically live.

Our most obvious goof in this was our failure in the 1980s to anticipate the danger and strength of the "Satanic Panic", including its impact on the previously-invisible Temple of Set. The consequence was an awkward and extensive period of public explanation of the Temple to people generally incapable of really understanding it. We became reasonably good at dumbing-it-down; I remember Geraldo Rivera coming over to me during the first break of his infamous "Halloween special" and asking me not to use words over two syllables!
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60771 - 11/01/11 05:01 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
 Originally Posted By: Jake999
The only burr up Jake's ass is a pompous claiming by YOU that others aren't what they claim to be because they don't fit your perceptions.

Well, that's easily enough resolved, as with Zebu: Believe and style yourself whatever you like, for any or no reason at all.


Again with the "oh look at the magnanimous me" BULLSHIT.

YOU HAVE NO RIGHT NOR AUTHORITY TO JUDGE OR DECIDE FOR OTHERS. NONE.

Maybe you've forgotten the words of The Book of Satan from The Satanic Bible:

"Before none of your printed idols do I bow in acquiescence, and he who saith "thou shalt" to me is my mortal foe!"

GROW UP, AQUINO. You have no authority, you have no standing and you have no credibility in telling others what they are or are not. Period. I don't care if you're delusional pre or post 1975... you opinions are simply your own and nothing more.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#60773 - 11/01/11 05:14 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
Set is not the creator of humanity - simply the provider/awakener of each individual's isolate self-consciousness. The extent to which each individual examines, explores, and extends this capacity is a purely-personal option. Most aren't aware and don't bother. The incarnate, physical/OU shell (the body and its senses) provides a vehicle of convenience for the ba to become fully aware of itself and its distinction, but is not strictly necessary [as for instance in sensory-deprivation situations such as isolation tanks]. After the shell is discarded, the ba>ka remains as isolate and conscious as it previously was; there is no "reunion" with Set.

Further, unlike [and necessarily so] the slave-religions, the Gift of Set is completely individual-discretionary. Everyone has it; everyone can use it, usually unconsciously, in any number of creative and/or destructive ways.

The Temple of Set, which is based upon enlightened apprehension and exercise of the Gift, indeed advocates ethics accordingly. But these are also, necessarily, individually developed as one progressively dispenses with J/C or other non-consciously indoctrinated traditions, customs, and laws.



I used Godhead/creator in a very basic manner. Of course in the Christian myth Yahweh created man which is only different at a level of details. Set provided that what does make man, which is actually creating man.

The other details you specify again point towards similarities. In Christian myth, we have a soul and the free will to do either good or evil. The body is the vessel for this soul and when doing the right thing, after the body is left behind, the soul is rewarded with entrance into heaven; a reunion with the godhead.

As you see, the basic traditional theme does not differ. Which affirms it being part of a Magian cultural tradition.

D.

Top
#60776 - 11/01/11 05:26 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Autodidact]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Autodidact
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
First you say that patterns in/of the natural environment [=OU] are "perceived". Then you say they exist "only in your head". Note the contradiction here.

Ah, you see a contradiction because you assume the SU spans the boundary between the OU and "something else". I contend the SU is a subset of the OU - there is no "outside". Hence, there is no contradiction.

Well, that gets rather tautological, since you're now insisting that there is no "real you" to perceive anything external to itself; that all of the external patterns are merely mini-mirrored inside your skull. But in that case there would be no "you" to identify the mini-mirrors or compare/relate them to the skull-external patterns.

 Quote:
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
Human intellects, by virtue not only of being intelligent but also having an outside-perspective, indeed can perceive these patterns. We can give them scientific-law names, Platonic-Form names, neter-names, or whatever else identifies them.

I actually find this to be detrimental to, rather than supportive of, your argument. In the absence of evidence (as it appears to me), Occam's Razor suggests to me that it's more likely that humans merely apply their heuristics against current input, rather than there being a host of pre-existing Forms that humans recognize (including something as specific as a conscious entity serving as a template for all other conscious entities).

"Heuristics" is simply a term for previously experienced and accumulated knowledge, again primarily patterns. This in no way gets past the necessity to perceive primal patterns.

 Quote:
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
At the risk of getting into PSYOPland here, human beings think primarily and overwhelmingly via pattern-perception/recognition, and only occasionally and with much more deliberation and difficulty in algorithms (="reasoning"). You are far more entangled with the neteru than you realize, which ought to keep you awake nights from now on. ;\)

I've been a programmer and engineer for more than twenty years now, so I'm keenly aware of when humans are reasoning versus reacting emotionally. Watching or reading any coverage of politics is exercise enough in that regard.

As a programmer/engineer you are also presumably aware of the biggest difficulty that humans had interacting with machine-intelligence is that we are primarily/overwhelmingly pattern-thinkers while machines think in algorithms [except in sci-fi movies like 2001]. I'm not a computer expert, but I wouldn't be surprised if today's machines are overcoming/have overcome this problem. The world of the Terminator & Matrix films may be closer than we think ...
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60779 - 11/01/11 05:34 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Jake999]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Jake999
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
 Originally Posted By: Jake999
The only burr up Jake's ass is a pompous claiming by YOU that others aren't what they claim to be because they don't fit your perceptions.

Well, that's easily enough resolved, as with Zebu: Believe and style yourself whatever you like, for any or no reason at all.

YOU HAVE NO RIGHT NOR AUTHORITY TO JUDGE OR DECIDE FOR OTHERS. NONE.

What part of "believe and style yourself whatever you like, for any or no reason at all" did you miss? [I even bought you a virtual beer too.]
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60780 - 11/01/11 05:37 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3841
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Strange how when one makes it up as they go along(cough mikey) it's the real shit, yet if anyone else does same they are a faker.

Having a boner for being self conscious is hardly the Satanic highground.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#60786 - 11/01/11 08:24 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Dan_Dread]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
I think the problem here is that Mr. Ipissymiss has been telling his bullshit story for so long that he has actually convinced himself that it is real.

I believe that Set talks to Mikey as much as I believe Set is nothing more than a psychosomatic manifestation brought on by some deep emotional trauma possibly related to his time with CoS or due to waaaaaaaay too much MK Ultra LSD.

I just wish he would shut up about it.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#60788 - 11/01/11 09:17 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

Well, that gets rather tautological, since you're now insisting that there is no "real you" to perceive anything external to itself; that all of the external patterns are merely mini-mirrored inside your skull. But in that case there would be no "you" to identify the mini-mirrors or compare/relate them to the skull-external patterns.


This doesn't follow at all. The only way to make the above work is to stipulate that you cannot perceive yourself, thus there "must" be two bits, the ba/soul/spirit and the OU-you. That seems to me another unwarranted leap, and it's still orthogonal to claiming one's soul must be outside the OU.

I dunno, maybe I need to go study some of those jibber-jabber philosophy guys ... I always hated Philosophy for this same reason - they always seem to start with way too many premises seemingly picked from the blue.

 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
"Heuristics" is simply a term for previously experienced and accumulated knowledge, again primarily patterns. This in no way gets past the necessity to perceive primal patterns.


That was precisely my point. It's humans doing the perceiving, and denoting the Forms. It seems simpler that the former is the cause and the latter the effect, as it were, rather than vice versa.

 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
As a programmer/engineer you are also presumably aware of the biggest difficulty that humans had interacting with machine-intelligence is that we are primarily/overwhelmingly pattern-thinkers while machines think in algorithms [except in sci-fi movies like 2001]. I'm not a computer expert, but I wouldn't be surprised if today's machines are overcoming/have overcome this problem. The world of the Terminator & Matrix films may be closer than we think ...


WRT interaction, yes, sorta, but not in the way you describe. There is no machine-intelligence, just machines. They're complicated, but they're still just tools. The biggest problem we have in human-machine interaction is that they're programmed by humans who make some decisions or assumption on usage, then translate that into algorithms. Those decisions/assumptions are usually not that well-thought-out or tested, and the machine will only do what it's programmed to do.

Usage aside, they're still tools. Many people use the word "intelligent" in the computer context, but they don't realize that that's not what they want. As with any tool, they want the result of using the tool, and are not that particular about the functioning of the tool itself. In this context, "intelligent" means "it does what I want", rather than "conscious and self-aware".

The Terminator and Matrix make good stories because they anthropomorphize all the "bad" actions in one villain, allowing a sort of catharsis. In the real world, it's far more likely that disasters are the consequences of normal human action ... but that'd be a documentary, and wouldn't gross nearly as much at the box office
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

Top
#60789 - 11/01/11 09:19 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Dan_Dread]
Caladrius Offline
member


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 320
Loc: SoCal
You know, I was talking to my friend Monsieur Apepi Le Pew of the Egyptian Pantheon just the other day. Apep said he felt kinda cheated out by Aquino and Set for steeling his dark light. If Set is Satan ((the Prince of Darkness)) than what does that make Apep?
_________________________
Chloe 352

Top
#60790 - 11/01/11 09:23 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Caladrius]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3841
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Our mutual friend Mindfux has already shown, being that he is actually educated in the field, that ol' mikey is pretty creative when it comes to how he interprets Egyptian language and mythology.

Obviously the Egyptians were just doing it wrong.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#60791 - 11/01/11 09:34 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Caladrius]
Oxus Offline
member


Registered: 04/15/10
Posts: 509
I thought Apep was chaos, stasis, and entropy? A Demon that stands in the way of Maat? I believe Set did assume the responsibility of Darkness from Apep/Apophis but I don't think this is the Set Dr. Aquino is speaking of.

I know you're all suppose to be really bad-ass, 666 nastys, but really, all the demeaning behavior towards Dr. Aquino and the philosophy behind the ToS is so juvenile and blindsiding it is never conducive to actual intelligent conversation.

As a person not as vernacularly verbose as some of you here, I still remain puzzled as to what Satanism is all about and why the animosity towards Dr. Aquino?

**Morgan . . . I'm ready for my beating!

Top
#60792 - 11/01/11 09:48 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Oxus]
Caladrius Offline
member


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 320
Loc: SoCal
Oxus, are those blue balls in your avatar? What's a "666 nastys?" Sound like you're tea bagging Aquino right now. That's cool though if you like blue balls and tea bagging delusional men. Some of us like to stay away from such behavior.
_________________________
Chloe 352

Top
#60797 - 11/02/11 12:21 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Autodidact]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Autodidact
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
Well, that gets rather tautological, since you're now insisting that there is no "real you" to perceive anything external to itself; that all of the external patterns are merely mini-mirrored inside your skull. But in that case there would be no "you" to identify the mini-mirrors or compare/relate them to the skull-external patterns.

This doesn't follow at all. The only way to make the above work is to stipulate that you cannot perceive yourself, thus there "must" be two bits, the ba/soul/spirit and the OU-you. That seems to me another unwarranted leap, and it's still orthogonal to claiming one's soul must be outside the OU.

Well, someone/something has to do the perceiving, and to do so it must be able to distinguish itself from the perception. Humans start to define/distinguish themselves in the OU, of course: My big toe occupies this OU space/time, so nothing else material in the OU can [unless you're a participant in the Philadelphia Experiment]. But introspectively you can refine this to your isolate self consciousness, of which your physical body is a vehicle & medium for OU-interaction.

 Quote:
I dunno, maybe I need to go study some of those jibber-jabber philosophy guys ... I always hated Philosophy for this same reason - they always seem to start with way too many premises seemingly picked from the blue.

Here you go ... Take two OU-aspirin first ...

 Quote:
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
"Heuristics" is simply a term for previously experienced and accumulated knowledge, again primarily patterns. This in no way gets past the necessity to perceive primal patterns.

That was precisely my point. It's humans doing the perceiving, and denoting the Forms. It seems simpler that the former is the cause and the latter the effect, as it were, rather than vice versa.

You as a human can perceive an apple and assign it a name & significance, but you did not pre-create the thing & its characteristics.

 Quote:
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
As a programmer/engineer you are also presumably aware of the biggest difficulty that humans had interacting with machine-intelligence is that we are primarily/overwhelmingly pattern-thinkers while machines think in algorithms [except in sci-fi movies like 2001]. I'm not a computer expert, but I wouldn't be surprised if today's machines are overcoming/have overcome this problem. The world of the Terminator & Matrix films may be closer than we think ...

WRT interaction, yes, sorta, but not in the way you describe. There is no machine-intelligence, just machines. They're complicated, but they're still just tools. The biggest problem we have in human-machine interaction is that they're programmed by humans who make some decisions or assumption on usage, then translate that into algorithms. Those decisions/assumptions are usually not that well-thought-out or tested, and the machine will only do what it's programmed to do.

Usage aside, they're still tools. Many people use the word "intelligent" in the computer context, but they don't realize that that's not what they want. As with any tool, they want the result of using the tool, and are not that particular about the functioning of the tool itself. In this context, "intelligent" means "it does what I want", rather than "conscious and self-aware".

Agreed.

 Quote:
The Terminator and Matrix make good stories because they anthropomorphize all the "bad" actions in one villain, allowing a sort of catharsis. In the real world, it's far more likely that disasters are the consequences of normal human action ... but that'd be a documentary, and wouldn't gross nearly as much at the box office

I should have mentioned Demon Seed too, although, particularly since Star Wars, amthropomorphic robots have become the norm.

In 1983 I assembled one of the first Heathkit HERO-1 robots - the consumer-electronic industry's first attempt at an R2D2 clone. The completed robot (whom I named 4E) had a voice, propulsion wheels, a movable/gripping arm, swiveling head, and senses consisting of a motion detector, sound detector, sonar, and light detector. It was fascinating, but I can't tell you how exhaustive it was to program 4E [in hexidecimal!] to do what for you & me would have been the simplest perceptions, analyses, & responses. It was an education not just in machine limitations, but in the speed & complexity of human thought. [I took 4E to my Presidio of SF office, where he greeted visitors and escorted them across the room to my desk. Ladies invariably responded with "Oh, how cute!" The PSF commander, on the other hand: "What the fuck is that?"]
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60800 - 11/02/11 12:50 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 862
Loc: Nashville
Dr. Aquino, on page six of this thread I asked you a couple questions, and you did not answer them. I understand that this thread has taken on a life of its own and that you may have been preoccupied with other posts, so I’ll ask again:

Do you consider members of your organization who do not believe in a literal Set, who think of Set only in symbolic terms, to be authentic Setians? If so, why do you consider Satanists with a similar take on Satan not to be authentic Satanists?

Please answer this time.
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#60803 - 11/02/11 01:18 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: William Wright]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
Unfortunately this doesnt help at all. I also aksed him questions regarding the information I and Jake provided. I did so three times I believe but Mr. Aquino choose to ignore it every time since they both proved his statements wrong. Im guessing he cant answer in a satisfying way but Im sure he'll try to keep doing the same claims over the years to come - even though he was proven to be historically wrong.

Talking to Aquino can sometimes be like clapping with one hand...

Top
#60804 - 11/02/11 02:00 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: TheInsane]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
When the truth doesn't fit, embrace the delusion. The man's invested in his delusions, and can't afford to admit error, so he simply ignores the inconvenient.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#60844 - 11/02/11 11:57 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: SkaffenAmtiskaw
... Dr. Aquino, while valued for his many and interesting contributions, was also central to the 1975 schism with the CoS/ToS, and as such, is hardly an objective source of information. In fact, to those observant of the "ancien regime", he appears to revise historical events.

Jake's bone of contention here is that Dr. Aquino seems to smear and denounce the original CoS and LaVey in ways that are cheap, made-up and self-aggrandizing on a whole different level. It is unequivocally offensive and dismissive to present matters in such a fashion, so he responds in kind.

Apologies for missing this earlier post.

As I source my comments concerning the original 1966-75 Church of Satan, and to Anton LaVey's personality & expressions therein, to original documents as discussed, reprinted, and footnoted in my The Church of Satan ebook, kindly show me where I have "revised historical events" or otherwise distorted them. Or "smeared and denounced Anton LaVey in ways that are cheap and made up".

A friendly suggestion: Do take the time to actually read COS first.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60845 - 11/02/11 12:00 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Jake999]
MindFux Offline
member


Registered: 12/27/10
Posts: 174
I was perusing this thread and noticed that Aquino had taken me off ignore. I'm somewhat disappointed by this because it means that any residual asshurt he has been carrying in my name has apparently been eroded by my necessary absence.

I was reading through this thread and spotted no fewer than 9 examples of just plain incorrect Egyptology from Aquino based on his own made up mythos. On top of that I noticed posts where the content is just rinse and repeat the 'same old shit' that has been dismantled time and time again.

The reality is this, one can either choose to believe that Aquino is the prophet of an Egyptian deity that remained inactive for 1000s of years and timed his re-emergence into the human sphere of direct awareness to coincide with Aquino's leaving of the CoS in a sea of asshurt and tantramatic fuckwittery, or you can choose to have a shred of rational thought and accept that Aquino groping blindly for a 'Satan' substitute, found a 'God' that was hugely misunderstood during the 70s and used that as said substitute for his own political purposes.

On the Apep point I would have to sadly agree with Oxus (despite his tea baggery) say that he was more a howling mad destructive demon that existed solely to fuck shit up. He's an utterly anti-cosmic force who exists purely to devour everything, in a pretty conflict-less way. He just eats them. That said, to try and link Set with Satan is equally misguided to be honest. The most logical choice would have been Thoth for a myriad of reasons, but at the time due to the incomprehensibly bad scholarship of some 70s era Egyptologists, Set seemed like a better fit for Aquino's bullshit.

Also, if I hear one more time about his super secret psy ops training while in the reserves I'm going to vomit. You were in the reserves Aquino, and ultimately ended up trying to bring a legal case against them because they tried to pin pedophilia on you during the Satanic panic, and largely (seemingly) used that as grounds to dismiss you. Yet you expect us to believe that same organization gave you the keys to their top secret kingdom? That the US Army hands out its top secret sauce to fucking 'Satanist' in that era? In the regulars they call the reserves weekend warriors for a reason Mikey. It's because that's what it is.

Get off your high horse and stop name dropping YOURSELF as the justification of your nonsense. Your knowledge of Egyptology is pathetic as I have proven elsewhere, your 'history' is one of delusion and self aggrandizement and any effort to turn the 'emergence' of Set into anything other than a convenient Satan substitute you used to provide a means of defection from the CoS due to your tantramatic asshurt is simply fallacious.

Basically man, fuck off with your pretentious bullshit.

MF.

Top
#60847 - 11/02/11 12:09 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: William Wright]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: William Wright
Dr. Aquino, on page six of this thread I asked you a couple questions, and you did not answer them. I understand that this thread has taken on a life of its own and that you may have been preoccupied with other posts, so I’ll ask again:

Do you consider members of your organization who do not believe in a literal Set, who think of Set only in symbolic terms, to be authentic Setians? If so, why do you consider Satanists with a similar take on Satan not to be authentic Satanists?

Please answer this time.

Actually you asked this on page #2 of this thread, whereupon I indeed answered you. As you seem not to pay attention, but just keep asking this same question over and over and over again in various threads, how many times would you like me to repeat the answer?
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60849 - 11/02/11 12:14 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: MindFux]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
You might want to stop knowing what you are talking about, Mindfux, else Mikey will put you back on ignore. I can see that I am on ignore again. I guess Set designating me a higher rank than him in the Temple of BullSet really chapped his hide.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#60850 - 11/02/11 12:41 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Jake999]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Jake999
When the truth doesn't fit, embrace the delusion. The man's invested in his delusions, and can't afford to admit error, so he simply ignores the inconvenient.

O.K., Jake, you've said [shouted, actually] that Anton didn't consider me a Satanist, and that he didn't believe in Satan. And also that he considered you a Satanist. Let's take these in order:



Explicit enough for you? The "followup to the Diabolicon" is of course the
Ninth Solstice Message (COS Appendix #111), which is about as "literal Satan" as you can get.

Now let's go to your claims concerning yourself. Would you please share with everyone here any mention of you by Anton in any of his writings - books, articles, Cloven Hoof, letters, etc. - in which he discusses, characterizes, recognizes, or in any other way acknowledges you as a Satanist? I'm not talking about just a good buddy or a helper-out around 6114; I'm talking about his evaluation of and respect for you as a committed, dedicated, and competent practicing Satanist. Thanks.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60851 - 11/02/11 12:45 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: TheInsane]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
I also aksed him questions regarding the information I and Jake provided. I did so three times I believe but Mr. Aquino choose to ignore it every time since they both proved his statements wrong.

Which questions where, please?
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60852 - 11/02/11 12:57 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3841
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Seems I am in quite good company in the sig of asshurtery. \:\)
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#60854 - 11/02/11 01:37 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Dan_Dread]
Caladrius Offline
member


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 320
Loc: SoCal
Hey look, MindFux made it back on the coveted Ignore List of Set. MF's a thorn in the side of Set. If Set were a mobster, you named guys would be wacked for knowing too much.

I see Mike has produced a letter from 'on high' 'verifying' his Satanic creds. He has that personality type of these nerd boys I used to know in high school ((the over achiever type)). The ones that get into these meaningless debates and has to always be right, where they pull out their dictionaries and special letters. As if LaVey has some special power to dub and knight a person a bona fide Satanist. Not only did LaVey name him a troo Satanist, but Set himself made him a Magus lol.


Edited by Caladrius (11/02/11 01:39 PM)
_________________________
Chloe 352

Top
#60859 - 11/02/11 02:28 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 862
Loc: Nashville
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
 Originally Posted By: William Wright
Dr. Aquino, on page six of this thread I asked you a couple questions, and you did not answer them. I understand that this thread has taken on a life of its own and that you may have been preoccupied with other posts, so I’ll ask again:

Do you consider members of your organization who do not believe in a literal Set, who think of Set only in symbolic terms, to be authentic Setians? If so, why do you consider Satanists with a similar take on Satan not to be authentic Satanists?

Please answer this time.

Actually you asked this on page #2 of this thread, whereupon I indeed answered you. As you seem not to pay attention, but just keep asking this same question over and over and over again in various threads, how many times would you like me to repeat the answer?

I originally said, “You dismiss Satanists who don’t believe in the existence of Satan as poseurs, yet you recognize those in your organization who don’t believe in the existence of Set as Setians. No hypocrisy there…” You responded that the term “Setian” refers to a “formal affiliation” in the Temple of Set. I rephrased what I said to include the word “authentic”, because of course “authentic” and “formal affiliation” are altogether different things.

Would you agree, Dr. Aquino, that although Setians who don't believe in a literal Set may be formally addressed as Setians, they are not authentic Setians, just as Satanists who don't believe in a literal Satan are not authentic Satanists? Would you agree that those members of your organization who think of Set only in symbolic terms are SINOs – Setians In Name Only, and therefore not really Setians at all?
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#60860 - 11/02/11 02:36 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Caladrius]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
The real funny thing is how much stock Mikey puts into LaVey's written declaration of him as a Satanist. Especially since he maintains that LaVey started to sell the degrees. Now, I don't know if that story is true and I don't care either way.

However, if it is true then clearly the degrees and the titles that went with them really meant nothing (to LaVey) in the first place. Since Mikey believes that LaVey started selling the degrees he should realize that they were never valid and you'd think he'd stop boasting about this "accomplishment" like a 10 year expired food handler's permit.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#60861 - 11/02/11 02:37 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
 Originally Posted By: Jake999
When the truth doesn't fit, embrace the delusion. The man's invested in his delusions, and can't afford to admit error, so he simply ignores the inconvenient.

O.K., Jake, you've said [shouted, actually] that Anton didn't consider me a Satanist, and that he didn't believe in Satan. And also that he considered you a Satanist. Let's take these in order:



Explicit enough for you? The "followup to the Diabolicon" is of course the
Ninth Solstice Message (COS Appendix #111), which is about as "literal Satan" as you can get.

Now let's go to your claims concerning yourself. Would you please share with everyone here any mention of you by Anton in any of his writings - books, articles, Cloven Hoof, letters, etc. - in which he discusses, characterizes, recognizes, or in any other way acknowledges you as a Satanist? I'm not talking about just a good buddy or a helper-out around 6114; I'm talking about his evaluation of and respect for you as a committed, dedicated, and competent practicing Satanist. Thanks.


Simply put, PRIOR to tour "rebellion" against the Church of Satan, LaVey did include you as a Satanist, and gave you the the benefit of the doubt even after you left. HOWEVER... he no longer held any respect for you. Hell, man, grow the fuck up!

As I said early on when you came up with this tired old canard that "LaVey never mentioned YOU, (meaning of course me.) I replied, and still say, "GOOD. It shows I was doing my job." I was taken on as Administrator NOT to make a splash or to "get my name in lights," but to make the system run more smoothly and professionally, with an emphasis on INTERNAL matters. Why the fuck would I be mentioned in books? If I was doing my job, I SHOULDN'T be. And in making those kinds of ludicrous statements to bolster your own petty, condescending attitudes about anyone who ISN'T YOU, I will repeat what LaVey told me regarding you in as any kind of administrator.

"He was ok, but anal and needed so much hand holding. It was great if you needed a piece for The Cloven Hoof or something, because you could tell him you needed something on "red" and he would give you 5000 words. But damn it, Jake, the man acted like he deserved a medal for every little thing he did. That's why I was a bit
reluctant to bring in another military man."

I told him that I thought it COULD be because you were an officer, and every officer I ever knew had is own "I love me" wall in his office or his home. LaVey grinned and said, "Yes, he has one of those too."

So we see, even this far down the road, things haven't changed.

And No, LaVey and I didn't write letters. He saw me every week, at least once a week, standing right next to him. He and I could speak directly. We spoke on the phone when he wanted to speak to be or bring me in at other than normal times, so that I could make arrangements to do so because I was an enlisted man, unlike you as an officer... I worked for a living.

Granted. Pre 1975 LaVey might have given you kudos on any number of things. But once you put your knife squarely in his back and twisted it, moron, he might just have that angelic epiphany that said, "Damn maybe he's not quite what he presented himself to be." As I said, LaVey was a man, just like any other, and prone to mistakes, but when he made one, he was NOT going to make the same one twice.

If you REALLY want me to post some "I love me" bullshit, I could always post my inscriptions from my signed copies of The Satanic Bible, Satanic Rituals and The Compleat Witch!!! My working name at that time was "Jeremy (after his nephew), but they're still really neato. I still have the OFFIZHOL Baphomet stamp from the back office if you would like to see that... oh oh... looky what else I have. Give it a mother fucking break.

You fucked up. Plain and simple, Aquino. You left the Church of Satan and thought you would inherit LaVey's thunder. You didn't. You became just another footnote, with the distinction of being terminally butthurt. A theist who speaks to Aardvarks. My generation of Satanist wrote you off decades ago, and it sure as hell looks like you're doing no better with this one.


_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#60863 - 11/02/11 02:43 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
SkaffenAmtiskaw Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 06/24/09
Posts: 1318
While I appreciate your efforts to respond in a calm, reasonable manner to every accusation and question that is levelled at you on this forum - so reasonable, in fact, that I hope all new members take a page from your book so they can hold their own with dignity and poise - I have no intention of getting into a discussion on the veracity of your statements, here or in your book. I pointed out the reason why the thread had turned to loud name-calling and invective. Furthermore, were I to address any statement you had made, you would have backed up your version of events by quoting your books, letters, correspondences and sundry notes, diligently annotated and updated. The thing is, even David Irving, the renowned Holocaust denier (and no further comparison to you) can quote sources, research and notes, as well as testimony to back up his claims. You claim that Set is a real being, that he manifested to Anton LaVey in the guise of Satan, that when Anton (as per your claims) sold titles to the CoS, Set disavowed LaVey and anointed you High Priest of the Temple of Set, inaugurating the Aeon of Set. All of this is allegedly true, since you have showed the text to others, who agreed that it was genuine. I have read your book. It's interesting, but I don't intend to get into the blow-by-blow refutation of your claims on the simple grounds that I have neither the time nor the inclination to prove your assertions to be founded on personal delusions. If you are convinced you are right, nothing will change your mind. We have debated before, and I distinctly remember your refusal to acknowledge the evolutionary process giving rise to the human eye as a result of natural selection, a point I refuted by pointing out several processes causing this development, as well as giving my sources ("The Selfish Gene", among others). This didn't dissuade you from making your point, stridently ignoring the case for natural selection in favour of the guiding hand of Set. Confirmation bias. I suspect you will do the same to this post, and gleefully continue to quote sources that will back your hypotheses, disregarding any and all information to the contrary. Or quoting your sources at them. Which is fine if you like this sort of thing. I, for one, have better things to do with my time.
_________________________
"I'd rather be right than consistent" - Winston Churchill

Top
#60888 - 11/02/11 06:33 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
I also aksed him questions regarding the information I and Jake provided. I did so three times I believe but Mr. Aquino choose to ignore it every time since they both proved his statements wrong.

Which questions where, please?


http://www.the600club.com/topic60004-2.html post #60553 and the following replies by Jake and Diavolo (who you should put off ignore). This in regards to your claim os "Satanisms original, centuries-established meaning" which are proven to be false. Your definition of Satanism is not the original - not has it been established for centuries.

Jake also adressed the question regarding belief or no-belief in Satan as a being. TSB doesnt make Satan out to be a metaphysical being (even though it is vague) and the audio clip included in Jakes post shows clearly on the idea of Satan used symbolically even though some like to think of him as real in the ritual chamber.

Top
#60890 - 11/02/11 07:19 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Oxus Offline
member


Registered: 04/15/10
Posts: 509
 Originally Posted By: SkaffenAmtiskaw
We have debated before, and I distinctly remember your refusal to acknowledge the evolutionary process giving rise to the human eye as a result of natural selection, a point I refuted by pointing out several processes causing this development, as well as giving my sources ("The Selfish Gene", among others). This didn't dissuade you from making your point, stridently ignoring the case for natural selection in favour of the guiding hand of Set.
If I may comment on this portion of your post, and in no way am I an expert here. Ironically, I am about halfway through Dawkin's "God Delusion" and am sure some of you can explain this better than I.

Dawkin's makes reference to possibilities other than, and possibly in ToS' case, Natural Selection completely. Whereas he acknowledges the life of memes within NS, there is also the possibility of our (Humankind) consciousness and intelligence paving the way for evolution.

Set, being the god/principle of Isolate Intelligence and existing outside from the objective universe (as well as separate from the other Egyptian pantheon) may very well 'fit' the bill rather than the randomness of Natural Selection or a mindless meme.

Luciferianism differs from Satanism (or does it, I'm still confused as to what exactly Satanism is?) in this very same way, that there is an intelligent and guiding factor involved in our evolution though not simply some divine being not connected to our very Self.

I'll stop there as I have probably dug myself a hole to which the many of you wish to bury me in.

Top
#60892 - 11/02/11 07:38 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
arjunasAscent Offline
pledge


Registered: 04/25/11
Posts: 69
Loc: PA, US
If i'm interrupting the flow of the thread feel free to delete.

 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
Satanism is the worship of and allegiance to Satan the metaphysical being. Anything else is something else.


I dealt with these notions in the satan can lick my balls thread. Excerpt:

 Originally Posted By: arjunasAscent in 'satan can lick my balls'

There's maybe three "schools of thought" in Satanism, one materialistic/empiricist, another focused on the psyche and subjective experience, and a last bent on transcendental experience that many in this forum would consider RHP nonsense.


So you embrace a metaphysical Satan, like Crowley, Mathers, and LaVey did at certain points in their trajectory. They never personified Satan however; He was most often symbolic but sometimes a cosmic phenomena or impulse of universal emanation believed to exist in every living and dying thing. An antropomorphic manifestation of Satan seems absurd though perhaps one could mystically experience it. It makes a good movie at least; even if such an experience were attainable would it be worth the effort given how unlikely and ridiculous it seems?

 Quote:
[Posers] are either somewhere along the path to summoning up the moral and intellectual courage to become authentic Satanists, or trying to legitimize their hypocrisy


What do you mean by "courage"? What is an authentic Satanist? What is there in an "authentic" satanist that makes him "more legitimate" than a materialistic satanist?


Edited by arjunasAscent (11/02/11 08:24 PM)
_________________________
Words are mere sound and smoke dimming the heavenly light - Goethe

Top
#60894 - 11/02/11 08:34 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Oxus]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Oxus
Dawkin's makes reference to possibilities other than, and possibly in ToS' case, Natural Selection completely. Whereas he acknowledges the life of memes within NS, there is also the possibility of our (Humankind) consciousness and intelligence paving the way for evolution.

Set, being the god/principle of Isolate Intelligence and existing outside from the objective universe (as well as separate from the other Egyptian pantheon) may very well 'fit' the bill rather than the randomness of Natural Selection or a mindless meme.

Luciferianism differs from Satanism (or does it, I'm still confused as to what exactly Satanism is?) in this very same way, that there is an intelligent and guiding factor involved in our evolution though not simply some divine being not connected to our very Self.

I'll stop there as I have probably dug myself a hole to which the many of you wish to bury me in.


Evolution is blind which implies nothing is driven towards a certain sort of mutation (which has very little to do with randomness). It only implies that when a specific mutation happens, and it is better fitted for its environment, it will have better options at survival and thus reproduction. Mutations are not always positive; there are negative mutations too which, evidently, just go extinct. Unless protected as we human tend to do.

Consciousness is the result of such a blind process. What we are now is because all those that weren't like us died. That's all there is to it. Which implies consciousness has been a benefit for our survival but not special since all other lifeforms we see now, survived too. There is nothing more special about us than any insect of your choice. Of course because of our consciousness, intelligence and all following, we became somehow top of the food-chain, as long as we decide the conditions of course. But again, we are a simply one step in the chain of a blind process.

The whole confusion about our uniqueness is only caused because it feels as such which not necessarily implies it is such. There is nothing non-natural about consciousness, it is simply an evolved form of awareness. The only thing which slightly differs in us and a minority of other animals is self-awareness which is an epiphenomenon of our brain. Once a brain has developed to a certain stage, self-awareness kicks in. We know this because babies are only self-aware after a certain age. Before the required neural connections are made, they are only aware.

When we notice that these things happen natural, there is no longer any reason to add something “divine” to the equation.

D.

Top
#60895 - 11/02/11 08:52 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: William Wright]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: William Wright
... Would you agree, Dr. Aquino, that although Setians who don't believe in a literal Set may be formally addressed as Setians, they are not authentic Setians, just as Satanists who don't believe in a literal Satan are not authentic Satanists?

No, because the terms have different connotations. The Temple of Set uses the term "Setian" both as a general formal affiliation identifier and as the initiatory title of the I°. We are not concerned with use of the term by nonInitiates of the Temple, unless of course they are using it to misrepresent themselves as affiliates.

In the original Church of Satan we were similarly proprietary about the initiatory degree titles, and "Satanist" similarly referred to both affiliation generally and the I°. There were very few other "Satanism" groups around back then - a few short-lived spin-offs and some organizations such as the Process inaccurately so-labeled.

So in these two contexts my previous answer to you remains accurate.

"Satanism" in the post-1975 era has no simple organizational proprietorship anymore, though Gilmore would probably try to claim it. The Temple of Set is interested in it only insofar as our pre-1975 ancestry is concerned.

So the term is essentially up-for-grabs: by Satanic-Panic promoters, Christian scarecrow-makers [think The Exorcist, etc.], rock musicians, T-shirt makers, tattoo artists, and the venerable 600C. Anton LaVey obviously milked it as a personal adjective post-75, but that was all.

The general theme of the 600C is "Satanism = Atheism in spooky dress-up", which is understandable since Atheism by itself is boring. The old Baph up-top adds some sex to the show, certainly. Nevertheless there is a basic problem here, because Satanism and Atheism are really two different things, and it is precisely the "Satan"-glamor of Satanism that such atheists seek. Call yourself a "Satanist" and people shiver with delicious delight: "You mean like in Eyes Wide Shut? Ooo!" But if you follow up with "No, I don't believe in Satan, don't believe in magic, and don't do rituals except for play-acting", all that "Ooo!" deflates and everyone just wonders why the misleading-affectation.

Within the 600C everything is comfy, because no one points this out. Or didn't until I did, which has clearly pissed if-the-shoe-fits readers off. My reasons for being such a party-pooper are twofold: first, because as noted I have a nostalgic regard for the Church's proprietorship [key the Camelot soundtrack in the background here], and second, to smack you kids [politely] alongside-your-heads and say, "If you're serious about this, and don't want to make fools of yourselves outside your clubhouse, you're going to have to do a lot better than Atheism-in-drag."

This thread is a good one insofar as it faces this issue; it's a waste of time if it's deflected into irrelevant flaming. The threads in the "Satanism"-area are generally good, but they still flounder because everyone's only sure what "Satanism" is not - not what it is.

You are all dancing around the scariest, most mysterious, most powerful factor in the phenomenon of human existence. This is not the time to dig your toes into the carpet. It either seizes you like a fever and reconstitutes your entire being, or, as Kesey would say, you're off the bus.

Social-externally the limitations of the term "Satanism" within an iconographic J/C context remain, but you can deal with that just as we did: by extending what is essential to it into other contexts; the Satanic Rituals is a good example of this. Indeed the Satan-phenomenon appears everywhere.

So quit fucking around and be Satanists if this is what's boiling up inside you.

That answer your question?
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60896 - 11/02/11 09:24 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
 Quote:
The general theme of the 600C is "Satanism = Atheism in spooky dress-up", which is understandable since Atheism by itself is boring. The old Baph up-top adds some sex to the show, certainly. Nevertheless there is a basic problem here, because Satanism and Atheism are really two different things, and it is precisely the "Satan"-glamor of Satanism that such atheists seek. Call yourself a "Satanist" and people shiver with delicious delight: "You mean like in Eyes Wide Shut? Ooo!" But if you follow up with "No, I don't believe in Satan, don't believe in magic, and don't do rituals except for play-acting", all that "Ooo!" deflates and everyone just wonders why the misleading-affectation.


Speaking only for myself: I am an Atheist because I do not believe in the existence of any gods. I am a Satanist because I am sickened by and vehemently disagree with Judeo-Christian religion and the tenets thereof. Since they have chosen to call the antithesis of their God (who, through Jesus, represents how people are "supposed" to behave) Satan - and since I have made a conscious decision to be nothing like they (the faithful) expect people to be like, I identify with Satan. But only insofar as "Satan" is the representation of the opposite of all that is "good and holy"; the prideful SOB who refused to submit, to grovel, to be a slave.

It's like with my "666" tattoo; no, I am not in the Aryan Brotherhood, no I am not a Devil Worshiper. But, 666 is the number of the Antichrist and since I am anti-Christ(ian), it fits. Also, I get a kick out of making the religious uncomfortable, it's fun for me.

Ultimately, the name/term/whatever-the-fuck-you-wanna-call-it "Satan(ism/ist)" isn't as important as what it represents. However, in the frame of reference in which I extist - meaning Amerikkka - Christianity is the most popular religion around; and since I am opposed to It, I, as previously stated, identify with their biggest Opposition I.E. Satan. But I am not stupid enough to believe that any of their made up characters, their vehicles for the expression of their beliefs.

In essence: Atheism is the rejection of the belief in their God (as well as all others), Satanism is the rejection of their life-denying-man-is-flawed-and-needs-to-feel-ashamed-for-being-human-and-seek-forgiveness philosophy.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#60898 - 11/02/11 09:32 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
RAIDER Offline
member


Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 152
Loc: PA
Herd mentality would dictate that we all have the same view, beliefs, and expression of Satanism and Satan...back to the original topic, Satanism is not what people do anyway, even though all humans are self serving folk ( even those who I know who view themselves as selfless thrive on the ego gratification that they get from 'helping others'), because of the very real self deceit they practice.
_________________________
DARK WOLF

Top
#60899 - 11/02/11 09:36 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Jake999]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Jake999
... If you REALLY want me to post some "I love me" bullshit, I could always post my inscriptions from my signed copies of The Satanic Bible, Satanic Rituals and The Compleat Witch!!! My working name at that time was "Jeremy (after his nephew), but they're still really neato. I still have the OFFIZHOL Baphomet stamp from the back office if you would like to see that... oh oh... looky what else I have. Give it a mother fucking break ...

This latest tirade aside, everyone already takes it for granted that you were a useful gopher for Anton around the house, in-between Tony Fazzini and Sharon Densley. That was not what I asked. I am interested in evidence that "Satanism" to you was significant and practical in your life at the time, and that Anton's opinion and evaluation of you recognized this character and competence. Anyone could be a 6114-groupie, wave the Satanic Bible in the air, and say, "I dig everything in here!" How about some of your own correspondence to post-75 members concerning issues and aspects of Satanism? Articles you wrote for the Cloven Hoof? Notes, transcripts, or others' reactions to presentations you gave or group functions at which you presided? Black Magical workings you undertook and their outcome? Examinations you took for any degree you were given?

In short, I am interested in Jake the Satanist and Black Magician, not Jake the gopher. If I have misjudged you, let's clear it up.

And yes, I do think it would be interesting to see .jpgs of how Anton inscribed your copies of his books.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60900 - 11/02/11 09:58 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
Sorry, Clown. I don't see any need to entertain you.

I've already pointed you to articles I had in The Hoof.

You've made yourself look like and ass. It's not my place to help you deflect. And you know that someone who made it to be an Administrator would not be that way.

So I see no reason to play your games.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#60901 - 11/02/11 10:16 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: SkaffenAmtiskaw
... I have read your book. It's interesting, but I don't intend to get into the blow-by-blow refutation of your claims on the simple grounds that I have neither the time nor the inclination to prove your assertions to be founded on personal delusions ...

We're not talking about differing subjective impressions of GBM workings, which are necessarily individual. You accused me of falsifying historical events and facts. If you can't be bothered to substantiate this, then perhaps you should not assert it.

 Quote:
... I distinctly remember your refusal to acknowledge the evolutionary process giving rise to the human eye as a result of natural selection, a point I refuted by pointing out several processes causing this development, as well as giving my sources ("The Selfish Gene", among others). This didn't dissuade you from making your point, stridently ignoring the case for natural selection in favour of the guiding hand of Set.

Kindly point me to that exchange, so that I may review what you said and whatever reply I made. I am not a geneticist, but I suspect I may have mentioned The Neck of the Giraffe, which, as you can see by its Amazon reviews, gets both bouquets and brickbats. I also touch upon human evolution in the Introcaution to Secret of the Lost Ark/Grail Mission, but that you read at your peril.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60905 - 11/02/11 10:45 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: TheInsane]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
... This in regards to your claim os "Satanisms original, centuries-established meaning" which are proven to be false. Your definition of Satanism is not the original - not has it been established for centuries.

"Satan" has been around for centuries, and "Satanism" is normally used to discuss his worship. It's a quibble to disassociate them, as a Google-search will demonstrate.

 Quote:
Jake also adressed the question regarding belief or no-belief in Satan as a being. TSB doesnt make Satan out to be a metaphysical being (even though it is vague) and the audio clip included in Jakes post shows clearly on the idea of Satan used symbolically even though some like to think of him as real in the ritual chamber.

So what question here am I supposed to have dodged? Satan was acknowledged as very real indeed within the Church, and symbolic-as-convenient outside the Church. The ritual chamber was not a place to lie or deceive oneself either. Very much the contrary: It was an environment in which all inhibitions against daring to speak raw truth were removed. If you did not speak the Invocation to Satan and mean it, you were wasting your time [and his].

 Originally Posted By: Anton Szandor LaVey, The Cloven Hoof, March 1970
And what do they do, now that it is safe to use His Great Infernal Name? They deny Him! They have the opportunity to cast the very creed of defamation, which killed their brothers and sisters of the past - cast that creed before the world in triumphal mockery of its age of unreason! But no! They do not thrust the bifid barb of Satan aloft and shout, “He has triumphed!” His Art and Works which brought men to the rack and thumbscrew, can now be learned in safety! But No! He is denied! Denied by those who cry up His Art and ply His Work!

Let it be known that every man who delves into the Arts of Darkness must give the Devil and His Children the due their years of infamy deserve! Satan’s Name will not be denied! Let no man shun or mock His Name who plays His winning game, or Despair, Depletion, and Destruction await!
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60906 - 11/02/11 11:05 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Jake999]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Jake999
I've already pointed you to articles I had in The Hoof.

And I believe I responded that I don't have those specific post-75 issues. Neither, presumably, does anyone else here. They would be relevant to the extent that they substantiate that you were something more than an ASLV-groupie & gopher. [Or they might just be emotional rants (as you've done here) about outside-6114 people/events, in which case they wouldn't.] Nor, of course, were Hoof articles the only evidence I invited you to provide. One must conclude that you do not because you cannot.

 Quote:
And you know that someone who made it to be an Administrator would not be that way.

"Administrator" = gopher. Q.E.D.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60912 - 11/02/11 11:27 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
Sure. There were times I was a gopher... I served at the pleasure of the High Priest of the Church of Satan. And your point is?

Hell, if I swept floors, asshole, I was one thing you weren't, and that was LOYAL.

So talk your shit. I have NEVER made amy claims that I was anything in the Church of Satan other than an Administrator. I took over from Wanda Slattery, by the way. I've made no claims of anything other than my LOYALTY (look the word up, if you need to know what it means) to Dr. LaVey and the Church of Satan.

And what would that have to do with the subject at hand. Nothing at all, Mikey. People have found you out for the big mouthed fraud you are, and trying to switch the subject to Jake just isn't going to cut it. Deal with your own shit, boy, because YOU are the one who's making the claims of who is and who is not a Satanist. People just don't care what you think.

Jake is not the cause of your problems. Jake would be no problem for you if you were not trying to lord your supposed superiority of thought on others. If you were simply being civil without trying to act superior, you and I probably would have no problems at all.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#60928 - 11/03/11 12:35 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino

Kindly point me to that exchange, so that I may review what you said and whatever reply I made.



Forgive my one liner response but I think he's referring to that deception of Atheism thread located HERE.

One of my personal favorites!

Top
#60954 - 11/03/11 01:30 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
... This in regards to your claim os "Satanisms original, centuries-established meaning" which are proven to be false. Your definition of Satanism is not the original - not has it been established for centuries.



"Satan" has been around for centuries, and "Satanism" is normally used to discuss his worship. It's a quibble to disassociate them, as a Google-search will demonstrate.


Yes, Satan has been around for centuries but hardly always as a metaphysical beeing. And hardly always as the one who opposes God. Self procliamed Satanism as a religion or philosophy is by all means a new thing in the history of the world (unless anyone has any new information that no one knows about).

The word Satanism hasnt meant the worship of an anthropomorphic being "for centuries" as you claim. It was used to detect heretics of the church. Sometimes by their own choice but more often just people who were in some kind of opposition to the power centre at the time. Satanism had no charachteristics beyond church men in power seeing things in people and events that they felt went against the interests of the Christian religion.

They did not in any way seperate the worship of Satan from the worship on any other gods or perhaps the disbelief in them all. At was all Satanism to them because from their worldview everything that was not of God was of Satan.

So the meaning of the word Satanism (a word that hasnt really been proven to exist for that long) has never been generally accepted as the worship of the metaphysical being called Satan much less for centuries. If this was ever the general definition of Satanism it is a very new notion since science took over the humanities.

Simply put, if we go back to history all documents tend to support that Satanism used to be what powerful Christians viewed as anti-christian. This is really non-refutable and never is there a set criteria for a belief in a metaphysical being (even though Im sure most would admit that those who do can be Satanists as well).

In todays scientific research on Satanism I have seen none that defines Satanism as the belief and worship in a metaphysical being exclusively (even though most admit those who do can be Satanists as well).

 Quote:
So what question here am I supposed to have dodged? Satan was acknowledged as very real indeed within the Church, and symbolic-as-convenient outside the Church. The ritual chamber was not a place to lie or deceive oneself either.


Well this gives fuel to the fire that Anton in large were just telling people what they wanted to hear. Bending the view on his own ideas so that they would fit better with the views of whoever he was talking to.

The quote you refer to is indeed valid but it never discusses the nature of the Satan that it refers to. It never mentions a metaphysical being and I believe Anton never really did in regards to what Satan was to him. Anton never denied Satan but his definition of what Satan was was never, as far as I know, built on a a view of him as a metaphysical being.

And again if the things in the ritual chamber were or werent seen as "real" in his own mind - who knows? However from his writing it is clear that it was intended as fantasy and role playing to expand ones will:

"The difference is that the Satanist KNOWS he is practicing a form of contrived ignorance in order to expand his will. . ." (TSB - The Intellectual Decompression Chamber).

Top
#60963 - 11/03/11 01:49 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Jake999]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Jake999
... And what would that have to do with the subject at hand.

You chose to characterize me as delusional and incompetent to understand Anton LaVey back on page #2, and have been on a constantly and increasingly R. Lee Ermey verbal rampage all the way up to this page #10.

By the time you got to page #7 [and even after I so graciously bought you a beer], you were YELLING that I had no business "judging anyone else as a Satanist". It seemed only appropriate to examine your own understanding of the term as you adamantly claimed it for yourself. It appears just to consist of your admiration for Anton as a friend and your various paperwork services in his home - commendable in themselves but not indicative of personal Satanism per se.

I have overlooked your rudeness [anyone else I would just have sent here *] because I basically like you and also appreciate more than most what a complex situation 6114 was in the years after 1975. I wasn't there, of course, but I knew the entire family quite well enough to sense it; and obviously there was nothing I could do about it.

I also knew the answers to my questions of you before I asked them, because over the same years the Temple of Set was regularly contacted by disillusioned individuals who had joined what they had believed to be the pre-1975 nationwide Church only to find it evaporated into nothing more than an occasional ASLV-written Cloven Hoof. Anton's disdain for his latter-day followers was also a very common impression - well beyond any ordinary sour grapes.

All of which is to say that I don't blame you for not becoming the kind of Satanist the Church inspired and educated prior to 1975. Had you done so/attempted to revive the functional organization, you would have been quietly but firmly disconnected.

A part of the pre-1975 problem [but not the degree-selling crisis] was that Anton was increasingly uncomfortable as an "organizational CEO". He was an artist, with an artist's inclinations [and neuroses]. One of the reasons we worked well together was that I was quite the other thing: an altruist with organizational experience and aptitude.

It's always struck me as particularly ironic when detractors accuse me of a runaway ego and a desire to displace Anton, since nothing could be further from the truth. There is no better testimony to this than the structure and history of the Temple of Set, which has been completely check/balanced from its founding, and which has progressed methodically through several High Priests/Priestesses to date.

For what it is worth, in my opinion your involvement with the LaVeys was probably one of the best things that happened to them in the 1980s. I suspect that if you had stayed longer, Densley would never have gotten the foothold she did, and the family would have had its best chance of staying happily together. All of them. And Anton damned sure wouldn't have spent his last days dying on a couch in the Purple Room surrounded by rotting kitchen stench either.

You and I both have enough ghosts of our own not to borrow each other's, I daresay.

* O.K. you can go there anyway for that "Mikey".
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60967 - 11/03/11 01:52 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
Okay people,enough with the personal insults.
Get the topic back on track without all the personal attack nonsense.

Get back on topic nicely, stfu, or a few people are getting a time out, and the colors don't matter.

Morgan
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#60975 - 11/03/11 02:22 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: TheInsane]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
... Yes, Satan has been around for centuries but hardly always as a metaphysical beeing. And hardly always as the one who opposes God. Self procliamed Satanism as a religion or philosophy is by all means a new thing in the history of the world (unless anyone has any new information that no one knows about).

I'm sorry, but I still see this line of objection as a quibble. Concerning pre-Church of Satan Satanism, cf. also COS Chapter #1.

 Quote:
... Well this gives fuel to the fire that Anton in large were just telling people what they wanted to hear. Bending the view on his own ideas so that they would fit better with the views of whoever he was talking to.

That was occasionally but not invariably true outside the Church; sometimes he wanted to shock, leg-pull, or just deflect.

 Quote:
The quote you refer to is indeed valid but it never discusses the nature of the Satan that it refers to. It never mentions a metaphysical being and I believe Anton never really did in regards to what Satan was to him. Anton never denied Satan but his definition of what Satan was was never, as far as I know, built on a a view of him as a metaphysical being.

Then the Invocation to Satan and the Adult Baptism Rite, etc. would go right over your head. As I have said many times, and as you will see throughout the various quotations from many Satanists in CoS, this was never even in question within the Church. If it had been, we would have been debating it as ferociously as here.

 Quote:
"The difference is that the Satanist KNOWS he is practicing a form of contrived ignorance in order to expand his will. . ." (TSB - The Intellectual Decompression Chamber).

A selective misreading; see the preceding paragraph. The "decompression" period/sequence at the beginning and end of each working is indeed a kind of "blasting" of the celebrants' normal inhibitions and points of reference, including, pointedly, the profane-world skepticism that all religious/magical ritual is impotent nonsense. At the conclusion of the decompression, all commenced the working with an unobstructed focus and will.

This is not an unimportant feature of Black Magic, incidentally. Experiment with it yourself and see how difficult it is, but also the difference between workings with and without it. The latter retains the confusion and inhibitions, often getting no further than a pageant.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60977 - 11/03/11 02:29 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Morgan]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Morgan
Okay people,enough with the personal insults.
Get the topic back on track without all the personal attack nonsense.

Get back on topic nicely, stfu, or a few people are getting a time out, and the colors don't matter.

Probably not a good idea to piss off W.W.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#60979 - 11/03/11 02:35 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
Fair enough.

My chief problem is the dogmatic approach you have been taking to OTHER PEOPLE'S lives. You can hallucinate or visualize whatever it is in another person's mind or life but that does not make it so. You've played fast and loose with some kind of idea that Satan has to be the same thing for everyone, and despite what anyone says, you seem to feel that your theistic approach is the only way to go.

Now, it's obvious that YOU believe LaVey believed in an anthropomorphic manifestation of Satan... we've seen direct evidence that he didn't and LaVey isn't here to refute your claims. All we have is an audio recording in which he categorically proclaims he does not believe in an anthropomorphic being, (this during the same time frame you claim he did) and also explaining why he felt it was ok for "mystical types" to believe in it. We also have ME, who can personally recount personal conversations between my self and LaVey where he spoke openly about his belief in Satan as a symbol. In a court of law, I think I know which side a judgement might well fall.

OBVIOUSLY, there has to be some disconnect. I can only assume, knowing LaVey's style, that he was writing to his audience when he wrote to you. I know for a fact that he didn't write that way to others... hell, I was a gopher, remember... I typed his correspondences to at times.

Your theism can't be denied. You have said you were contacted by SET. You believe in a physical manifestation of god(s) and fanatically claim to the existence of them with nothing but personal faith and belief. There's an old saying, "If you talk to God, you're religious. If God talks to you, you're delusional." I can't help but believe that there is actually truth in that quip without some tangible proof. If LaVey himself had told me he spoke to Satan on the telephone, I would AT LEAST have asked him for the phone bill.

As for being locked in with LaVey... he and I disagreed on things and argued about them, sometimes to the point of absurdity. He and I had VASTLY different opinions on the role of women, on military service (he suggested that I throw away 15 years of service and just work for the church, to which I asked, "Are you out of your fucking mind?) and other things as well. We were in agreement with many points, and I can include the precepts of Pentagonal Revisionism, the role of Satanism in the rising "Satanic imagery in rock music," and how to encorporate our message without it being lost in the hype" although he could never understand how I could actually listen to it, and much more. You see, I was only a gopher.

Whether or not I would have made a difference in The Church of Satan had I stayed on is a moot point. I KNOW I made a difference while I was there, and that LaVey considered my opinions and counsel. But while my heart and "soul" belonged to the Church of Satan, my ass belonged to Uncle Sam. My oath of loyalty that I gave to LaVey has not expired, nor has my oath of allegiance to my country. I would have taken or delivered a bullet for both, and still would.

So when someone comes into my world and says things that I know are not true to the best of my belief and personal knowledge, I have a duty to that man's legacy to speak up. I don't care if a person is the Ipsissimus of the Temple of Set or the President of the United States. And if I fight, I'm going to fight HARD.

But I would do the same thing if someone said something about you that was blatantly wrong to the best of my belief and personal knowledge, as in the case of the child molestation charges, etc. They were investigated and proven to be unfounded... so no one has the right to bring them up as some kind of fact. I would fight that and demand proof.

My only problem in this thread is that you seem to feel that your ideas trump the individual rights of others to have their own opinions. Sure, you make cute but condescending statements, but people these days are too intelligent not to read them for what they are. You can only speak for yourself... your beliefs... but unless you can come up with tangible proofs (and self citing is not proof) then people will challenge you, and rightly so.

Long post, I know, but it's where I stand. I wouldn't put up with Christians proclaiming Jesus is the ONLY WAY, nor Muslims proclaiming that infidelity to Allah is death. Can't see any difference in someone proclaiming that their way is the only true way because they are from the Temple of Set. Show me the talking Aardvark, and maybe I can be swayed.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#60993 - 11/03/11 04:21 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
SkaffenAmtiskaw Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 06/24/09
Posts: 1318
It's funny you should mention the giraffe.

As for the remainder of your post, I refer you to my former post. Have fun proving that Set exists, that he revealed himself to you, and that Anton LaVey always believed in a literal Satan. I don't believe it, and neither do many others here, but if you say that others do, maybe it will become true.

That being said, I find your posts a source of inspiration, and it's always fresh to read a different take on things. Keeps the brain from growing stale. Have fun.
_________________________
"I'd rather be right than consistent" - Winston Churchill

Top
#61000 - 11/03/11 06:51 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Octavian Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/30/11
Posts: 81
The Setian religion is one of the most beautiful, elegant and profound religion's I have encountered.

I enjoy reading as much as I can and learning more. I dislike seeing it made a mockery of, or trashed by anyone.

Dr. you may not intend this, but when you go after those you don't consider Satanist's, you are going after people and their identities and you appear to be trashing those peoples identities. I don't think you mean to do this, but that's how it comes across sometimes.

Obviously everybody here can learn so much from you (I already have) just as we can learn from Jake. I also dislike seeing you and Jake at each others throats, or Jake's important contributions diminished in anyway.

I wish we could get past this whole 1975 crisis thing and what LaVey did and didn't believe at that time. I mean that view has been expressed a few times now, both here and in your writings and it has been passionately fought out.

I would very much like to learn more about Setian philosophy itself from you over time, and also about some of the many other things which took place during that early C/S period. I am sure you could bring a wealth of information regarding the practices of the early C/S. You have already done this. I am sure others want to get more insights as well.

Anyway, this post is not meant as some sort of rebuke or lecture, but an invitation to move forward.

Kind regards

Top
#61001 - 11/03/11 08:46 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Octavian]
Vondraco Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/19/11
Posts: 28
Loc: Houston, TX
 Originally Posted By: Octavian
The Setian religion is one of the most beautiful, elegant and profound religion's I have encountered.

I take it that you don't get out much.

 Originally Posted By: Ocavian
Obviously everybody here can learn so much from you (I already have) just as we can learn from Jake. I also dislike seeing you and Jake at each others throats, or Jake's important contributions diminished in anyway.


Certainly, Dr. Aquino is worth reading and learning from. I learned a fair bit from him in My time as s Setian. I do not think that he defines Satanism, however, and neither do I think that he is any less delusional than Paul of Tarsus.

If you wish to be a Satanist, you've got to do it by yourself. If you just want to be Setian, then feel free to regurgitate Aquino's teachings ad nauseum.

-- V


Edited by Vondraco (11/03/11 08:50 AM)
_________________________
Mathematician by training, Philosopher by nature
Genius by genetics, Hedonist by desire!

Top
#61005 - 11/03/11 11:32 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 862
Loc: Nashville
OK, fair enough. “Setian” refers to a formal title within the Temple of Set and doesn’t necessarily denote whether a particular member fits your idea of what constitutes an authentic Setian. Title before authenticity - got it.

I have a couple more questions for you, Dr. Aquino. The first one has to do with Anton LaVey. You would, I’m sure, argue that at one time he had what you claim you have, a sacred connection to/consecration by the Prince of Darkness. If this consecration is as wonderful as you say it is, why would he give it up?

Some would argue that he never had “it” in the first place, that what he had was the street smarts and imagination to pull off an elaborate ruse that he eventually grew tired of perpetuating. Of course you have a different take on the matter.

The second question has to do with something you said to me earlier in this thread. Commenting on belief in Satan within the pre-1975 CoS (and presumably Set within the ToS), you said that a “blind faith” belief was/is viewed as inappropriate, “a mere mirror-flip from the slave religions”. And yet here you are, doing your damndest to sell us on believing in a literal Satan/Set, hammering the idea into our heads over and over. How do you reconcile these two seemingly conflicting positions?
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#61006 - 11/03/11 12:16 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino

I'm sorry, but I still see this line of objection as a quibble.


Its not ”a quibble” because what you claimed as fact, proven beyond doubt, doesnt have any historical references to support it. These are your exact words:

Satanism is the worship of and allegiance to Satan the metaphysical being.”

”The chorus of indignation following my citation of Satanism's original, centuries-established meaning. . .”


I will make a very small request. Provide ANY proof, from ”centuries ago”, that your definition of Satanism, as the worship and allegiance to Satan (the metaphysical being), holds any truth whatsoever. You frequently refer to your own writings for support but do you have any objective scientific research that actually supports this thesis?

The above is what I find essential in your forthcoming reply so please prioritize this question.

 Quote:
Concerning pre-Church of Satan Satanism, cf. also COS Chapter #1.


I have read your book twice actually. I enjoyed most of it greatly but your section on pre-CoS Satanism is very much lacking and so short that it doesnt hold any greater substance whatsoever (you even missed refering to the first few individuals that were self-proclaimes Satanists in the so called western world). I am refering to serious academic research into the origins of Satan and Satanism – where it came from, what it has meant through the times etc.

 Quote:
That was occasionally but not invariably true outside the Church; sometimes he wanted to shock, leg-pull, or just deflect.


And how do you know the same wasnt true within the church? You have your persepctive but others from the same era have other perspectives – especially on the metaphysical reality or non-reality of Satan. Sometimes he goes back and forth in the very same book on certain things like the ego, spirit, Self, immortality of said things etc. My main thesis is that there doesnt really seem to have been ”a Satanism” during the early years but many kinds and interpretations within the same Church and indeed within the same man. After years and years people seem to want to prove that the CoS either used to be theistic or that it never was. I think it was both – at the same time – but perhaps, most of all, hungry for knowledge and full of theories.

Of great interest, regarding interpreting things your own way, is LaVeys words describing Satan as a dark force of nature while you always seemed to hold that Satan is something seperate from nature. The same goes for the ritual part of Satanism. Of course its meaningless without a ”real Satan” if we are to define things on your terms but people obviously dont and dont and if we are to interpret TSB as atheistic (which I think you can) there is a case for how ritual magic works in such a universe as well.


Edited by TheInsane (11/03/11 12:20 PM)

Top
#61009 - 11/03/11 03:22 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Fnord]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Fnord
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
Kindly point me to that exchange, so that I may review what you said and whatever reply I made.

Forgive my one liner response but I think he's referring to that deception of Atheism thread located HERE. One of my personal favorites!

Just took a quick look through it; didn't notice any particular "eyeball" exchange. I'll just rest with my comment above. As soon as you question anything about "purely random/natural evolution", many people fear that you're heading towards the blind & stupid "creationism" of Christian fundamentalists. Therefore all evolutionary "heresy" needs to be stamped down instantly and absolutely. I don't feel that fear; neither of course am I a "creationist" in the Christian sense.

Having participated in 14 or so pages of that thread, moreover, I am content with my contributions to that discussion and will decline to start it all over again now. Others may re-gnaw it at their pleasure, certainly.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#61010 - 11/03/11 03:31 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
Just took a quick look through it; didn't notice any particular "eyeball" exchange. I'll just rest with my comment above. As soon as you question anything about "purely random/natural evolution", many people fear that you're heading towards the blind & stupid "creationism" of Christian fundamentalists. Therefore all evolutionary "heresy" needs to be stamped down instantly and absolutely. I don't feel that fear; neither of course am I a "creationist" in the Christian sense.


I think you see evolution wrong if you think it is randomness. Evolution is not random although there indeed is some "chance" involved but at large it is rather determined.

We don't even need to look at a large time-scale to see it at work. If two parents have a child, this child will, on average, have 50/50 % of their genes, including some mutations.

The very reason there are those mutations is because probability is involved. But the probability to "differ" is quite small.

D.

Top
#61011 - 11/03/11 04:29 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Diavolo]
Autodidact Offline
member


Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 428
The "stamping down" is because the theory of evolution is simple and sufficient as-is - offspring can exhibit a different set of characteristics from their parents (via mutation or different gene expression (eg blue eyes instead of brown)), combined with survival of the fittest. Both produce bias on who reproduces.

If you're going to suggest some other mechanism, you need to back it up, or you can't expect anyone to think anything other than that you do indeed fall into the "faith-based" bucket.
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

Top
#61017 - 11/03/11 06:17 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Jake999]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Jake999
My chief problem is the dogmatic approach you have been taking to OTHER PEOPLE'S lives. You can hallucinate or visualize whatever it is in another person's mind or life but that does not make it so. You've played fast and loose with some kind of idea that Satan has to be the same thing for everyone, and despite what anyone says, you seem to feel that your theistic approach is the only way to go.

To most 600Cers, presumably, "Satanism" is just a personal-opinion concept, as is "Satan"; and for each person these are different. And since they are mere personal-opinions, they are not even especially important. They can be used at whim, changed at whim, and ignored at whim. "Satanism" is a particular sport shirt in your mental closet, so to speak.

To me - and here I am speaking as a Priest of the pre-1975 Church - Satan was real. To Anton Satan was real. I know this not just from the written examples I've cited or copied here, but from numerous private discussions with him over the years of our acquaintance. Let me try to summarize this thus:

Satan is the god (principle. Form. neter, et al.) of separation from and resistance to God (the cosmos, nature, the "deisim" touched upon in the SB). This capacity indwells all humans, but most do not reflect upon it - simply use it automatically and blindly. When they do reflect upon it, they are afraid of it as something not in harmony with, not under the law of the rest of the universe, so make [ultimately futile] gestures to demonize and destroy it.

This may happen, and since the de facto discarding of religious belief in the Enlightenment, usually happens in a purely secular context. "God" is an old comic-book cartoon, so so is "Satan". The scenario becomes one of just "going along" [with social norms, ecology, etc.] vs. being a free spirit, rebel, Beat, or other uncooperative fly-in-the-ointment. Such dissociation can be artistic, political, philosophical, or just for the hell of it.

This is where the Church of Satan came into the picture, and where its public image was concerned positioned itself. It was an affiliation statement for the oddball, and its religious image was just for fun and pageantry. That was the "9/1 parts" principle. At the I°/II° level, as elsewhere discussed, it was also as far as many members understood and regarded it. [This is also generally descriptive of the 600C today.]

To Anton and myself, however, Satan was a god. By such I mean that we understood this quality in humanity to be the reflection, the expression, the consequence of something more primal, all-inclusive, eternal and immortal. As such a god, it could be portrayed in any number of ways, by any number of names [as for instance the list in the SB]. We called it "Satan" simply within the context of our Western, Judæo-Christian society.

We worshipped this god. What do I mean by "worship"? Not at all what it means in the slave religions. Rather it was first an acknowledgment of its existence and expressed intention (= its manifestation in the consciousness of each human), secondly a commitment of one's soul to it. For Anton this was his personal, signed Pact as contained in his strongbox until the Ninth Solstice Message; for me it was my Priesthood oath and consecration. And what this meant, and I cannot overemphasize this, was that our entire conscious existence now became a radiation of this god. It was no longer just something you did, either deliberately or unconsciously; it was something you were. Everything you did now had a significance, a motive, and a force of inevitability beyond itself, beyond you as the doer. Each action thus became a sacred action.

Thus the Satanic Priesthood was not anything like profane church priesthoods, which are just jobs, flock-controllers & -satisfiers. The Satanic Priesthood was a state of being, and its effect upon others just something incidental to this.

Such a state of being and mind could not be taught in the ordinary sense. It would either actualize in someone or it would not. [Here, incidentally, were the pre-roots of what the Temple of Set describes as "Recognition".]

There was no "mission" of this Priesthood, except simply to be. Implicit was, as the Church proper, the stimulating, creative, rewarding, and enjoyable application of the Satanic quality in others, e.g. Satanism. It was simultaneously understood that this was a type of individualism which very few could handle either emotionally or responsibly. Society generally needed to remain within the grip, and under the control of J/C norms, traditions, and laws. Otherwise you would get the worst sort of mindless, random anarchy.

Thus the future of the Church of Satan would remain a very limited and self-restricted one. The more sophisticated it became, the smaller its numbers would be. In theory it would be increasingly dangerous to profane society the more it fully understood itself. In practice it would become that much more skilled at maintaining and presenting its 9/1 image.

Now that you know this, you can see it reflected in the NSM and in Anton's own Phase IV announcement. That was the present and the future. It was also the explanation for many of the things Anton [and I] said and did that by ordinary logic might be mystifying.

Now in the 600C, any more than then, this is not something which can be taught or argued into anyone else, and I do not expect to. I am not even sure that even this brief explanation is comprehensible. And certainly within 600C norms there will be strong resistance to/disbelief in it. I merely relate it; that's all.

 Originally Posted By: Jake
Now, it's obvious that YOU believe LaVey believed in an anthropomorphic manifestation of Satan... we've seen direct evidence that he didn't and LaVey isn't here to refute your claims.

I've actually cited several, extensive, and explicit statements by Anton that he did, most recently his note to me concerning the NSM. It is knee-jerk here for the Atheist contingent to simply tune that out, or rationalize it, or excuse it as a lie, etc. That is simply not my problem.

 Originally Posted By: Jake
All we have is an audio recording in which he categorically proclaims he does not believe in an anthropomorphic being, (this during the same time frame you claim he did) and also explaining why he felt it was ok for "mystical types" to believe in it.

I helped him compose it when the Occult Explosion outfit invited his contribution. We're right back to 9/1 again. The complete text of it is Appendix #91 in COS. Now that you've seen a goodly amount of my focus and style of expression here, it should be very easy to pick out not just my verbiage, but the concepts I've alluded to above, as for example:

 Originally Posted By: ASLV, The Occult Explosion Statement
It has been said that the most powerful thing in the world is an idea whose time has come ’round. The idea that the “enemy” might conceivably have something worthwhile to say is now with us. In fact, is that demon within each of us really an enemy, as we have so long been taught? Or will it be recognized as the guiding spirit of enlightenment which it actually is? You must remember that the word Daimon does not imply “evil”, but simply a “guiding spirit”, a “motivating spirit”.

 Originally Posted By: Jake
We also have ME, who can personally recount personal conversations between my self and LaVey where he spoke openly about his belief in Satan as a symbol.

This was after 1975, obviously.

 Originally Posted By: Jake
I can only assume, knowing LaVey's style, that he was writing to his audience when he wrote to you. I know for a fact that he didn't write that way to others... hell, I was a gopher, remember... I typed his correspondences to at times.

Well, of course he was writing to me when he wrote to me. Few if any others would have known what he was talking about, or understood it without thinking him nuts. Exactly the same could be said of some of my own esoteric correspondence with him. Would I have said or written the same thing to a newspaper reporter? Not very likely!

This of course is not at all the same thing as saying that we lied to one another. Very simply we had no reason to. Anton was quite comfortable criticizing as well as agreeing with me, especially magically and philosophically. [He was particularly concerned about my "naïve idealism" and altruism generally; he had a far harsher, more Hobbesian perspective on people & situations. Usually he was right and I was wrong. At one point I suggested to him that he just get an "I told you so." rubber stamp made, for his correspondence to me.]

 Originally Posted By: Jake
Your theism can't be denied. You have said you were contacted by SET. You believe in a physical manifestation of god(s) and fanatically claim to the existence of them with nothing but personal faith and belief. There's an old saying, "If you talk to God, you're religious. If God talks to you, you're delusional." I can't help but believe that there is actually truth in that quip without some tangible proof. If LaVey himself had told me he spoke to Satan on the telephone, I would AT LEAST have asked him for the phone bill.

Please see Chapter #2 of TOS, specifically the discussion of "anomolous experience". Where others are concerned, I have been quite content to let the North Solstice Working be judged by its practical consequences and effects. This is the norm for GBM workings, of course. Even publishing records of them, as with Crowley's Liber AL and my NSW, is an invitation to others' misinterpretation of the working experience.

Anton's first GBM working with Satan, or "conversation" if you prefer, was the "blinding flash" resulting in the creation of the Church of Satan that he described to Arthur Lyons in Art's original Satanism in America. Thereafter he had several "chats with the Man Downstairs", as he liked to call them; I think a few are mentioned in some of his COS-reprinted correspondence.

 Originally Posted By: Jake
As for being locked in with LaVey... he and I disagreed on things and argued about them, sometimes to the point of absurdity. He and I had VASTLY different opinions on the role of women, on military service (he suggested that I throw away 15 years of service and just work for the church, to which I asked, "Are you out of your fucking mind?) and other things as well. We were in agreement with many points, and I can include the precepts of Pentagonal Revisionism, the role of Satanism in the rising "Satanic imagery in rock music," and how to encorporate our message without it being lost in the hype" although he could never understand how I could actually listen to it, and much more. You see, I was only a gopher.

As should be evident to readers here, your association with Anton was far more personal than mere administrative gophering. You have previously touched upon various of your bull sessions with him, both privately and in groups of friends. He was obviously an interesting conversationalist. My previous point was simply that "Satan disappeared after 1975 except as an adjective" in such conversation; the metaphysical dimension of Satanism was gone.

 Originally Posted By: Jake
Whether or not I would have made a difference in The Church of Satan had I stayed on is a moot point. I KNOW I made a difference while I was there, and that LaVey considered my opinions and counsel. But while my heart and "soul" belonged to the Church of Satan, my ass belonged to Uncle Sam. My oath of loyalty that I gave to LaVey has not expired, nor has my oath of allegiance to my country. I would have taken or delivered a bullet for both, and still would.

I completely understand, of course.

 Originally Posted By: Jake
So when someone comes into my world and says things that I know are not true to the best of my belief and personal knowledge, I have a duty to that man's legacy to speak up. I don't care if a person is the Ipsissimus of the Temple of Set or the President of the United States. And if I fight, I'm going to fight HARD.

Just watch out for that "to the best of my belief and personal knowledge" caveat. Or, as my dad used to say, "Never fall on your sword in the semi-finals." ;\)

 Quote:
But I would do the same thing if someone said something about you that was blatantly wrong to the best of my belief and personal knowledge, as in the case of the child molestation charges, etc. They were investigated and proven to be unfounded... so no one has the right to bring them up as some kind of fact. I would fight that and demand proof.

I appreciate that too [so I assume no more "Mikey" from you].

 Originally Posted By: Jake
My only problem in this thread is that you seem to feel that your ideas trump the individual rights of others to have their own opinions. Sure, you make cute but condescending statements, but people these days are too intelligent not to read them for what they are. You can only speak for yourself... your beliefs... but unless you can come up with tangible proofs (and self citing is not proof) then people will challenge you, and rightly so.

Well, I have made pretty exhaustive efforts here to explain myself and my ideas in language that is meaningful to humans. This generally extends up Plato's "pyramid of thought" to the level of dianoia. Above that is nœsis, which, like GBM, is apprehensive, unique, and unprovable by OU methodology [except, as above, by the reflection of its results].

So I can "think for others" only so far here, and after that they're absolutely on their own. You not only have to want to do this thing; you need the mental perspective and discipline to do it coherently. It's a bit like the aforementioned jumping out of an airplane: you can describe it to others, and you can imagine what it might be like, but neither of these substitutes for actually doing it.

 Originally Posted By: Jake
Show me the talking Aardvark, and maybe I can be swayed.

Closer to an anteater, actually:

 Originally Posted By: M.A.A., The Temple of Set
The “Set-animal” of portraits and hieroglyphic inscriptions has remained the object of considerable controversy. Its long, curved snout, stiffly-upraised and forked tail, and tall, brush-like ears (?) appear to rule it out of any known animal category. The most extensive and thorough treatment of Set’s image to date is by H. Te Velde in his classic work Seth, God of Confusion.

Among the animals he cites as past candidates for the Set-animal are the ass, oryx antelope, greyhound, fennec, jerboa, camel, okapi, long-snouted mouse, aardvark or orycteropus, giraffe, hog, boar, hare, jackal, tapir, long-snouted Nile mormyr, and the Egyptian Nh-bird. Dismissing each of the above as essentially different from the portraits and statues of Set, Te Velde takes the position that the question cannot be resolved from the information currently available to Egyptologists.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#61019 - 11/03/11 06:41 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
Somebody get me a couple of fucking Excedrin.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#61020 - 11/03/11 07:01 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Jake999]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Jake999
Somebody get me a couple of fucking Excedrin.

With my compliments.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#61030 - 11/03/11 09:17 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Oxus Offline
member


Registered: 04/15/10
Posts: 509
I don't know, this is all a lot to take in but I do have a question.

If you remove the Satan from Satanism is it still Satanism?
Obviously the ToS has a Priesthood that some accept the godform of Set and others accept Set as Principle (if I am correct?)

Either way we can call this Setian, but if the majority of Satanists don't include Satan into Satanism, why wouldn't you just call this something else?

Atheistic Libertarianism for instance?

Top
#61031 - 11/03/11 09:25 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Oxus]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Oxus
I don't know, this is all a lot to take in but I do have a question.

If you remove the Satan from Satanism is it still Satanism?
Obviously the ToS has a Priesthood that some accept the godform of Set and others accept Set as Principle (if I am correct?)

Either way we can call this Setian, but if the majority of Satanists don't include Satan into Satanism, why wouldn't you just call this something else?

Atheistic Libertarianism for instance?



We didn't remove Satan from Satanism, some of us became the Satan. Those that keep him and don't become him, are much more questionable.

D.

Top
#61032 - 11/03/11 10:09 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3841
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
What oxus here has to say reflects my feelings on the gilmorean crew, yet the problem is there is no dichotomy between them and the theistic retards.

Some, as D highlighted, find a much more meaningful role for the devil, supported by both praxis and tradition - two things sorely lacking in the other two.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#61033 - 11/03/11 10:09 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: William Wright]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: William Wright
I have a couple more questions for you, Dr. Aquino. The first one has to do with Anton LaVey. You would, I’m sure, argue that at one time he had what you claim you have, a sacred connection to/consecration by the Prince of Darkness. If this consecration is as wonderful as you say it is, why would he give it up?

I don't know. The events of mid-1975 caught me completely by surprise. It could have been financial pressures, prompting an attempt to generate more income from the Church. Remember, at that time I think it was about $25 to join and $10 annual renewal, that's all. Baphomet medallions cost us $3.50@ and we sold them for $7@. Hardly a religious racket.

Or it could have been pure psychological strain. Being the High Priest of Satan was a big, dark hole. Nothing like this had ever happened before, and there was no road map how to do it at all, much less perfectly.

In addition to his metaphysical office there was also the material one: being CEO of an organization which was expanding throughout the United States and showing signs of becoming international. Anton and Diane had no background or experience in such an operation. And of course the national Priesthood, Grottos, and individual Satanists were all looking to him for a road map.

Understand: The Church of Satan was not theologically preplanned like some venture capital company. It came into existence almost accidentally - Anton had been thinking of a B&D partnership with Monique von Cleef until Edward Webber suggested that he start a Church of Satan instead. Then it spent its first few years with its head more or less up its ass, but having lots of spooky fun as a Charles Addams alternative to what was going on a few blocks away at Haight/Ashbury. It began to get serious when it started to take itself seriously, which was about the time I joined it in 1969.

Some people thought Anton LaVey was the most dangerous man in the world, and drove by 6114 at night taking rifle shots at it. Some people thought he was a con-man out for a fast buck. Some thought he was a nut, clown, or "deviled ham". The SFPD arrested him because his lion roared at night. In general he lived under extreme strain, yet was expected to project an image of power and omniscience. He would visit my home in Santa Barbara occasionally just to get away from all that, bum around the beach in disguise (hat & dark glasses), and get his face licked by my Irish setter Brandy.

With hindsight I think it was a race to get the Church fully set up and functional without his having to deal with its growing pains ad hoc. The Church lost the race. Various things could have been done differently, but none of us expected that a clock was ticking to 1975.

 Quote:
The second question has to do with something you said to me earlier in this thread. Commenting on belief in Satan within the pre-1975 CoS (and presumably Set within the ToS), you said that a “blind faith” belief was/is viewed as inappropriate, “a mere mirror-flip from the slave religions”. And yet here you are, doing your damndest to sell us on believing in a literal Satan/Set, hammering the idea into our heads over and over. How do you reconcile these two seemingly conflicting positions?

I am not trying to sell you on any belief. That works for the slave religions, but not for Satanism [or, of course, Setian initiation]. This is a Grail Quest. Each of you who aspires to must find your own way to the castle, which involves being able to see it. Pick up a copy of this book, read, and learn. And don't be distracted by Parsifal's Christian-theme context *; this is an initiatory adventure far deeper than that. [This same book is one of the references of the Order of the Trapezoid.]

* Adolf Hitler, a Wagner devotee, remarked to Goebbels in 1941 that "after the war he would see to it either that religion was banished from Parsifal or that Parsifal was banished from the stage". Himmler was a bit more visionary and modeled the Grail Hall of the Wewelsburg after the similar Parsifal set.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#61034 - 11/03/11 10:31 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: SkaffenAmtiskaw
Have fun proving that Set exists, that he revealed himself to you, and that Anton LaVey always believed in a literal Satan. I don't believe it, and neither do many others here, but if you say that others do, maybe it will become true.

All it takes is faith and trust and ... a l-i-t-t-l-e bit of pixie dust.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#61041 - 11/04/11 02:30 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Diavolo]
Apeynon Offline
stranger


Registered: 11/04/11
Posts: 40
Loc: In Your Bedroom Pillow
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
We didn't remove Satan from satanism, some of us became the Satan. Those that keep him and don't become him, are much more questionable.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me people are giving Aquino a hard time here because he accepts that Satan is real, while everyone else here appears to accept that Satan is symbolic and then go on to say that those who don't accept Satan being symbolic are delusional or just plain idiots.

Which leads me to ask - how do they arrive at this conclusion about Satan? Have they, as I assume Aquino has done, done many effective and practical Satanic rituals to evoke Satan? If so, then presumably nothing happened? Even if something did occur, how did they explain what occurred? Did they assume it was derived from their own imagination, and if so how did they arrive at this conclusion?

What I'm basically asking is if those who accept the symbolic interpretation of Satan have done practical Satanic stuff or not? If they have, then what? If they haven't, then aren't they just making an assumption about Satan based on a lack of practical Occult rituals?

Top
#61043 - 11/04/11 04:45 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Apeynon]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: Apeynon

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me people are giving Aquino a hard time here because he accepts that Satan is real, while everyone else here appears to accept that Satan is symbolic and then go on to say that those who don't accept Satan being symbolic are delusional or just plain idiots.


I dont have a problem with theism really even if I am not a theist. The problem for me is that Aquino says so many things and claim them as the truth. His evidence for most of what he says has a base in his very subjective beliefs in a real being that he calls Set (that he percieved to be Satan from about 1969 to 1975).

He also tends to reply to people but dodge the difficult questions and thus providing to substancial answers. After days and days after claiming some kind of centuries established true definition of Satanism he still hasnt provided any proof that this claim holds any truth while we have been 3 or 4 people who have supported our claims (see page 2 and 3 I believe).

He also cant seem to understand any though that he doesnt agree with (see the older discussion on Self and non-Self if its dynamic or static, separate and independent or integrated and dependent on the world etc).

 Originally Posted By: Oxus

If you remove the Satan from Satanism is it still Satanism?
Obviously the ToS has a Priesthood that some accept the godform of Set and others accept Set as Principle (if I am correct?)

Either way we can call this Setian, but if the majority of Satanists don't include Satan into Satanism, why wouldn't you just call this something else?

Atheistic Libertarianism for instance?


Sure if there is no Satan in Satanism the name holds no value. But even if Satanism is theistic or atheistic or something else Satan is always a central concept or principle within the religion or philosophy. It is not about the existence of a metaphysical being neccesarily.

Personally I would loathe a label of ”atheistic libertarianism”. Firstly, while I am an Atheist, I do think that Satanism can be theistic. Second, I dislike the concepts of libertarianism. I am very far from a libertarian and I know plenty of Satanists that are. It just wouldnt be accurate to label a Satanist an atheistic libertarian except in certain individual cases.

Top
#61049 - 11/04/11 10:29 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 862
Loc: Nashville
Dr. Aquino, thank you for answering my questions. I still don’t see eye to eye with you, and I’m not sure I ever will, but you’ve definitely given me a lot to think about. A thought occurred to me last night, that you’re sort of like the Howard Stern of the 600 Club. Love you or hate you (more often the latter), interest seems to pick up considerably when you step up to the mic. At least, that’s the case with me. The last few nights I’ve had a hard time getting to sleep because I was so absorbed in thought (although for some reason I slept much better last night; maybe exhaustion just got the better of me). You’re one fascinating dude.

In your latest response to Jake (well, before offering him Excederin), you talked about the Satanic Priesthood oath and consecration. You said, “What this meant, and I cannot overemphasize this, was that our entire conscious existence now became a radiation of this god. It was no longer just something you did, either deliberately or unconsciously; it was something you were. Everything you did now had a significance, a motive, and a force of inevitability beyond itself, beyond you as the doer. Each action thus became a sacred action.”

I still, for the life of me, don’t understand what is so great about being a Satanic/Setian Priest. I know you’d answer with, “You’d have to experience it for yourself,” but any zealot could say the same thing regarding their “religious experience”. Satanic/Setian Priests, I’m sure, have highs and lows in their life just like the rest of us. Some are more accomplished than others, and all are less accomplished (“real-world” accomplishments) than the most accomplished “mundanes”. Some Priests have families, others do not. Priests get sick, get old and die just like the rest of us. You could argue that their lives are better than others after their physical bodies expire, but that seems to get into the “blind faith” arena (as none of us have yet experienced death).

So what’s the payoff? How is “apprehending Satan/Set” better than simply “being your own Satan” and living life on your own terms?
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#61051 - 11/04/11 11:10 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Apeynon]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: Apeynon

What I'm basically asking is if those who accept the symbolic interpretation of Satan have done practical Satanic stuff or not?


"Practical" in what sense? Practical in the way of throwing off the chains of prescribed RHP religions and taking the onus of a fulfilling life upon oneself? Practical in the way of discarding faith in favor of reason? In what way do you define what is practical?
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#61052 - 11/04/11 11:30 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Fnord]
Apeynon Offline
stranger


Registered: 11/04/11
Posts: 40
Loc: In Your Bedroom Pillow
 Originally Posted By: Fnord
"Practical" in what sense?

Practical as in doing Occult, Satanic, rites and ceremonies with the aim of evoking and invoking Satan. Ceremonies as in 'with other people' and rites as in 'by yourself' and also possibly with other people.

If the answer is yes to doing such practical Occult stuff, then what specific rites and ceremonies and with what result, if any.

Examples of practical stuff could range from old grimoire magick, to Temple of Set ceremonies and rites, to ONA sorcery like as in their 'black book of satan' and 'ceremony of recalling'.

What I'm basically asking is if those who believe that Satan is symbolic and that Satanism is therefore just some personal heretical praxis, have ever done such practical Occult rites and ceremonies.

If they haven't such practical Occult experience, then how have they arrived at their conclusions about Satan? By reason alone?

Also, and I may be wrong, but I get the impression from what Aquino has said in this thread - and elsewhere - that he's not only done such practical Occult stuff but that his practical Occult experience extends over decades.

Is that practical experience therefore the basis for his belief, or not? If so, then perhaps his beliefs are not as unfounded as some here seem to think.

Top
#61053 - 11/04/11 11:43 AM 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
 Originally Posted By: Autodidact
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
Well, that gets rather tautological, since you're now insisting that there is no "real you" to perceive anything external to itself; [...]

This doesn't follow at all. The only way to make the above work is to stipulate that you cannot perceive yourself, thus there "must" be two bits, the ba/soul/spirit and the OU-you. That seems to me another unwarranted leap, and it's still orthogonal to claiming one's soul must be outside the OU.

Well, someone/something has to do the perceiving, and to do so it must be able to distinguish itself from the perception.


Nope, same error. The problem with this argument is that there's an implicit assumption that there must be some "objective" "you". By requiring a separate "you", you are led into infinite recursion, the only escape from which is to claim the "real you" must be "outside". This is circular reasoning.

It's far simpler to take "self-aware" to mean, well, "self-aware". You mentioned your big toe - you can see your big toe, can't you?

 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
 Quote:
I dunno, maybe I need to go study some of those jibber-jabber philosophy guys ... I always hated Philosophy for this same reason - they always seem to start with way too many premises seemingly picked from the blue.

Here you go ... Take two OU-aspirin first ...


I've given this, and some of the links, a quick once over, and the basic summation appears to be "your senses can be fooled, therefore they are not real, therefore there is no sensing", which, frankly, is stupid. I'll keep looking, though - that seems too big a hole, maybe I'm just not getting good explanations ...

 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
 Quote:

That was precisely my point. It's humans doing the perceiving, and denoting the Forms. It seems simpler that the former is the cause and the latter the effect, as it were, rather than vice versa.

You as a human can perceive an apple and assign it a name & significance, but you did not pre-create the thing & its characteristics.


That's a physical object, not a Form. Humans create Forms, usually assigning them an abstract average of desirable qualities. They can also change them, for instance by saying tomato is fruit, not vegetable; in that case, scientists have one version of the Form "fruit", while the layman, who still thinks of tomato as veg, has another.
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

Top
#61054 - 11/04/11 12:20 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Apeynon]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: Apeynon
Practical as in doing Occult, Satanic, rites and ceremonies with the aim of evoking and invoking Satan.


Okay, I suspected we were perhaps using the word practical in different ways. When I see it I think 'pragmatic' which certainly doesn't always apply when discussing things like greater magic (in practice, which is how you were using it).

I'm not sure I agree with your initial premise that people here either think that Satan exists symbolically or that there is a belief in a literal Satan. Certainly some of the most vocal people here are atheists who resonate with a symbolic Satan and I would be loathe to suggest that any of them haven't thought well through their own particular positions.

For myself, I would like to use the term agnostic though completely removed from any religious framework. That is a fancy way, I suppose, of saying that I simply don't know. Certainly I don't believe in an anthropomorphic being, good or evil. I can see, though, something that appears to reveal itself as a higher level of order. I suppose some would call this nature or biology or perhaps even natural order but since my unsophisticated brain cannot fathom how it all came to be, all I can do is to continue investigating it and trying to work out how it applies to me.

Anyway, personally, I have been engaged in ritual magic for quite some time and to what I would call a good effect. Unlike Dr. Aquino, I have not experienced anything through ritual that I would call an intelligence outside of myself and separate of the mortal coil. I suppose I continue with this sort of thing because I do enjoy the process and it allows me time during my exceedingly busy life to pause and reflect on things important to me.

Finally, I wouldn't call Aquino an idiot as I've learned much from his insights on my own personal path (as I have from many others here at 600). I've come across others who also believe in a literal deity that I wouldn't call idiotic either. My assignation of that term depends wholly upon the person and their actions.

I do think you'll find, if you search the 'Satanism' forum, many discussions around greater magical practice and who has and hasn't participated in it and why or why not. I may be misreading you, but it appears as if you've dropped in on your first post, to defend Dr. Aquino and have made some assumptions about the population at large here. If this is the case then I can assure you that it's not a wise move.



Top
#61055 - 11/04/11 01:15 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Apeynon]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1641
Loc: Orlando, FL
Firstly, many of us here have different views of Satan that rest outside the illusory "he's either a red guy with horns, or doesn't exist period" conflict. I'd elaborate, but all you would really need to do is fish around the forum a bit more to get a good picture.

 Quote:
What I'm basically asking is if those who believe that Satan is symbolic and that Satanism is therefore just some personal heretical praxis, have ever done such practical Occult rites and ceremonies.


Some people have, some people haven't. Even the Order of Nine Angles has many non-occultists in its ranks, who resonate with its radical ideology, but haven't touched a tarot deck in their lives. Others practice ritual occasionally, but don't see it as being that important in the big picture.

 Quote:
If they haven't such practical Occult experience, then how have they arrived at their conclusions about Satan? By reason alone?


Naturally, one must rely on reason when gnosis is not available. An agnostic or hard Atheist, therefore, must rely solely on reason (and occasionally emotion).

In the past, "Satanism" was synonymous with heresy and antinomianism, not just magical rituals or the religious worship of the Devil (the latter, in fact, was not widely grouped in with "Satanism" proper until modern times). There is also a certain literary/artistic current which has been called "Satanic" (ala Blake, Shelly, Baudelaire).

So there exists a clear case for non-occult interpretations of Satanism.... which, of course, isn't appealing to somebody who has spent the last three decades insisting otherwise for the sole purpose of retroactively justifying some quarrel that happened in the stone age.

 Quote:
Also, and I may be wrong, but I get the impression from what Aquino has said in this thread - and elsewhere - that he's not only done such practical Occult stuff but that his practical Occult experience extends over decades.

Is that practical experience therefore the basis for his belief, or not? If so, then perhaps his beliefs are not as unfounded as some here seem to think.


Such "basis" is about as firmly-grounded as every other New Age guru who claims to have received some Aeonic revelation from a deity. There is nothing particularly amazing about performing lots of rituals, either. Crowley seemed to live his life in the magic circle, but even he was (quite often) full of shit, and prone to vain obfuscating.

If I believed in the traditional hermetic demonology, I would go so far as to say that Aquino (and Crowley, by extension) must have gotten crank-called by some bored aerial spirit.


Edited by The Zebu (11/04/11 01:18 PM)
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#61056 - 11/04/11 03:24 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: William Wright]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: William Wright
you’re sort of like the Howard Stern of the 600 Club.



 Quote:
I still, for the life of me, don’t understand what is so great about being a Satanic/Setian Priest ... So what’s the payoff? How is “apprehending Satan/Set” better than simply “being your own Satan” and living life on your own terms?

It's not an option, but something that happens to you which you either assimilate or not, depending upon your intelligence and capacity to comprehend it. Perhaps the best example I could give you is the experience of Nicholas Urfe in John Fowles' The Magus, who certainly does not seek Election but undergoes it nonetheless. The novel also discusses two other individuals who were exposed to Conchis' masque: one who completely lacked the capacity to comprehend it, and another whose psyche it so overwhelmed that he collapsed into a Catholic monastery.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#61057 - 11/04/11 03:36 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Apeynon]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Apeynon
I get the impression from what Aquino has said in this thread - and elsewhere - that he's not only done such practical Occult stuff but that his practical Occult experience extends over decades. Is that practical experience therefore the basis for his belief, or not? If so, then perhaps his beliefs are not as unfounded as some here seem to think.

Yes, you can overview my experience in The Church of Satan & The Temple of Set on my webpage, and Black Magic on the same page discusses how what I have learned may be applied by others.

And also yes, Black Magic is something you actually have to do, not just jawbone about. This applies to both its Greater and Lesser versions.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#61058 - 11/04/11 03:41 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino

It's not an option, but something that happens to you which you either assimilate or not, depending upon your intelligence and capacity to comprehend it. Perhaps the best example I could give you is the experience of Nicholas Urfe in John Fowles' The Magus, who certainly does not seek Election but undergoes it nonetheless. The novel also discusses two other individuals who were exposed to Conchis' masque: one who completely lacked the capacity to comprehend it, and another whose psyche it so overwhelmed that he collapsed into a Catholic monastery.



Could you explain the difference to me between this capacity and intellect to comprehend and the "need to believe" requirement in other religions?

I have a hard time seeing the difference since in both cases, the premise is built upon similar arguments while the acceptance of this premise both require the same sort of belief factor.

We could call it capacity or required intelligence but since evidence isn't a factor, these labels do not mean very much.

D.

Top
#61059 - 11/04/11 04:03 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Autodidact]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Autodidact
Nope, same error ... etc.

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.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#61060 - 11/04/11 04:08 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Apeynon]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
 Quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me people are giving Aquino a hard time here because he accepts that Satan is real, while everyone else here appears to accept that Satan is symbolic and then go on to say that those who don't accept Satan being symbolic are delusional or just plain idiots.


You're wrong. The issue here is not that he has imaginary friends; people can believe in whatever stupid shit they want. The problem is that he is a patronizing douche bag and has been off and on since his appearance here a few years ago.

If he wouldn't constantly call all people who don't believe in Satan "posers", maintain that Satan/Set/whatever exists with nothing to back it up but his same old tired writings and dance around issues with pointless links and silly emoticons, there wouldn't be a problem. However, he does all of those things, so there is a problem.

 Quote:
Which leads me to ask - how do they arrive at this conclusion about Satan? Have they, as I assume Aquino has done, done many effective and practical Satanic rituals to evoke Satan?


Logic, reasoning, critical thinking. I don't perform rituals because I don't feel the need to. Especially not to try and contact some imaginary being.

 Quote:
What I'm basically asking is if those who accept the symbolic interpretation of Satan have done practical Satanic stuff or not?


I do "practical" stuff almost every day. Except for days like today when I don't have school. On those days I don't do much of anything.

 Quote:
If they haven't, then aren't they just making an assumption about Satan based on a lack of practical Occult rituals?


No. Ritual proves nothing. It someone performs a ritual during which they have a conversation with Satan, Janis Joplin or Count Chocula, that is only evidence of an active imagination and nothing more.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#61061 - 11/04/11 04:09 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Diavolo]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
Could you explain the difference to me between this capacity and intellect to comprehend and the "need to believe" requirement in other religions?

I would again recommend that you read Fowles' The Magus to see the difference. There is no "need to believe" anything therein. Nor have I ever felt any such "need" in my own odyssey, as it were.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#61063 - 11/04/11 04:19 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
I would again recommend that you read Fowles' The Magus to see the difference. There is no "need to believe" anything therein. Nor have I ever felt any such "need" in my own odyssey, as it were.


Excluding you who have "experienced" Set, to anyone else, it does require belief.

To someone like me, all I have to form my opinion upon is words. That what Set said to you, or that what you (and others) said about Set. But there is no concrete evidence that I might take into consideration which implies that if I embrace it, I embrace it purely upon faith.

This implies there is a "need to belief".

D.

Top
#61064 - 11/04/11 04:58 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Diavolo]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
I would again recommend that you read Fowles' The Magus to see the difference. There is no "need to believe" anything therein. Nor have I ever felt any such "need" in my own odyssey, as it were.

Excluding you who have "experienced" Set, to anyone else, it does require belief.

No, you could, for instance, become a Setian and an Adept in using the tools and resources the Temple provides. You could limit yourself to LBM if you prefer. Many Setians do this indefinitely and are completely comfortable thus. Indeed the Priesthood of Set is, like its predecessor, not something that can be deliberately sought or applied for in any case. It either finds you or it doesn't.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#61065 - 11/04/11 05:06 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Diavolo]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3125
 Quote:
Could you explain the difference to me between this capacity and intellect to comprehend and the "need to believe" requirement in other religions?

The differentiation lies in the idea that the "need to believe" is an automated reaction of people to make and interprete the world around more digestable. It is simple indulgence without making any depth or action. It is a means to dumb down.
The capacity and intellect to comprehend is more over the path into a becomming, the harder way.

It could be said that the one is RHP (need to believe) whereas the other is LHP.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#61089 - 11/04/11 06:44 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Dimitri]
Octavian Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/30/11
Posts: 81
The problem is that you cannot provide people with evidence of the existence of Set/Satan, as per some sort of scientific methodology.

Satan/Set must be personally apprehended or personally perceived or personally experienced, rather than confirmed through a process of reaching the truth, via the Objective Universe. If people can do this than they are Elect, candidates for the Priesthood.

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.

Being a member of the Priesthood of Set is still regarded as LHP, from what I understand, as it is an individual grail quest, but it is also a repudiation of faith and blind belief and an appreciation of a potentially unlimited I-theism. One must experience it for themselves and no amount of faith or belief in Set/Satan will do the trick. Genuine initiation must take place.

This apprehension necessarily involves an understanding that individual isolate consciousness is a particularisation of the form/universal. Maybe at this level individuality, or the sovereign individual, has been somehow supplanted by the possible "authority" of the neter, probably not though, not sure.

I imagine that trying to adequately describe what takes place during this apprehension, or this initiation, is difficult to do. I imagine that the words are limiting and not quite sufficient to adequately cover the meaning.

Dr. Aquino has mention the Fowles book, which is a masterpiece.

I would also suggest the book The Stars My Destination by Bester as a potentially useful book, for at least learning more about this. I am not sure if Dr. Aquino would agree with this book choice.

Top
#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: 3841
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: 3841
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: 3841
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: 3841
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
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
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
#61171 - 11/06/11 07:00 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Autodidact]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 862
Loc: Nashville
 Originally Posted By: Autodidact
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.


My thoughts exactly. Getting back to the idea of rituals, I've participated in some myself (not too much lately). The purpose of them generally concerned putting myself in a better financial position. Since that time my financial position has, indeed, improved considerably.

Did the rituals have something to do with it? Perhaps. Perhaps they created a strong memory around my desire, as the idea goes. I have been thinking a lot about money since then...but I was thinking a lot about money leading up to that as well. Or maybe there was another force(s) involved, helping me in various ways. I'm not completely ruling that idea out (although the idea has an icky RHP flavor).

Putting myself in a better financial position had to do with skill, hard work and a little luck, not exactly unusual to many who have never tried a Satanic ritual. At the end of the day, all I can really count on to make good things happen in my life is me. If there is something out there that, for whatever reason, gives a shit about me and provides some guidance - well, I guess that's just an added bonus.
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#61182 - 11/06/11 09:49 AM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: William Wright]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
Well I give up. Talking to you Dr. Aquino is, like I said to some else before, clapping with one hand.

I tried to be very precice and clear but you either decide to not answer my question but work around it or deem it unimportant or ignore it alltogether (as you have with my last reply to your message).

Its not worth the time or energy discussing with someone who cant even answer a simple question.

Im out...

Top
#61195 - 11/06/11 06:29 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: TheInsane]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
Well I give up. Talking to you Dr. Aquino is, like I said to some else before, clapping with one hand.

I tried to be very precice and clear but you either decide to not answer my question but work around it or deem it unimportant or ignore it alltogether (as you have with my last reply to your message).

Its not worth the time or energy discussing with someone who cant even answer a simple question.

Im out...

This was your previous post to this thread, and I don't see any question to me here - just general complaining, as again here. If you're trying to re-beat the dead horse of Satanism's historic and traditional meaning of Satan-worship, I still think it's a silly and stupid quibble. I am no more interested in wasting further time with it than spending several days arguing whether Christianity means worship of Christ or Buddhism of Buddha. Anyone else here who wishes to endlessly pick this nit, be my guest.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#61197 - 11/06/11 06:42 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3841
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
And there you have it folks, aqueeno just can't be bothered to support his own claims.

So he will continue to sneer down his nose at those that do not accept at his word this long history of devil worship, but don't expect any meat and potatoes.

Its funny because absent his celebrity status, pomposity of this magnitude would have resulted in a ban from here many moons ago.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#61199 - 11/06/11 06:43 PM Re: Isn't Satanism what people do anyway? [Re: Dan_Dread]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
And there you have it.....

M
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
Page all of 14 12345>Last »


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

Generated in 0.216 seconds of which 0.006 seconds were spent on 213 queries. Zlib compression disabled.