Page all of 9 12345>Last »
Topic Options
#67313 - 06/15/12 10:57 AM Dethroning Satan?
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Dethroning Satan?

The chief duty of every new age is to upraise new men to determine its liberties, to lead it towards material success - to rend the rusty padlocks and chains of dead custom that always prevent healthy expansion. Theories and ideas that may have meant life and hope and freedom for our ancestors may now mean destruction, slavery, and dishonor to us!

This is a debate that has been going on for more than ten years; people have been giving their pros and cons and then time buried it until the next time it surfaced. This time we're going to do it in public and everyone is free to step in and say their thing but, and I want to be clear about this; this is a serious debate and as such, I expect serious responses or none.

Satanism as a whole has been in decline for more than a decade; there are less people interested and of those, few are the right stuff. As a subject in search engines, as an example, it dropped to 30% of what it was a decade ago. There might be several reasons for this. In a world where religion is losing importance, its opponent will suffer an identical fate. In a world where apathy is on the rise, evidently, there will be less willing, or awake enough, to rise above their current situation. And in a world of suicide bombers, terrorists, conspiracy thinking... etc, Satan suddenly ain't that scary no more. Regardless of what we think is the main reason, it is undeniable Satanism as a whole is declining. Facts tell us we're trying to reach the finish line riding a dying horse and the finish line ain't nowhere in sight.

We could say it doesn't matter since we don't need any other satanist to be a satanist and this is evidently true. What makes us a satanist is not what we call ourselves, or depending upon how many others call themselves the same, but on what we, in reality, do. And yet, here we all are, which shows that we do seem to have some need to interact with like-minded. This was as much the case in the past as it is now and won't be any different in the future.

So when having future interaction in mind, there are two possible scenarios.

One; we can keep riding this dying horse somehow hoping that within ten years there will be enough of us left to have some decent level of interaction. The downside is that we already experience the symptoms of a subculture in decline and to enhance the probabilities we would be forced to play a numbers game where it is all about quantity; as much people as possible in the hope there will be enough to enable us to survive. But this is somehow contradictory to what Satanism stands for; quality instead of quantity.

Two; we have to examine satan as a cultural wrapping for our underlying essence and wonder if that which worked so well fifty years ago might not have lost its potency today. Maybe Satan just doesn't do it no more as a symbol, he no longer represents the needs of this culture and the only way he can go is that of the dodo. Maybe today Satan is that old custom which only brings disadvantages and halts our growth and evolution forward.

Are we purely clinging to it for nostalgic reasons and if, are we willing to have this nostalgia drag us down the pits of oblivion or is it time to cut where it hurts but in that, make the blood flow again?

Opinions?

D.

Top
#67314 - 06/15/12 11:27 AM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Diavolo]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3147
That it is in a decline, fact. From my point of view there will still be a certain adversity yet not as potential as it was a few decades ago. A sort of stagnant base, both from nostalgia as a certain basic fear in the minds wherein it took an representative of all that is evil.

The two scenarios you proposed, in my opinion, are actually one. Experiencing disadvantages with the archetype which is getting outdated and a raising importance of a quantity instead of quality.
A reevaluation of the archetype would seem needed but isn't really cutting the meat. Replacing it, or associating, with another is just post-phoning the inevitable. Cutting where it hurts is a very nice and sane option.. but where to cut? What would it be that describes the thing that is now called Satanism?

The Archetype of Satan on the other hand was never really a problem. Satanism can cope without the archetype from which its name was derived. Only the core it represents was of importance. Satanism can cope without "Satan" but not without the actions and words stemming from its core. Rip out the adversity the "genuine" Satanist invokes and what is left is a hollow shell thriving on nostalgia and an old name losing glory.

I do believe it is time to invoke a second Satanic-panic. And instead of cowering down and explaining truths and falsities to just raise a middle-finger and let it sort out itself.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#67316 - 06/15/12 01:14 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Dimitri]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
I am going to have more to say on this once I compose my thoughts (great thread, D) but my first instinct was to try to pull a statistic on how much of the world's population did identify with christianity. I found a page on wiki with some stats that does itself admit that the data is only loosely representative based on a variety of factors.. BUT.. it still didn't say what I expected it to say.

christianity by country

Off the top of my head I'd say that, in general, Satanists who are experienced recognize that pitting oneself against any of the big 3 is ultimately fruitless as it's a matter of great simplicity to see where the battle lines are drawn and to overcome them.

The question becomes, what's next in terms of finding meaning and in terms of exercising this inherent state of 'different' that is within us.

I'm not so sure I agree that the red guy is outdated, but, like I said, I'll pause to reflect and rejoin later.

Edit:

By the by, on the map those areas that are represented as being less than 20% or so are also associated, to some degree, with one of the other Abrahamic religions.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#67317 - 06/15/12 01:21 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Diavolo]
Jason King Offline
Banned/Martyrdom Denied
active member


Registered: 10/24/10
Posts: 731
Loc: 65?1%833Q!92A24 (It's a code)
Great question.

I don't believe "Satanism" as a comprehensive worldview was ever defined, hence the fad factor and consequent dip. Anton LaVey dressed up a late-60's angst/spiritual zeitgeist and came up with modern Satanism. But a period piece can no more make for a genuine worldview than a pop song.

Unlike Anton LaVey (and many others) I do not believe a Satanism can be defined negatively. Satan, as a character, is borrowed from the Judeo-Christian paradigm, and so must, until re-defined substantially, remain subservient to such. It's hard, especially in this day and age, to reclaim or empower Atheism. Or humanism. Or Epicureanism.

Read The Satanic Bible. What is the overarching theme? It's a reactionary text, start to finish. Never is either "Satan" or "Satanism" defined in a purely positive sense, rather everything is offered as a contrast. And the bits of positive philosophy we are treated to are ontologically empty. Almost as if Nietzsche (or even Rand) lost his (alt. her) poetic voice.

And not only that, myth is lost. And with myth, meaning (Aquino got at least that much). So, whence do we derive a Satanism worthy of the name? Or worthy of any degree of acquiescence? To roughly quote Lex Luthor in Superman 2, we need to "turn a new leaf, no, a new forest."

If the only vector for <Satan> is <the opposite of gods/religion>, then your Satanism will ultimately fail. Even if you add <its all about me and more ME>, you will still fail, at least to define an adequate Satanism. No, until you recognize that your Satanism must encompass and explain the world as it is, you will always be clutching at straws.

So, instead of The Satanic Bible, I tend to recommend The Lucifer Principle. And I see a new breed of Satanists coming. Ones who may not even need the label I have chosen for myself. After all, I don't go running around proclaiming myself to be a human being, it just is.

JK
_________________________



Top
#67322 - 06/15/12 10:34 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Jason King]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
I am not sure if anyone else watches the news or reads the paper, but I would argue that Satanism is less overtly obvious because the world is simply becoming more Satanic.

Who needs a Satanic boogeyman or Satanic Rebellion when the world around you is so uncertain and chaotic? People have largely lost their faith in govt, churches, banks and other such institutions that have historically be constructed of stone. How could adding Satanic memes to this make this situation any more chaotic?

The world is on fire and if you care to open your eyes to it, you will see a world that is at war. Europe is ready fragment once again and within nations Right Nationalist are competing with Leftist Reds while centrist parties can't get a word in edgewise.

White Lighters are fond of saying 'God is all around us'. Today, I would argue that we are enveloped in Satan's influence. We need not a Satanic revival when Satanism is the fact of the matter.

We are, as they say in the ONA, at the beginning of the New Aeon.
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#67325 - 06/15/12 11:14 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Fist]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
It is true indeed, as King and Fist mention, that the world is fundamentally satanic and as such, we are the personification of this reality and what King points at is also true, that Satanism has always defined itself in contrast, as if we are revolutionaries while, when speaking in these terms, we are actually contra-revolutionaries. We represent reality as it is.

But the real issue here is not the world out there but our survivability as a (online) community and if or if not, we should seriously consider a drastic change in our subcultural framework. Fist's remarks about a world undergoing changes is related to the future issues we are facing. In a society becoming more satanic, there is less need for a Satan to identify with.

And this is not about a community itself but about representing something valid and worthwhile and catering to a certain need you hardly encounter outside of our environment. We have an environment with a certain freedom which enables us to debate any subject or perspective without encountering moral or ethical limitations and to have such survive, one has to adapt towards cultural changes without abandoning the essence. The perfect example of what resisting change results into is the CoS. It is dead. We will suffer the same fate; not because the essence is outdated but because of the form. Satan no longer represents what we are about.

We are a forward and upward moving species; we have this drive to overcome, to grow, and go beyond but we're stuck inside an old memeplex which is only a disadvantage these days. We might like it but nostalgia doesn't really make you better, smarter or stronger. Nostalgia only makes you look back.

The way I see it is that we need to kick-start our culture but within a context that isn't outdated. And to survive and grow, we need new blood and thus new interest. So you need to grab people's attention and find a way to lead them here. Which implies something new is needed; a new memeplex, subcultural context or label if you like. That is as unavoidable as requiring a name and image whenever you try to sell a product to consumers.

But, as I mentioned, this requires cutting where it might hurt. Still, at the same time it enables us to get rid of other issues that are troubling.

D.

Top
#67327 - 06/16/12 12:08 AM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3928
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
I don't see this as important. The state of the subculture is really only important if you define yourself by contrast to it. Personally, Satanism is meaningful to me, and that is enough. I couldn't give a sheeps testicle about the 'subculture' or what anyone else is doing with 'Satanism'.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#67328 - 06/16/12 12:57 AM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Not only is that a bit weak as an argument, it is somehow contradictory to what you do Dan.

We manifest ourselves in conflict; it is exactly this that drives us to be at our best; that which forces us to go beyond ourselves. But conflict requires opponents which, evidently, implies it is in our best interest to have strong opponents. And this is all that our subculture is; a group of individuals that for selfish reasons interact, more often than not through conflict, and because of that there is this emergence which benefits all fit for such an environment. We don't care about belonging to as much as we care about participating in.

So yes, I do give a sheep's testicle and if you'd be honest, so do you. If not, why would there even be the auto-diabolic method you share? That's giving a sheep's testicle.

D.

Top
#67330 - 06/16/12 03:46 AM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3928
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Well, you say my argument is weak but I can (and am) saying the same thing to you. Are you really saying not only that talking on the internet is any more than a cheap source of entertainment, and further that this particular subculture is somehow a source of a better sort of productive conflict? I wholly disagree on both points.

First, I can honestly say that I have been defined not by what I type or read here, but what I do out there. None of 'this' matters on any meaningful level. Second, productive conflict rests in how you approach the world in general, not what particular adjective someone might use to describe themselves to others. In that, I don't really get why you think what I do or write is somehow married to the health of a subculture I really don't give a shit about. I'd still be doing and writing the same shit if the rest of you died tomorrow..I just don't care about this collective or its relative health.

You talk about Satanism as if it's some external thing we need to feed to keep alive, and it just isn't. It lives as long as one person still does it, and even that isn't that important.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#67331 - 06/16/12 04:46 AM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Not at all. I'm saying that the sort of interaction we have (or should have) is essential to our intellectual growth and evolution. What we are is indeed defined by what we did, do and will do out there but that shit doesn't translate to the internet.

Here it is a purely intellectual environment and only those skills matter. That someone is a whatever offline isn't going to help them out if they don't have the intellectual qualities or drive to survive in our habitat. Here the intellectual conflict drives us beyond ourselves (intellectually).

What you write publicly is because of a public and either you do it to reach like-minded out there or because you desire others opinions or criticism. If you didn't care at all if anyone would read it, you'd not post it. Simple as that.

I'm not talking about keeping Satanism alive since it is just a word. I'm talking about keeping an environment alive in which a certain essence can flourish and that is a completely different matter because you, I and every other like us will benefit from such.

Even at a transgressive level, this is an interesting issue. Is one able to remove that which one is used to, their memetic comfort zone if you like, the very thing in which they have established their position and worth and still do their thing in something new or unknown.

Satanism is our old leather jacket. It's comfy.

D.

Top
#67332 - 06/16/12 05:58 AM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3928
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
Not at all. I'm saying that the sort of interaction we have (or should have) is essential to our intellectual growth and evolution.

Well, to be fair..if you want to sharpen your sword on any subject outside of Satanism itself, this sort of venue is a poor choice.

The internet is literally filled with conflict and adversity of the sort offered here, even if from wildly different grounding points.


 Quote:

What you write publicly is because of a public and either you do it to reach like-minded out there or because you desire others opinions or criticism. If you didn't care at all if anyone would read it, you'd not post it. Simple as that.

Well, sure..but I don't need a bunch of other people calling themselves 'satanist' gathering at a website or two for that.

 Quote:

I'm not talking about keeping Satanism alive since it is just a word. I'm talking about keeping an environment alive in which a certain essence can flourish and that is a completely different matter because you, I and every other like us will benefit from such.

I find adversity is something you need to create for yourself, especially here. I can get it out of pretty much anyone, and milk it for what I can. I dont necessarily agree people calling themselves 'satanist' give more milk either, as it were. In fact, as a whole..I have seldom come across a more intellectually lazy and emotionally fragile bunch than most of what we get.

 Quote:

Even at a transgressive level, this is an interesting issue. Is one able to remove that which one is used to, their memetic comfort zone if you like, the very thing in which they have established their position and worth and still do their thing in something new or unknown.

Well, I guess we could start calling it interrogism :P

 Quote:

Satanism is our old leather jacket. It's comfy.

D.


Naw, it's just an apt word with some descriptive power. Ultimately the word doesn't really matter that much.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#67335 - 06/16/12 11:48 AM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread

Well, I guess we could start calling it interrogism :P


Well, maybe it is time for something like that. It's all nice and well for us to play the cool cat in Satanism but let's be honest; anyone of us that has a couple of neurons functioning, or anything to lose, won't ever mention Satanism in a critical situation; e.g. job interviews. Why is that? Because we pretty well know that either they're going to look at us as if we're gonna finger-fuck their eight year old or they'll consider us complete idiots. I live in a society where option two is 95% guaranteed.

That's the reality of this outdated memeplex; we ourselves are too embarrassed or too smart to share this with others because we know that even among ourselves most aren't getting it. How then could we expect different from those outside of it? I admit that, when someone introduces himself as a satanist, even I first think idiot and then hardly expect to be proven wrong.

I'm quite sure Lavey was smart enough to realize that if he'd have started his thing today, Satanism wouldn't be the memeplex to use. It's simply no longer valid. But yes, online it's cool but so is being a Nazi-Jihadist.

Still, I never was online to be cool.

D.

Top
#67337 - 06/16/12 01:13 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Diavolo]
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: Diavolo
I admit that, when someone introduces himself as a satanist, even I first think idiot and then hardly expect to be proven wrong.


Indeed. But why is that? Perhaps experience, lol. But why is that?

Again, I would maintain that "Satanism" as heretofore defined has led to either A: eccentric misanthropic Atheism, or B: reverse christian neuro-psychosis.

Sure, there have been a select few who "get it," top to bottom and through and through, but these are diamonds in the proverbial rough, as DD pretty much spelled out.

**********

The root-problem, I would hold, is not in the label itself - for this is sheer facticity. Rather, it has been in the presentation of the label. How do we transform the meme (if we desire this at all??), and to whom are we preaching/speaking? Is this a thing with enough real merit to save, or is it, as Diavolo's Advocate hints, a thing with more baggage than promise, no matter the aptness?

I'll go ahead out on the limb and say that YES, Satanism is worth "clinging to". The label is apt on two independent levels: the ontological (i.e. the world is in essence, adversarial) and the reactionary (i.e. my god is the nemesis of your "God"). Until language is able to present a single term with as much evocative power, we'd be fools not to embrace it.

And yet the singular quoted statement from Diavolo above summarizes quite nicely the nature of the problem-situation moving forward. For too long we've been hiding in our corners (whether literal or proverbial), content to allow others to do the heavy lifting while we were building our "total environments". And in the meantime, we've outsourced our real Satanism to evolutionary biologists, cultural critics, futurists, and outspoken atheists. Not to mention Eastern philosophers :).

JK
_________________________



Top
#67338 - 06/16/12 01:37 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3928
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

I admit that, when someone introduces himself as a satanist, even I first think idiot and then hardly expect to be proven wrong.

Well, a lot of hours spent doing 'this' will slant your perception. Id say most don't do this, and probably assume Satanists worship the devil and get up to some fucked up shit. This sits well with me \:\)

 Quote:

Well, maybe it is time for something like that. It's all nice and well for us to play the cool cat in Satanism but let's be honest; anyone of us that has a couple of neurons functioning, or anything to lose, won't ever mention Satanism in a critical situation; e.g. job interviews. Why is that? Because we pretty well know that either they're going to look at us as if we're gonna finger-fuck their eight year old or they'll consider us complete idiots. I live in a society where option two is 95% guaranteed.

I don't see the problem.

I would say that the day the term gets a favorable reaction from the normos would be the best day to put the term to bed.

Who needs housenigger status anyway?
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#67339 - 06/16/12 02:55 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Jason King]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I agree King that the root problem is the presentation of the label and even more, the presentation of the very content. A great part of me is a Nietzschean and when I think of his approach, consider his translation of similar ideas into words, I can't but look at Satanism and see a philosophy written with crayons. It is so simplistic it inevitably attracts a majority of simpletons which in itself is irony at its best.

You see Satanism as a label worth clinging to and make a valid point but from my perspective, it's no longer a sufficient one. We're not the reactionary ones, we're actually the normals; which is what the adversarial are in an adversarial world. And while Satanism made perfect sense during the sixties, these days it is not religion that keeps us down. The new gods out there are apathy, averageness and mediocrity and these new gods are more powerful, and subtle, than the old ones.

We have a problem which is obvious to anyone willing to look critically at our subculture and the real question is if solving this problem is even remotely possible considering it firmly roots us into a juvenile setting? Regardless of all the posture and pretense in Satanism, our self-promotion as anti-this and anti-that, if I'm honest I have to admit, it is one of the most infertile and stagnant environments I ever encountered. You're quite correct when you say that Satanism outsourced its Satanism to others. It probably gives us more time looking at ourselves in the mirror while flexing our muscles.

So I'd say NO to Satanism being worth clinging to. Is that houseniggery? Not at all; it's about being smart and having self-respect.

I know it ain't effective giving a lecture on morality dressed up as a clown.

D.

Top
#67340 - 06/16/12 03:02 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3928
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Well, you certainly wouldn't be the first, nor will you be the last to become disenchanted with the word or with the 'subculture' as it were.

Is what it is I guess.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#67341 - 06/16/12 03:09 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Diavolo]
Stick Offline
member


Registered: 06/08/12
Posts: 157
Loc: Benelux
Well, consider this reply from a explorer which has no sentiment nor nostalgic feelings to the symbol of Satanism.
About one year ago I came into contact with the symbolism of Satanism, still hanging around because the exchange of information facts and communication stimulates me more then that I can find out on the corner of the street at work or in the bar in the city. I am not here because I read Satanic literature and am in search for folks to only resonate with. I am here to make connections in my brain by interaction which I can test and apply in my daily living. To be honest, I don't care the name of this intellectual non moral arena. As long it attracts folks, with high intensity, drive and non moral intellect. But at the same time there is a point, the Internet is flooded with information, and the need of a strong label is necessary to attract folks which might have something to offer. Personally I don't see really a point in burning ships before an other label or symbol has proven to do a better job. So debating about this issue is only the beginning, testing will be the next step.

Top
#67342 - 06/16/12 03:16 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
Well, you certainly wouldn't be the first, nor will you be the last to become disenchanted with the word or with the 'subculture' as it were.

Is what it is I guess.


Dan, it's the same criticism I had when I first entered the club during the late nineties. It has little to do with disenchantment.

D.

Top
#67344 - 06/16/12 07:57 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3928
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Ever meet one of those chicks, that's like..'my boyfriend is an asshole but I can change him'?

He never changes.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#67346 - 06/16/12 09:29 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Dan_Dread]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1647
Loc: Orlando, FL
 Quote:
Facts tell us we're trying to reach the finish line riding a dying horse and the finish line ain't nowhere in sight.


Satan itself is still a pretty monumental concept in Western culture, but you are right in observing a decline in the currency of Satanism as a meme. We've been dealing with this ever since Enlightenment-era thinking cracked the foundations of God's throne. The religions are still a dominating force to be reckoned with, but the advent of modernity itself was a pan-cultural crisis of faith that they have not been able to shake off since. Satanism, in a sense, was a way of addressing this crisis. This largely reactionary stance is the reason why when the oldschool faiths lose their sense of meaning, so will Satanism.

But why does there have to be a race or objective in the first place? What is this so-called "finish line"? I see Satanism, holistically, as a set of symbols and terminology to communicate ideas and emotions. Nothing more, nothing less. It's a fun party, but all parties have to end at some point.

When Satanism does inevitably die, the timeless ideas and emotions behind them will have already transmuted into other forms. Those forms in turn will wax, wane, and once more die, and so on. I just see this as the natural way ideas evolve.


Edited by The Zebu (06/16/12 09:31 PM)
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#67354 - 06/17/12 12:04 AM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: The Zebu]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



Human nature seems to constantly demand that there is a scapegoat, or the other, against which it can constitute itself, rally its chosen troops and reaffirm itself and vent its frustrations on someone/something.

So let it be. Satan is just a signifier for the other or the scapegoat in the Christian era I think.

If Christianity and Satan had not been conceived then some other signifier for the other, or the scapegoat, would have been produced to meet that need.

I like Satan, as the other, because this signifer of Satan entails certain qualities which suit me: indulgence, I-theism, distinction, enlightenment, Modernity and Modernism etc.

Who cares if it fails or ends. Those who still need to be described as the other, or the scapegoat, in this present culture and point in history can categorise Satan according to their own needs or build something else if they need to. Or better still just wait for the culture to produce it.

The best way that a online community can function, in my view, is to have diverse viewpoints articulated by intelligent and experienced people. There should be more variety, more opposition and it should avoid just endlessly putting forward just one view and having a whole lot of people go 'oh yes I agree so much.'

I'm sure that if there was another so called 'Satanic Panic' then people would be looking at the whole thing with different eyes.


Edited by MatthewJ1 (06/17/12 12:07 AM)
Edit Reason: Marked

Top
#67355 - 06/17/12 02:03 AM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: ]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1647
Loc: Orlando, FL
 Quote:
I'm sure that if there was another so called 'Satanic Panic' then people would be looking at the whole thing with different eyes.


Either we're irrelevant and society writes us off as harmless weirdos, or people take us seriously and they start burning us at the stake (or throwing child abuse allegations, which today is regarded with just as much horror and revulsion). I personally am content the current balance in our present society, whereby Satanism is still unpalatable to the public at large, but we can still conduct our own private practices without worrying about being singled out. Of course things can (and often do) change...
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#67361 - 06/17/12 01:58 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: The Zebu]
Stick Offline
member


Registered: 06/08/12
Posts: 157
Loc: Benelux
I have heard the phrase "Satanic Panic" quite a lot. But I don't see how this would help me as a person if I called myself publicly an Satanist.
People would fear an image of the actions you might do but not the actions itself.
It might be the best way, to take control of the direct environment, to distort attention, find an opening and get in, create an feeling which not can be directly understand, being charming but at the same time somehow feared. Not wearing any kind of badge but let the people put the badge on you, and playing with this.
I only see use in the Satanic symbol as an symbol of recognition not as an symbol to put out.

Top
#67363 - 06/17/12 02:29 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Stick]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3147
 Quote:
I have heard the phrase "Satanic Panic" quite a lot. But I don't see how this would help me as a person if I called myself publicly an Satanist.

When I invoked the idea of a second Satanic panic it was not so much the idea of creating fear for, as Diavolo described it, the subculture. The idea of a second Satanic panic was for a renewal of adversity. A representation of what the normos oppose. A reactionary statement. If, for example, in society a huge stigma on Fascist or NS ideology is present then it would naturally occur to redirect and set up a form that is in favor of it.

Satanism 5 decades ago was a reactionary statement against the flow of society in that period. The memeplex used the symbol of Satan to create adversity and a different view against the drift of society. Satan in current society, as a symbol, must be dethroned. The memeplex called Satanism is still valid.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#67365 - 06/17/12 03:25 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Dimitri]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I don't necessarily see it as a requirement to become that which the normos oppose because that would imply being controlled as much by these normos as if one were just a part of them. And it would lead to ridiculous scenarios like turning into new-born Christians when living in a secular, by rationality dominated, society.

The rational behind the stigmatized minorities acceptance is to not let society prescribe your judgment or emotional reaction towards these but judge them yourself and see them as another venue of WtP, and nothing more, in a human habitat which is always at your disposal should such minorities, or such a memeplex, serve as a means towards your ends. In becoming exactly that which society would find reactionary simply because society finds this reactionary is no other gain than some trivial emotional fulfillment.

The issue I point at here is that Satanism should not be a reactionary statement because it represents the normal state of reality. And as such, any satanist should represent this at about all times in about anything they do. Satanism is not being such from nine to five or during the weekends, or when we log onto the Internet. Being a satanist is being one 24/7/52 a year. And this should be obvious to anyone whenever they observe or enter a satanic habitat, such as this place.

And this is exactly where the issue becomes overly visible. Even in satanic habitats we see the same trend towards mediocrity and apathy that we see elsewhere in society. We see, and have always seen, a majority of unsuitable enter Satanism apparently completely oblivious to that fact. I used the example in chat yesterday that what we see happen is like the KKK spreading the news there will be a meeting on Saturday somewhere and when it is that moment, out of the hundred that join up, ninety are niggers that want to join the group. If something like that happens, clearly there is a problem in communication. That very problem seems to dominate Satanism since decades and I think Satan is a large part of it.

So my criticism is not as much about that which makes Satanism, which will always be valid, but about that which describes that which makes Satanism. That is subject to cultural and societal changes and as such, when it remains inert, will lose importance or value. That which describes Satanism is simply a means to an end and if no longer effective, should be replaced with something appropriate for the needs of the times.

Another part of my criticism was in relation towards the satanic online community where we more and more see people using Satanism as a statement of being but not as a drive in their doing. At a forum it should also be obvious who has it or not and this should manifest itself in their actions which are their drive, intelligence and adaptability. If one is a satanist 24/7, that should be obvious to us here too and it would not require anyone to identify themselves as such, their doing here would be all the evidence needed.

D.

Top
#67367 - 06/17/12 04:07 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3928
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
All that might be true, but it is also true that most people seek to follow something, anything, and as long as Satanism is visible we will get our share too.

This of course means 'we' will always be massively outnumbered by 'them', even here. As it has always been.

For all this talk of Satanism in decline, I can think of no other time when I could offer as many names of people that truly get it, here, than right now.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#67368 - 06/17/12 04:22 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Diavolo]
Stick Offline
member


Registered: 06/08/12
Posts: 157
Loc: Benelux
quite a long time I have been dancing around in situations, always taking control in slick ways, it felt natural, worked and went easy.
Behind these actions there was always an gut feeling which was not expressed in a direct way, always had to wonder around in a labyrinth of politeness and political correctness, the reason why I am interested, exploring and wondering around over here now, is that I want to find ways to get things done in a direct way, no more unnecessary spending time and energy.
So yes I have been ended up here as an statement of being, but working hard now as a drive in my doing. It is not really a change I have to make in my core, more a change in the way I am used to express, which only can be emerged in the action itself.

Top
#67370 - 06/17/12 05:20 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Diavolo]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3147
 Quote:
That is subject to cultural and societal changes and as such, when it remains inert, will lose importance or value. That which describes satanism is simply a means to an end and if no longer effective, should be replaced with something appropriate for the needs of the times.

I cannot say I disagree. But like in my first response I wonder what this appropriate thing is or should be. That what describes Satanism is also something formed by society and influenced by cultural changes... unless I'm looking at the wrong direction and overlooked something obvious.

From whatever angle or side it is viewed, a certain interaction is bound to take place and it will be reactionary (or at least, must abide to the normal state of reality which is reactionary). The drive itself will cause the adherant to abide that state. Not because of its nature but because it is bound to interact with the state of affairs at a certain point in time. Its results and input will both be rooted or root within the interaction.


Edited by Dimitri (06/17/12 05:21 PM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#67372 - 06/17/12 06:43 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Diavolo]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
Satanism” AND Satanism
- by Michael A. Aquino VI°
Scroll of Set, October 1991
Temple of Set

In his letter of application to the Temple, one gentleman reminded me of something I said concerning the term “Satanism” a year or so ago:

 Quote:
The Temple of Set considers “Satan/Satanism” to be a degenerate caricature of our religion as bandied about by profane society. We make this point every time we have the opportunity [including on Oprah]; we would ideally like profane society to stop using it, just like the term “nigger” or “kike” has become unacceptable. Then we can go back to calling ourselves Setians, which is what we have preferred to do since 1975.

Essentially this is still true. Yet I feel moved to say something more on the topic.

As a child I ceased paying serious attention to Christianity about the same time I stopped paying serious attention to Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. I considered it then, as I do now, a silly collection of superstition and fairytales which no one but an idiot could be expected to take seriously.

My eventual interest in the Church of Satan, accordingly, was based not on an “opposition to Christianity from within its superstition & fairytales”, but rather on its contempt for and rejection of the entire Judæo/Christian establishment altogether. The Church of Satan’s concept of Satan was clearly above and apart from the “Oo, I scared myself!” dementia of Christianity.

Whereas I had never paid a great deal of attention to contemporary profane religions prior to my involvement with the C/S, I necessarily developed a greater interest in them once I became a Satanic Priest. What I saw absolutely mystified, then horrified, then revolted me. After examining the record of profane religion in general, and of Christianity in particular, in both history and contemporary society, I gradually became convinced that Christianity is the most destructive, most degenerate, and most shameful curse that humanity has ever inflicted upon itself. I shudder from it as I would from a maggot-infested corpse.

If Satanism signifies an acknowledgement, exposure, and rejection of Christianity for what it actually is, then I am not just a “Satanist” but a Satanist. I cannot see how a decent, intelligent, and ethical human being could be anything else.

To me the Temple of Set, and the experience of being a Setian, is something else entirely. The stench and corruption of profane religions are not permitted within this sacred place, and we are reminded, distastefully, of them only when, as in the witch-hunts of the 1980s, they claw and smash their way into our attention in one of their periodic hate-frenzies. Otherwise to be a Setian is not to be a “Satanist” but to be something altogether unique to itself: an evolutionary initiatory experience of incomparable dignity and sublimity.

A peculiar aspect of Christianity, which I also mentioned during the Oprah show, is that theoretically it doesn’t need to be so poisonous. In its purest sense it can be conceptualized as the worship of a personified principle of innocence and harmony with the forces of nature in the universe. That’s a nice idea, and not a very complicated one either. So how did something so simple and pleasant become twisted and defiled into the horror of institutional Christianity? You tell me!

When I have given “necessary” interviews during the witch-hunt mania of recent years, I have avoided candid criticism of Christianity simply because profane audiences are generally conditioned by social propaganda not to “hear” such statements, but rather to lash out emotionally against anyone making them. Thus whenever someone like Paul Valentine would give Christianity a well-deserved tongue-lashing on a tabloid-TV talk show, or whenever Adept Allee and Setian Taylor would flog Christian hypocrisy in Brimstone in the spirit of the old Cloven Hoof, I would applaud them even while regretting that such stable-cleaning should have to take up their time at all.

I have always felt that the more time the Temple of Set itself wastes on the evil of Christianity, the less time we have to devote to the ever-so-much-more-important concerns of our own initiatory experience. Thus I even begrudge taking up Scroll space on this topic, and allow it only as a spasm of Halloween Indulgence. However I would like to remind readers that there is an excellent monthly newspaper devoted, among other things, to exposure of Christian corruption, repression, and crime in modern society. It is called Freethought Today and may be accessed through the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Give your favorite Christian-apologist a gift-subscription this Christmas.

Top
#67377 - 06/17/12 10:25 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
So Doc, since you long ago disassociated yourself from the term, I don't see what possible bearing others using the term to identify themselves has on Setian philosophy? By name, philosophy and deed Setian <> Satanist.

 Quote:
... an evolutionary initiatory experience of incomparable dignity and sublimity.


It should be obvious by now that I respect you a great deal and have found very much of what you have to say of benefit to my own path. The one sticking point I have with Setian philosophy is the attribution of the human intellect/consciousness to a higher power. To me, this is precisely the same as what the RHP folks do in attributing everything to 'god'.

I can't see how this is representative of an evolutionary principle since it seems to be simply a switch from one higher power to another (though I do understand the lack of subjugation etc).

You say a Setian rejects the judeo/christian establishment altogether but to my mind you've replaced it with the neter/neteru of ancient times which more or less equates to a belief system versus a logical pattern of thought.

I don't see what's wrong with saying 'we don't know yet' about the larger balance of life on Earth versus attributing it all to some god, ancient or otherwise. To me, it seems such attribution would necessarily box in one's viewpoints to serve one's belief system.

In this way I still see Satan as a valid mascot. To me, Satan is the supreme purveyor of doubt and doubt is the most potent tool in my toolbox. I like you, Doc, I really do. But I doubt you and I doubt the ToS too and I really doubt that the ToS represents an evolutionary standard.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#67379 - 06/17/12 10:51 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



I feel a bit ill-qualified here, so this one may seem a bit awkward.

One of my more favourite books is Madness and Civilisation by Michael Foucault.

The thesis of this book: there had been (and still was, in some sense) a monologue of reason on madness which was used to constitute an object, construct and decorate The Other in acceptable/comfortable terms and used as a justification for action, organisation and exclusion/punishment.

Foucault was going to try to write a book from the position of this Other, unencumbered and somehow outside of this discourse of reasonable power - a difficult task in this particular case.

I personally saw a parallel, though, between LaVey’s Satanic Bible and Foucault’s book.

I mean I saw LaVey’s work as an attempt to speak from the position of The Other unencumbered and somehow outside of the dominant religious discourse which had constructed such an ugly tool/scapegoat in the first place.

I have recently been tracing the literary construction of this Satan during the modern period and I can see that this definition of Satan certainly changed from an ugly object to something quite positive and independent, as people began to adopt the subjectivity of this Other and more or less spoke it, or else just began to be heard for the first time above the din of other voices.

An interesting point and blurry distinction has been raised by this thread, regarding the essence of Satanism I think:

That is, on the one hand, seeing Satanism as a form, or an event, in the history of the manifestation of an Other who in essence continually transgresses, or acts against every form of coercive organised limiting power and draws meaning from that.

Or, on the other hand, to occupy and explore a previously constructed space, initially articulated by the Other against the Christian system, in antinomian style, and then built outward by developing an autonomous culture and set of principles - a set of principles determined by indulgence, I-theism, realism, stratification etc.?

Or are both aspects Satanic and if they are, then how do they interrelate? What is the logic underpinning the Satanic critique of society as opposed to religion and what are its limits? I think probably a desire to criticise monolithic power.

These questions assume that the Other has spoken and has spoken truly.

Top
#67384 - 06/18/12 01:01 AM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: ]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Satanism's opposition to religion is the equivalent of organizing a protest march against AIDS. To oppose implies to actually do something about the problem else one just complains.

To understand the issue I'm pointing at, imagine tomorrow you're dropped into, and become part of, a society that is completely oblivious to your culture and history. Regardless the change in habitat you're undergoing, you'll remain a satanist and after some time into this society, you see they do not differ from us as humans and among them are those showing the same qualities and behavior you as a satanist display. But then you try to communicate this to them and explain Satanism as you are used to today. You'll quickly discover that all your cultural archetypes and all the meaning certain symbols or labels have are completely meaningless to them.

The problem you run into has two solutions if you want to effectively communicate Satanism. Either you explain your whole previous culture, its meaning and symbolry, which even then will not have the same meaning to them it has to you, or you explore their culture and use that of theirs which matches yours.

When looking at such a scenario it is quite obvious why an adaptation is needed and what is required to make such effective. Still, the same is fundamentally true within the same culture but during a different period. The difference between 2012 and 1960 might only be some decades but it is a huge difference in regards to the meaning of words, symbols or archetypes.

D.

Top
#67385 - 06/18/12 01:26 AM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3928
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
OK then, let's stop dancing around it then D.

If you feel that Satanism is dated or obsolete, what do you propose as its successor?Surely you must have something hot in mind, else all this is merely bluster?
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#67386 - 06/18/12 01:55 AM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Come Dan, why give the impression as if I'm ripping the head of your favorite doll? We're arguing about an issue and even when I might take a, to some, dislikable position, it's nothing but an argument.

We are social realists and as realists, we should be rational and effective in about all we do. We should cut the nonsense to a minimum and no longer desire to be the Glam-rock band at a high-school prom. That's really all there is to it.

It's that simple.

D.

Top
#67387 - 06/18/12 02:19 AM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Diavolo]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



So, it seems that we are talking about the nature or the order of the signifier - the culturally generated graphic image/acoustic sound which gives rise to a meaning?

It seems that the signified – concept, or the referent – the material object have sustained/maintained a stable meaning or being?

So Satanism, in itself, has a core being/meaning which remains constant through history and across cultures, but the language used by a particular culture at a particular period of time to talk about this core being or meaning is subject to change and hence misunderstanding can/will arise between us and another culture or historical period?

Oh boy, I am tempted to define Satan here as the differance which undoes the text and the metaphysics of presence underpinning it - there will be slipping and sliding of signs despite the God in the Order of Things.

But no, that won’t do, I think. But this is why I was interested in the distinction briefly described above, between Satanism as an event in the history of antinomianism, or Satanism as a space previously defined by principle and distinction.

It is the signified which is up for grabs here I think, the signifier can be adjusted to produce a meaning, in line with someone’s culture/history, but is the meaning stable at all in the first place or am I being naïve and is the order of the signifier just constituting the object regardless?

Top
#67388 - 06/18/12 02:48 AM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: ]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Indeed, we are not as much talking about what we could consider das Ding an sich but about how we effectively communicate our knowledge about it.

Even while we might differ about what qualifies as properties of, in regards to an effective communication, it would fundamentally make no difference.

D.

Top
#67389 - 06/18/12 07:31 AM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Diavolo]
Stick Offline
member


Registered: 06/08/12
Posts: 157
Loc: Benelux
I think to Satanism as an symbol biggest opposition was religion itself but nowadays that has been weakened off quite a bit.
It has been replaced by (social)media, gadgets, fancy toys and pleasant comforting world saving ideas, I see subcultures every were all with their own merchandise.
A typical field which is flourishing right now is the ecological scene, better said the ecological way of living, almost an religion on itself.
The question is, are you gonna oppose this or make money on this or if possible both at the same time. What I am trying to say, the psychology behind organized religion,
shifted over to more economical based subcultures. At this moment I have a hard time to get this on "paper" but please fill me in what your folks
thoughts are on what I am trying to get to.

Top
#67405 - 06/18/12 06:00 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Jason King]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: Jason King

Read The Satanic Bible. What is the overarching theme? It's a reactionary text, start to finish.


I would agree that approximately 1/2 of The Satanic Bible is reactionary. The other half is devoted to Satanic ritual magic which is certainly about taking up the gauntlet and seeking to create change in one's life. It's proactive.

The reactionary half isn't without value either as many of life's most important lessons are a direct reaction to something that's happened. Learning to be proactive is born first of a negative reaction. In this way, TSB is absolutely foundational.

By no means, though, do I suggest that TSB is a stopping point. It's an entry point and is a must read for anyone new to the path.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#67406 - 06/18/12 06:19 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3928
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
Come Dan, why give the impression as if I'm ripping the head of your favorite doll? We're arguing about an issue and even when I might take a, to some, dislikable position, it's nothing but an argument.


Well sir, that is an interesting rhetorical spin, but come now.
From top to bottom, in this thread (and elsewhere) your theme has been 'Satanism is outdated/due for software upgrades/should be discarded' yet no alternative has been offered, no solutions put on the table. I assure you it is without emotional investment when I ask 'where's the fucking beef?' You might as well be bitching about the rain at this point.

 Quote:

We are social realists and as realists, we should be rational and effective in about all we do. We should cut the nonsense to a minimum and no longer desire to be the Glam-rock band at a high-school prom. That's really all there is to it.

It's that simple.

Well sure, but who are these glam rockers? Satanism is, already, to those that get it the path of the very few, bedrock. The fact that most don't and never will get it is completely beside the point.

Does any of this have any purpose other than howling at the wind?
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#67407 - 06/18/12 06:44 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Maybe if you'd understood how perfectly fitting Social Realism as an analogy to that movement is in this case, including its period of most importance, you'd understand I'm pointing out we're hopelessly stuck in our Romanticism.

I assume you're a clever boy and can figure the rest out yourself. There's freedom for interpretation but you'll still see the point.

I always provided the alternative, as I do here again, but not a pre-configured package.

D.

Top
#67409 - 06/18/12 08:08 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3928
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
I guess it's just a difference in starting positions then. From where I sit, there is no romanticism, only hard reality. For me the state of some internet scene or who is participating in what or how has no bearing on any of that.

The word, 'Satanism' has only one use..to communicate a certain essence driving certain activity. Up till now the semantics have worked just fine, and I really see no need to change them for the good of some 'internet culture' I have no emotional investment in.

I guess I'm just too busy doing my own thing to care. Best of luck with all that \:\)
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#67415 - 06/19/12 03:54 AM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Diavolo]
Stick Offline
member


Registered: 06/08/12
Posts: 157
Loc: Benelux
I think Satanism at this point is still an useful symbol but the need for heavy filtering is needed, and it is well done over here.
Making the satanic and occult label less profound, and add at the same time an new powerful "symbolic" description, could do the trick.

I like the phrase: "Applied Non Moral Skepticism".
For me it has everything in it, the description of an individual person able to stand on his own feet, non sensitive to morals and being able to come up with his own rational analyses, conclusions and connected actions.
The power of this way of taking care of problems conflicts or everyday actions, is that there is not an centralized thought or moral behind an conclusion or action, you yourself are the strongest and weakest chain, not only a link.

Solving from understanding, individual brain power, not from ready made centralized concepts out of ancient books or concepts.
If more individuals join the arena, a rope can be build out of the strands of the individuals which will not break when one strand snaps.

Top
#67416 - 06/19/12 07:18 AM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Stick]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



Just for fun I thought I might try to create some word and I came up with Oppositionism. Ha.

The problem is that even if this word conveys the essence, if such a thing exists in the first place, then the word used to convey it in this case is too broad I think and too invested with other meanings - built out of historical and cultural elements which obscure that essence.

So for instance, what is it an opposition to, and if it is the status quo, then won't that confuse the issue considering the status quo itself opposes something and could appropriate the name oppositionism for itself and use it against its own enemy?

And does this name require that a political party be formed with a hierarchy and with sets of rules, which each is condemned to conform to, in order that an objective is met?

Is oppositionism against group conformity, if so then how does that tie into past example of opposition to capitalism by the working class based on group solidarity and group consciousness etc?

I still feel that Satanism is a word which is very useful, as it still holds such a strong meaning in the culture. This sign has certainly changed over time and with various historical and cultural sediment, but it still conveys enough for the majority to stop and regard itself as probably against Satanism in some sense. Hence to engage in self-reflection and an analysis of the Other.

I must admit that the historical and cultural sediment which has manipulated and built this sign interests me and is a part of the richness of this sign and its personal value to me beyond an essence. But I tend to be of the opinion that the sediment is the essence.

Top
#67425 - 06/19/12 11:32 AM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: ]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
What a subject like this above all does is test the water and discover how others look at it. More than a decade ago it was almost blasphemous to suggest one abandons this memeplex and move beyond. Five years ago one could talk about in closed circles. Nowadays it can be done in public without a moral outcry within the subculture. But it still is obvious the times are not right for a new movement to arise and take Satanism to the next level, regardless of what it will be named.

But it will happen because it must happen. The arrow always points forward.

D.

Top
#67434 - 06/19/12 01:47 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Diavolo]
Autodidact Offline
member


Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 428
I'm still not clear on what exactly you're aiming at. I see "finish line" and "next level" and Social Realism, and it makes me think you're aiming at something large-scale groupish. Honestly, all that stuff is incidental - I don't give a fuck about "where the Satanic subculture is headed" or how popular it is in search engines.

If, on the other hand, you're simply suggesting changes to this website to appeal to a larger audience, then you're putting the cart before the horse, at least as far as a discussion thread goes, because you've provided no real basis for decision-making. Put up some data around members, posts, etc., over time, and allow that to speak for itself.

(For the record, I'm not worried at all about having like-minded individuals to interact with because one of the few things I do have faith in is human nature, and that it doesn't really change. There will always be Satanists, though they might call themselves something else, and they will always be in the (very small) minority, and their ideas and philosophies will always be rejected by society-at-large.)
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

Top
#67436 - 06/19/12 02:24 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Autodidact]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I'm not sure what exactly is lost in communication but something is since what I'm talking about is so simple and clear in my mind yet it seems to trigger some degree of confusion in others whenever I try to explain it. I talked to Dan for quite some time in chat yesterday before we were both at the same level on this, at least regarding simply talking about the same subject.

I'm not talking about groups and neither am I talking about changing this website and I'm not even talking about changing Satanism. I'm talking about evolution and change whenever I talk about movements. I'm talking about a natural process happening at ever level in society the moment enough people have a similar sort of realization or understanding. I'm talking about realizing the best is the maximum now and looking for a manner to make that the minimum.

Maybe all I'm talking about is progress.

D.

Top
#67447 - 06/19/12 09:14 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Diavolo]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo

It is so simplistic it inevitably attracts a majority of simpletons which in itself is irony at its best.


I think Satanism is simplistic to start with. People generally find it in their youth and it seems like a dark and mysterious way to rebel against the status quo. I also think that many who find an interest in it eventually give it up because they didn't understand the essence to begin with.

I think most never truly begin to leverage Satanism's most potent tool (intellectually) which is doubt. With the application of doubt to all things, Satanism itself becomes evolutionary within the person exercising said doubt. In other words, my Satanism isn't the same today as it was yesterday because I always have new things to explore on this path. With each new thought comes a slightly different perspective, some far reaching, some mundane.

The point I'm trying to make here is that Satanism, in the hands of an appropriately powerful person, is self evolving. As such, since we know these people exist, Satanism has and will continue to evolve as people begin to gain wider and deeper perspectives.

Reading TSB today, or The Lucifer Principle, or Postmodern Satanism doesn't mean the same thing to me that it meant to me yesterday because I make it a point to upgrade every day in some small or large way.

Also:

A random thought on The600 being a purely intellectual exchange. I think experience shapes the person and one who does not have worldly experience will not have the words to respond to things said here in a like manner with those who do. What happens offline is important in shaping the person to be able to understand/respond online.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#67451 - 06/19/12 10:59 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Diavolo]
FemaleSatan Offline
member


Registered: 10/19/11
Posts: 556
Loc: The Dirty South
I 'get' the intention of the post D (and have been reading this thread with great interest).

At some point the term Satanism is going to lose the intended essence being captured by that word. Living in what is primarily a Secular Society I do see that Satan, the word Satanism, etc ain't nearly as scary as it was when the Antons started putting their ideas on paper. I think that back in the 60's just having the curiosity and courage to read something like TSB was a slaying of a personal demon of sorts. It showed that those Individuals were already questioning things, were willing to risk damnation in order to obtain knowledge.

I don't see a lack in you communicating the point accurately, so much as a resistance to the idea that Satanism is dead as a form for what's being described by that label. A questioning of rather that label is valid is important, even critical to an Individual doing this *waves hand* thing.

That being said, I am still rather new and enamored with the label Satanism. I find the 'cannon fodder' that pops up amusing more than annoying. I find the followers who find Satanism an accurate reflection of what happens to any and all Religious/Philosophical/Praxial schools of thought.

But I am still a little green in comparison to others posting on this thread. I may find myself irritated, annoyed, and saying WTF? one day. I can already see that forms of Extremism, rather Racism, Sexism, etc get the reaction Satanism used to back in the 60's and 70's.
_________________________
http://female-satan.blogspot.com


Top
#67468 - 06/20/12 01:33 AM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: FemaleSatan]
MoSa Offline
member


Registered: 12/29/11
Posts: 191
 Quote:


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0242653/quotes

Neo: What do you want?
Bane: I want what you want... Yes. That's it, Mr. Anderson. Look past the flesh. Look through the soft gelatin of these dull cow eyes and see your enemy!
Neo: ...No.
Bane: Oh yes, Mr. Anderson.
Neo: It can't be...
Bane: There's nowhere I can't go. There's nowhere I won't find you.
Neo: It's impossible...!
Bane: Not impossible. Inevitable. Goodbye, Mr. Anderson.




Satanism will always be there, cause there is the law of repulsion.

There will be always a repel, it might just be in disguise and that make me wonder, did Satan ever in any story said that he was Satan directly?

I would not worry so much, it's just that first scenario of yours about finding similar minded people is that I find no direct solution for it.

Satanism as a set of actions and attitudes derived from all the history of Satan/Lucifer/etc.. and yet to be known as man's own reflection on what he considers belonging to that group as a simple escape from the reality of he is the one to blame.

When I imagine in like 15 years of now a certain group arises and it's actions/attitudes are all Satanic while they see Satan and Satanism as a ridicules idea...it's kinda hard to get them to realize that *this* is just like *that*, now before I rewind again repeating my self...I for one...will cope at and play like every one else, when Satanism is about studying not worshiping and praying..then it's not for every one...
And I accept the fact that I am not like most.

PS:Sorry for the theatrical beginning and for not being clear if I was not being clear.
_________________________
I am sure you can recognize who I am...
But if you don't....let me introduce my self...

Top
#67483 - 06/20/12 09:31 AM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: MoSa]
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: MoSa

Satanism will always be there, cause there is the law of repulsion.


I think rather that "repulsion" is a part of a bigger thing. Consider: only certain vectors(forces) are repulsive. Some others ATTRACT. You know, like the prime force. sayxwhut??

Satanism is either FACTICITY or GARBAGE. YOU must decide.
_________________________



Top
#67496 - 06/20/12 12:49 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Jason King]
DreamMystery Offline
member


Registered: 01/01/12
Posts: 167
Loc: Here
This discussion is interesting and I think revealing.

Diavolo it seems to me is saying this: The Satanic current appears to be on the wane, should we move on or attempt to salvage it? If the latter then how do we do it?


Some respond with disinterest, "The satanic current or something like it will always be around, so I'm not worried."

Some respond with disapproval of an almost moral character, "The satanic current is a collective, collectives should not be maintained by TRUE satanists such as myself."


So we have both apathy and morality with which to contend within the community if change is in order, just as may be faced in any community.


Satanism as a group will never be very influential without members supporting the group as such.

Instead of rejecting all groups as worthless, satanists need to realize that groups are both useful to the individual and evolutionarily necessary.

Just as many things of value and power are dangerous, so too with groups. One doesn't give up driving cars just because one found out that cars are dangerous to the individual driving them and polluting to the enviroment. The power and value outweighs the danger.

As an individualist, you should join many groups of which benefit you, and contribute to them as you would to anything you value, such as your car, or house, or partner.

The reasons for this are two-fold, Beauty and Utility.


The Nietzschean insight into the selfishness of all actions shows us that we need not abstain from any action for fear of altruism.


If you find Satanism beautiful or useful, then there should be nothing stopping you from contributing to it as a communal entity.

As I said before the enemies of change are Apathy and Morality.
These are widespread problems in Post-Modernity. Apatheists and Fundamentalists.

Top
#67498 - 06/20/12 01:07 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: DreamMystery]
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: DreamMystery
Diavolo it seems to me is saying this: The Satanic current appears to be on the wane, should we move on or attempt to salvage it? If the latter then how do we do it?


Some respond with disinterest, "The satanic current or something like it will always be around, so I'm not worried."


I can't speak for Diavolo, but the Current cannot wane. That's what makes it the Current. That's what defines it as Facticity. This conversation concerns labels and self-identification, not that thing we all agree on. This is not disinterest, just acceptance. Find me a time under Heaven in which predation did not exist. Predation = life, predation = better life. This is the Current, and a rose by any other name . . .

JK
_________________________



Top
#67499 - 06/20/12 01:15 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Jason King]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Indeed, I'm not talking about Satanism but about the label that defines Satanism. That which is defined by that label isn't something that can ever wane.

Maybe it would be easier to understand that regarding these labels and symbols, their strength and effectiveness, I live in your future (in own your interest, hope I really do) and do experience their usefulness each day.

In my cultural mindset, yours no longer does the trick.

D.

Top
#67505 - 06/20/12 02:20 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Diavolo]
DreamMystery Offline
member


Registered: 01/01/12
Posts: 167
Loc: Here


Problem one lies in convincing someone that there is indeed a real object which you are describing as the Satanic Current.

Problem two is that you must show that you do indeed have more knowledge regarding this object.

Problem three is that you must convince them of the value of getting this knowledge from you or some other teacher.


If you can convince someone of these things they will then be open to learning. Primed you might say.

This is only the beginning. Next you must successfully transmit your understanding, which may take time during which they must continue to be interested and open.

To reduce false positives of understanding, tests must be applied.


All this has been accomplished in the past by initiatory societies. It has proven the best method so far.

Transmission by book or other one-sided communication is possible but not optimal.




@Jason King


If you define the current as the facticity of predation, it can indeed wane. You are ascribing permanency to the impermanent.

Predation is an emergent property of life with access to limited local resources. If you find it beautiful or useful then fine.
It is not inconceivable that predation will halt. Who knows how evolution will solve the problem of locally limited resources in the future.

The mountain lion species does not necessarily improve the deer as a species it hunts. It may increase it's speed lets say, however the lion will then adapt as well. Overall objective power is increasing, but the balance is always there.

What I'm saying is that power progress is an illusion, a treadmill, ...MAYA.

Digression I know.

Top
#67506 - 06/20/12 02:49 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: DreamMystery]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
When did I mention convincing and/or teaching in what I said?

D.

Top
#67507 - 06/20/12 03:05 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Diavolo]
DreamMystery Offline
member


Registered: 01/01/12
Posts: 167
Loc: Here
Well if you don't convince anyone, why try? If you don't teach or motivate to self-teach, whats the point? To bring the signifier of Satanism closer to the signified for its own sake?
Top
#67512 - 06/20/12 03:33 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: DreamMystery]
Autodidact Offline
member


Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 428
 Originally Posted By: DreamMystery
The mountain lion species does not necessarily improve the deer as a species it hunts. It may increase it's speed lets say, however the lion will then adapt as well.


These two statements are contradictory, because you're misusing the word "improve". Lions killing deer certainly "improves" the deer species - this pressure is the essence of survival of the fittest. "Improve" means "more fit depending on context", not your subjective evaluation of "improve"ment.

 Originally Posted By: DreamMystery
Overall objective power is increasing, but the balance is always there.


This is also incorrect. Not only does evolution not work along an "objective" monotonically increasing scale of "power" (however you define it), but you believe there's a balance because you're looking small time frames.

Survival and dominance is all that matters. In future, if the lions eat all the deer, they can move elsewhere. The deer cannot.
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

Top
#67513 - 06/20/12 04:08 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Autodidact]
DreamMystery Offline
member


Registered: 01/01/12
Posts: 167
Loc: Here
I was responding to JK who said predation leads to better life.
By "better" I assumed a subjective value judgement, and this is what I meant with "Improve".

So basically the birds don't have a "happier" "better" life than the dinosaurs they evolved from. Is that a long enough timeframe? Individuals still compete to reproduce, find food, and avoid danger. Balance of course is present even across long time spans, like a large corporation balancing the books year after year, if they can't be balanced the whole thing collapses.

Survival and dominance are just teleonomic processes. They pertain to us as living beings and so are interesting but not "Ultimate" in any sense.

Top
#67515 - 06/20/12 04:30 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: DreamMystery]
Autodidact Offline
member


Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 428
 Originally Posted By: DreamMystery
I was responding to JK who said predation leads to better life.
By "better" I assumed a subjective value judgement, and this is what I meant with "Improve".
[...]


Ah, I hadn't read it like that. In that case, I disagree with both of you.

 Originally Posted By: DreamMystery
Survival and dominance are just teleonomic processes. They pertain to us as living beings and so are interesting but not "Ultimate" in any sense.


Hey, we agree on something
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

Top
#67546 - 06/21/12 05:58 AM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: DreamMystery]
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: DreamMystery
If you define the current as the facticity of predation, it can indeed wane. You are ascribing permanency to the impermanent.

Predation is an emergent property of life with access to limited local resources. If you find it beautiful or useful then fine.
It is not inconceivable that predation will halt. Who knows how evolution will solve the problem of locally limited resources in the future.

The mountain lion species does not necessarily improve the deer as a species it hunts. It may increase it's speed lets say, however the lion will then adapt as well. Overall objective power is increasing, but the balance is always there.

What I'm saying is that power progress is an illusion, a treadmill, ...MAYA.

Digression I know.

Emphasis mine.

Predation is, I agree, a subset/species of something more encompassing. And I also think you hit the nail on the head by seeing it as an emergent property of the fact of limited resources. In such a case it is always the better adapted organism which gets the prize, whether it be by directly eating it (predation) or gaining it by other means (stealing, scavenging, etc.).

My point is, all of this related activity, loosely referred to as competition, is a necessary manifestation of the Current as it exists in the phenomenal world we inhabit. Yes it is maya, but that doesn't mean it is not phenomenally real, just not absolutely real. Gravity is also maya, but even knowing this, I would be rather foolish to jump off a high cliff into waiting crags.

When you refer to the progress of the whole (predator+prey), you are not arguing against my point at all, you're reinforcing it. This is the dual nature of the Current: adversarial interaction (Satanic) leading to overall better outcomes (Luciferian). And this occurs as a progressive gradation, which is how a relatively weak mammal (homo sapiens) can be the apex predator of the whole planet.

Bottom line: yes, at some point in the future, we may transcend predation as a species, but the Current will be no less real and no less gripping, we will have just unlocked new and better mechanisms for surviving the facticity of It.

JK
_________________________



Top
#67549 - 06/21/12 07:01 AM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Jason King]
Bette Doom Offline
member


Registered: 06/18/11
Posts: 134
Loc: Virginia, USA
If I could boil down as much of this conversation as I could into a single question, it would be: "What will happen to Satanism when the imagery and institutions associated with it have completely outlived their utility?" If Baphomets and inverted pentacles simply retreat into redemptive obscurity of nostalgic Americana (and this could well happen)...
Which makes me ask: "Where were Satanists before it was 'safe' to call yourself one?" They couldn't be indicated by proximity to an institutional body like the Church of Satan, and yet LaVey freely admits many antecedents to his own thought. Similarly, the activity of the Current within human culture can be expected to extend in *both* directions from the event that brought Modern Satanism into the public eye. In one sense, there were no "Satanists" before LaVey, in another, LaVey is a barely relevant distraction.
I agree with those that have already stated that the ideology of Satanism is substantiated by observance of the natural world, not the momentum of a single group or the disciples of a single thinker. At the end of the day, a Satanist is anyone that takes upon him/herself the work designated for Satan. It would be absurd for Machiavelli to have claimed the title but that didn't detract an ounce from his actual work.
My point is, regardless of the state of the subculture some people will always adopt the relationship to the world that characterizes a "Satanist," as we use the term.
_________________________
A man's character may be learned from the adjectives which he habitually uses in conversation.-Twain

Top
#67550 - 06/21/12 07:20 AM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Bette Doom]
Jason King Offline
Banned/Martyrdom Denied
active member


Registered: 10/24/10
Posts: 731
Loc: 65?1%833Q!92A24 (It's a code)
Bette, it's good to see you back.

an aside:

one understands "God" as the THING which accounts for EVERYTHING. In Greek: Arche/Logos. In Latin: Ratio. In Tibetan: Sems-Nyid.

BUT, which "god" is this?

One of the most interesting topics to me is the philosophical hypostasis of "the Sum of All Perfections". How does this occur, bottom up? Where do we start?

JK

p.s. again, it's good to see you Bette.
_________________________



Top
#67562 - 06/21/12 10:43 AM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Jason King]
MoSa Offline
member


Registered: 12/29/11
Posts: 191
 Originally Posted By: Jason King

I think rather that "repulsion" is a part of a bigger thing. Consider: only certain vectors(forces) are repulsive. Some others ATTRACT.


An example would be very much preferred, can you give me an example of those repulsive forces, cause I think it's just one and we all share parts of it oh and while you're at it I would like to know or learn about one attracted force, I did not fully understood that part.

 Originally Posted By: Jason King

Satanism is either FACTICITY or GARBAGE. YOU must decide.


Ah about that, is not it all about how an individual see's it? or there is a static law/code for some stuff?
_________________________
I am sure you can recognize who I am...
But if you don't....let me introduce my self...

Top
#67572 - 06/21/12 11:49 AM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Jason King]
DreamMystery Offline
member


Registered: 01/01/12
Posts: 167
Loc: Here
 Originally Posted By: Jason King
one understands "God" as the THING which accounts for EVERYTHING. In Greek: Arche/Logos. In Latin: Ratio. In Tibetan: Sems-Nyid.

BUT, which "god" is this?

One of the most interesting topics to me is the philosophical hypostasis of "the Sum of All Perfections". How does this occur, bottom up? Where do we start?



Very interesting question. If it can ever be answered in rational abstract terms I'm unsure. Perhaps a compiling of many disparate fields of knowledge would yield a fuzzy picture through the correct interpretation(s).

If we could train scientists with cross disciplinary methods combining such fields as literary interpretation, Particle Physics, Evolutionary biology, and comparative Anthropology/Religion with a dash of Neuropsychology and have them do nothing but try to unify them all, well...

Maybe. I'm not holding my breath though.

Top
#67617 - 06/22/12 12:57 AM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: DreamMystery]
rbak923 Offline
banned
lurker


Registered: 06/09/12
Posts: 3
I agree with this idea.

It has been said that we were encouraged to understand the difference between good and evil on our own once upon a time.

How can we truly achieve this without understanding absolutely the sum total of everything?

A demon gave me what I now believe to be the short answer, but his "teaching methods" really "sucked a@$" - I've suffered a great deal at his hands...

This is from wikipedia page:

x = a(2*CoS(t) - CoS(2t)), y = a(2*sin(t) - sin(2t))

If you rotate the figure with the green shape in it 90 degrees counterclockwise, see the dotted shape as the world, and the red figure as something heavy, you'll see what I saw.

Interestingly enough, after staring at this page for a while, I also saw a kind of fruit and something the demon asks me to kiss from time to time...

Top
#67622 - 06/22/12 05:20 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: rbak923]
MoSa Offline
member


Registered: 12/29/11
Posts: 191
 Originally Posted By: DreamMystery
Some respond with disinterest, "The satanic current or something like it will always be around, so I'm not worried."



I guess that would be me, well I will answer such fully mistaken phrase in both understanding my statement and in replying it.

First of all by setting down to write an answer to Diavolo is an attitude of caring and interest not disinterest as you said.

Secondly, Satanism as I understood it is one word to describe a set of actions/attitudes/thoughts/ideas over the known history of man on earth.

Given that, Satanism is as old as man's history on earth so it was there from the beginning and will continue to be there.

I do have a sense of your answers is that you're talking about Satanism as a group or a cult or a movement that only took one form of Satanism which is rebellion, like when you say
 Originally Posted By: DreamMystery
Problem one lies in convincing someone that there is indeed a real object which you are describing as the Satanic Current.
and that is wrong, Satanism was about individuality and let Satan in Quran be your hero! He repelled alone.

 Originally Posted By: Bette Doom
At the end of the day, a Satanist is anyone that takes upon him/herself the work designated for Satan.
I like that very much, thank you.

Questions?
_________________________
I am sure you can recognize who I am...
But if you don't....let me introduce my self...

Top
#67635 - 06/22/12 11:25 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Fnord]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Fnord
So Doc, since you long ago disassociated yourself from the term, I don't see what possible bearing others using the term to identify themselves has on Setian philosophy? By name, philosophy and deed Setian <> Satanist.

The Temple of Set's interest in Satanism is essentially historical: as a primitive impulse within Judæo/Christian culture that ultimately evolved outside of that constraint into Setian philosophy.

Therefore we look back upon self-proclaimed "Satanists" today as Plato did upon those still chained within the cave. This is not condescending; we were once chained within that same cave.

The general 600C counter-argument, in this and many previous/similar threads, is that today's "Satanists" are re-defining the term to suit and describe themselves, which usually has nothing to do with belief in Satan; he's become nothing more than a glamour-totem. The complaint of this latest thread seems to be that this totem is losing its cocktail-party shock effect: you mention that you're a "Satanist!" and instead of everyone screaming and running to the other side of the room, they just nod indifferently.

Anton LaVey once commented on this phenomenon in the Cloven Hoof, using the Communist Party card as an example. At one time if you flashed one, you got everyone's attention/fear/respect. Produce one today and it's a fuddy-duddy relic. The Church of Satan card, Anton continued, had the thrill-power today [being the eariy 1970s]. In 2012 it's ho-hum.

As I have been the first to acknowledge, the ladies & gentlemen of the 600C have made a valiant effort to drag "Satanism" into a new significance as a sort of dramatic individualism. The two problems with this are that you don't need Satan to be a dramatic individualist, and everyone outside of the 600C regards Satanists as Devil-worshippers of the Dennis Wheatley sort. [Whenever I point this out, I get virtually tarred & feathered here, but there it is anyway.]

Sometimes you just can't jam the stepsister's foot into Cinderella's glass slipper no matter how hard you try.

Do I have an answer for you? It is not to join the Temple of Set, because there's no spooky glamour in being a "Setian". And individualism is just taken for granted as a point of departure for the Grail-quest of self-deification.

You could become real Satanists, of course: Worship Satan and swear your bodies and souls to him, like we did in the original Church of Satan. [Cf. the Adult Baptism in the Satanic Rituals.] While that would be refreshingly simple, it would also be self-deceptive, because for everyone here reality has passed beyond J/C. You can't re-believe in Santa Claus. [That you're surrounded by billions of stupid humans who do is beside the point, although it is disconcerting.]

So I think that Diavolo has finally reached the eventual, inevitable dawn. You are not Satanists, and in calling yourselves "Satanists" you are really crippling, not enhancing yourselves. It is a label you have outgrown. Your real problem is that you haven't found a greater, sexier, more contemporary term to replace it. You are casting about for a new card which, when flashed, will once again make everyone scream and run.

I don't see any 3x5" candidates at the moment. The world, particularly in this Internet-saturated era, has become very blasé. If you do manage to get your 15 minutes of attention, it will probably be for mistaken reasons and then "melt into air, into thin air".

The moral of John Fowles' The Magus is that all external vanity amounts to nothing; only your personal character, honesty, integrity have real meaning. At its best the 600C is the kind of crucible that Nicholas Urfe experienced on Phraxos. You will fail it and be thrown back into delusion, or survive it and, as Conchis says,

 Originally Posted By: The Magus
"I come to tell you that you are now elect."

I shook my head violently from side to side.

"You have no choice."

I still shook my head, but more wearily.

He stared at me, with those eyes that seemed older than one man's lifetime, and a little gleam of sympathy came into his expression, as if after all he might have put too much pressure on a very thin lever. "Learn to smile, Nicholas. Learn to smile."

It came to me that he meant something different by "smile" than I did; that the irony, the humorlessness, the ruthlessness I had always noticed in his smiling was a quality he deliberately inserted; that for him the smile was something essentially cruel, because freedom is cruel, because the freedom that makes us at least partly responsible for what we are is cruel. So that the smile was not so much an attitude to be taken to life as the nature of the cruelty of life, a cruelty we cannot even choose to avoid, since it is human existence. He meant something far stranger by "learn to smile" than a smilesian "grin and bear it". If anything it meant "learn to be cruel, learn to be dry, learn to survive".

_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#67637 - 06/23/12 12:20 AM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
So I think that Diavolo has finally reached the eventual, inevitable dawn. You are not Satanists, and in calling yourselves "Satanists" you are really crippling, not enhancing yourselves. It is a label you have outgrown. Your real problem is that you haven't found a greater, sexier, more contemporary term to replace it. You are casting about for a new card which, when flashed, will once again make everyone scream and run.


There's some truth in this and at the same time you're completely missing the point.

The issue is that we're Satanists but at the same time we're not. That might seem contradictory but it really isn't. The majority of people calling themselves Satanists define how individuals are perceived when they communicate with others as a Satanist. One could state 90% of today's Satanists simply do not get it and many of them are mindless fools but even if one is of that 10% that isn't, those 90% will still define what your Satanism symbolizes.

This isn't really a problem if one communicates within a group of select few; those that are of the same mindset, or do get it as they say. But whenever you try to communicate outside of this group, whether it is at a lower or higher layer, if you do so at a Satanist, you're automatically starting from a defensive position.

All communication in those layers would involve the inevitable prelude titled “No we do not...” One could say that's why one is a chameleon and takes on another identity under these circumstances but that also is just a defensive position. Which is why I'm of the opinion that if you're constantly into defense, what you do is quite ineffective because whatever gain there might be, it doesn't outweigh the costs.

So it has little to do with trying to be scary because those using the label to appear scary hardly ever are. It's those actually doing what the label describes that are making other people feel uncomfortable. The whole freak-show and Halloween dressing is equivalent to the barkers among dogs.

The biters never had to dress up.

D.

Top
#67660 - 06/23/12 10:20 AM Re: Dethroning Satan? [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
The general 600C counter-argument, in this and many previous/similar threads, is that today's "Satanists" are re-defining the term to suit and describe themselves, which usually has nothing to do with belief in Satan; he's become nothing more than a glamour-totem. The complaint of this latest thread seems to be that this totem is losing its cocktail-party shock effect: you mention that you're a "Satanist!" and instead of everyone screaming and running to the other side of the room, they just nod indifferently.


Ahh, finally. I've waited so long for this moment I just might end up tripping over my own feet . . . (insert really cool animated smiley HERE)

"Shock effect" - bury that intention, it has no value here.

"this totem is losing its cocktail-party . . ."

often, we can tell what's really going on . . er, um, subjectively, based on what one promotes as an object. In our comparative case, we might as well examine a theologically robust Satan and a theologically robust Set. Because this is the difference.

I get you MAA. Dr. Aquino. "ONESMARTASSMOTHERFUCKER" (period?)

Sorry, I wasn't sure how to punctuate a run-on, ALL CAPS deal like the above. I wanted the !, but just didn't feel it.

Ahh, but I beat around the point. Which, of course, was the quote above.

_____________________________________________


Can you counter my Satan with your Set?

That's a serious question. To a Ph.D. To a Metaphysician AND magician (and don't think I don't see you returning to Fowles' tree every now and again).

You, as an emeritus on the LHP, would be best served returning to the ROOT. Instead of making Set a failed YHWH. Oh, wait, Set is the principle of sub . . .

<we apologize, this program is being interrupted in order top bring you the latest edition of Dharmakaya.>

Dr. Mike, I respect the Hell out of you. BUT you have served your purpose on the LHP. And yes, I know the whole ToS deal before you try to sell it to me. You once joked (although you were serious) that I would eventually discover GBM. I have better than that. I actually have **good philosophy**

JK

p.s., let's add this shit:

 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
You are not Satanists, and in calling yourselves "Satanists" you are really crippling, not enhancing yourselves. It is a label you have outgrown. Your real problem is that you haven't found a greater, sexier, more contemporary term to replace it. You are casting about for a new card which, when flashed, will once again make everyone scream and run.


Wrong. Absolutely wrong.

I respect you, but I will still tear your throat out. As it should be on Our Path (er, um, just not yours).

I didn't hit <enter> yet, but whatever, this WILL be good.

I, a Satanist, am active here, and elsewhere. I never try to convert a goddamned soul. All of these have their own burdens.

HOWEVER, and, again: why are you here?

No, seriously?

You never vote in the Blue, and just appear outright to be a poacher. We all love you because you're LEGACY. But none of us are joining any ToS forum (if there even is such a thing, yawn).

I know this is long, and absolutely chock full of "smiley opportunities". But again: I put my Satan up against your Set. Philosophically, mythologically, scientifically, and however else you deem fit.

JK
_________________________



Top
#67667 - 06/23/12 11:57 AM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Jason King]
DreamMystery Offline
member


Registered: 01/01/12
Posts: 167
Loc: Here
I think the essential problem is one of mythos. Satan is tied to a mythos where he is the rebel who rebels out of the delusion that he can attain ultimate victory. It is built in to the narrative that he will ultimately lose the battle. That his struggle is that of Sisyphus, pointless and ultimately for it's own sake. To rebel for rebellions sake and only find happiness in the struggle itself.

Satan is part of a monotheistic system and he is not the "God" in that system. How can this succeed in the long run? Philosophy and religion are systems based on "ultimate" goals. The goal of trying to accept struggle as the "ultimate" good is to play right into the system and find yourself in "hell" a place of eternal torture by your own hand. Do you see how that works?

This is the reason that I don't identify with satan as the source of the "ultimate". Satan, Set, Iblis, all of these rebels are defined and controlled by their relationship to what they rebel against.

To break free, really and truly free, one must have an "ultimate"
that is completely non-dual.

Facticity itself.

Perhaps we should call ourselves Factualists.

Our struggle is one against wishful thinking.

We see the innate predatory nature of reality, the selfishness of all motives, the doubtfullness of all rational and irrational claims, that our motives are based on pleasure and achievement, the Will-to-Power.

We recognize that self-deception and repression, control from the outside (morality), and self effacement are anti-life, anti-individual.

We value science as a tool for understanding and improvement in life conditions, art as a source of pleasure and self expression into the world. Achievement as a source of long term happiness.

Satan vs Set? They are different Deific masks for the same thing.
The problem is that this underlying Deity/Fetish/Symbol is only one side of a duality, and throwing your lot in with either side as ultimate reality is a deep and subtle error.

I'm not saying that Satan/Set/Ahriman is not an important part of daily existence because it is. To have your preference is neccessary, but know that in the final and ultimate way it is pointless. Arbitrary.

To know this is to be free.

Top
#67669 - 06/23/12 12:34 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: DreamMystery]
Jason King Offline
Banned/Martyrdom Denied
active member


Registered: 10/24/10
Posts: 731
Loc: 65?1%833Q!92A24 (It's a code)
Myth(os) is ever living. It is poetry, prose, novel, film, video game, music video, WHATEVER.

Dr. Aquino (MAA) has a specific mythic vergence symbolized by SET. And I have a specific mythic vergence symbolized by SATAN.

But hey, why salivate anticipating the next exchange, when you have one of worth before you??

 Originally Posted By: Sisyphus
I think the essential problem is one of mythos. Satan is tied to a mythos where he is the rebel who rebels out of the delusion that he can attain ultimate victory. It is built in to the narrative that he will ultimately lose the battle.


No. Satan is facticity. He is not a product of myth but the progenitor. And, oops, that means Satan (slash GOD) is a WOMAN. Double oops. Facticity cannot lose, by definition. But thanks for taking a term of mine. $5 if you can tell me who I got it from . . . no, I'll make it $100.

 Originally Posted By: dreamyguy
Satan is part of a monotheistic system and he is not the "God" in that system. How can this succeed in the long run?


Which of us are Christians? Jews? Muslims? No, my friend (heh), Satan is mere adversarial facticity. This means that such a thing can never be denied, just as 1+1 =2 cannot.

Satan =/= "part of a monotheistic system"; rather:

Satan = the very nature of phenomenal reality; incapable of escape, and fecund of myth, a true Topoi.

JK

p.s. a lateral /// conversation might be cool, but that's your choice . . .

JK
_________________________



Top
#67672 - 06/23/12 01:01 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Diavolo]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
There's some truth in this and at the same time you're completely missing the point.

Not at all; your point is just that of Kipling's Bandar-log, re-sung from their famous Road-Song.

If, like Nicholas, you shake your head violently in denial, you can take as much time as you like to prove me wrong.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#67673 - 06/23/12 01:39 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
If that's true of anyone here, it's also true of yourself and your band of Setians. Does the herd not see you as pariahs? Do you not sing your views from the treetops as the only authentic religion? If I hold up the mirror how can you not see your reflection?

You never answered how your belief system represents evolutionary thought. Despite your multiple postings of monty python on individuality, Setians are, at the core, people who believe your North Solstice working to be true. From the onset these folks appear to be attaching themselves to your star. Such an action does not an individual make.

You seem to fault us most for not having a belief. Most of us are comfortable with saying "I don't know" with regard to the big questions, but we're actively trying to make sense of it. That you explain it all with belief doesn't make you an evolutionary superior as people have been doing that for millennia.

_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#67675 - 06/23/12 01:55 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Jason King]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Jason King
"ONESMARTASSMOTHERFUCKER"



 Quote:
Can you counter my Satan with your Set?

I've discussed this pretty extensively in other threads here; poke around a bit. Summarily Set is the name by which the Temple of Set apprehends the neter/Form of isolate self-consciousness, of which manifest entities such as you and me are particularizations.

Humans are generally uncomfortable about this, even frightened of it, which explains why they have cartooned it as Devil/devils and so on. All sorts of antics about "Satanism" ripple out from this.

 Quote:
I will still tear your throat out.

But first you must catch me.

 Quote:
why are you here? No, seriously? You never vote in the Blue, and just appear outright to be a poacher. We all love you because you're LEGACY.

As I said from day one, I came to visit primarily as an historical resource. I have been involved with Satanism for a good deal longer than most 600Cers have been alive. This in itself doesn't make me omniscient, but it does mean I've been around the block. Like Maurice Conchis, I am "old and leathery".

Grace Slick once observed to me, "Mike, everybody wants to sell you their shorts." Also like Conchis, I am quite past that motive. 600Cers are welcome to take or leave what I say as it may please/displease them. Presumably they are all here looking for "Satanism".

I don't advocate/vote concerning the 600C color codes because I still regard myself as a guest here, not a judge. The only judging I do is purely personal; I put jerks on "ignore" if they persist in begging for it, that's all. I evaluate all posts on their merits, not on whatever color the poster happens to be.

 Quote:
But none of us are joining any ToS forum (if there even is such a thing, yawn).

The Temple of Set has numerous internal forums, but as these concern Setian matters, yes, they might well put humans to sleep.

 Quote:
I know this is long, and absolutely chock full of "smiley opportunities".


_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#67677 - 06/23/12 02:31 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Fnord]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Fnord
If that's true of anyone here, it's also true of yourself and your band of Setians. Does the herd not see you as pariahs? Do you not sing your views from the treetops as the only authentic religion? If I hold up the mirror how can you not see your reflection?

The Temple of Set doesn't sing in public, actually. We did so only in the 1980s when forced to by the villagers. Otherwise we are more like Caine's Shaolin Monastery; if you see meaning here, come on in. If not, don't.

 Quote:
You never answered how your belief system represents evolutionary thought.

I've gone over that many times here, and I believe I've recommended [as also on the Temple Reading List] Ouspensky's The Psychology of Man's Possible Evolution as a good exoteric introduction.

 Quote:
Despite your multiple postings of monty python on individuality, Setians are, at the core, people who believe your North Solstice working to be true. From the onset these folks appear to be attaching themselves to your star. Such an action does not an individual make.

No entering Setian is asked or expected to believe in the North Solstice Working. If after experience as a Setian one concludes that it is convincing, that's his decision. Many Adepts of the Temple are content to study and use the practical and magical tools of our "toolbox" without concerning themselves about the metaphysics.

 Quote:
You seem to fault us most for not having a belief. Most of us are comfortable with saying "I don't know" with regard to the big questions, but we're actively trying to make sense of it. That you explain it all with belief doesn't make you an evolutionary superior as people have been doing that for millennia.

I fault no one for being what he is; I - as I learned from my teacher Anton - fault self-deception.

That you are trying to make sense of your selves, of the implications of your consciousness, is commendable. That you persist on chaining this effort to an obsolete, inadequate, and inaccurate totem is quite the other thing.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#67681 - 06/23/12 03:35 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [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
Humans are generally uncomfortable about this, even frightened of it, which explains why they have cartooned it as Devil/devils and so on. All sorts of antics about "Satanism" ripple out from this.


Do you actually believe the genesis of mythological devils is to be found in a fear of self-consciousness? Really?

I mean sure, the Greek daimon/Latin genuis was later hypostatized and oppositionalized by Christian apologists/polemecists, but mythological 'evil' occurs in every system. Even Set had his Apep.

I disagree with your analysis. I hold that mythological 'evil' is best understood as a fear, not of consciousness, but of the sheer unknown combined with the magnitude of the phenomenal world in the face of mankind's seeming insignificance. And this conjoined with the rational nature of mind.

JK
_________________________



Top
#67694 - 06/23/12 04:40 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
DreamMystery Offline
member


Registered: 01/01/12
Posts: 167
Loc: Here
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino

That you are trying to make sense of your selves, of the implications of your consciousness, is commendable. That you persist on chaining this effort to an obsolete, inadequate, and inaccurate totem is quite the other thing.


I agree that satan is outdated in a secularizing world, and was inadequate to begin with really. Despite any attempted semantic shift, satan will always be a christian demon.

Set certainly is a better Deific Mask/Totem as he is presented by the ToS if you are looking for a fresh start without ties to any existing system.

The only reason to stay with satan is out of attachment to christianity if you think about it.



@Jason King

Sure man "Satan" is adversarial reality, but why call him "Satan"? Why not Set? Or Ahriman? Kali?

How do you choose among the masks? Do you honestly think that the Satan of the bible is the best mythos out there?

Satan is part of a system and trying to pluck him out of it and completely redefine him (Her whatever) is a waste of time.

Where do you think the Hebrews got the concept of Satan? From the Zoroastrians most likely. Why not go back to the earlier concept of which Satan is an inaccurate copy?

Satan is tied to Christianity and you can never pry him free. Reality just does what it does, no middle-eastern demons required.

Top
#67695 - 06/23/12 05:07 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Jason King]
rbak923 Offline
banned
lurker


Registered: 06/09/12
Posts: 3
I am reading my way through the Lucifer Principle and see the basic observations made about our animalistic roots, about "evil" being part of us necessarily because we evolved from animals.

What if science someday gives us the ability to significantly
modify our own genetics.... so that we can choose to be only "good" and not "evil"?

At this point, we can become what we wish to become....

However, if there are truly forces in the universe trying to steer the futures of the beings within it toward the best possible "outcome" for each and race, we might not reach this point in history.

Right now, should we try to determine whether or not these forces are truly present and ask what they want for our future - for example, who should next sit on the throne of Satan?

Part of this is looking over the sum totals of our lives and pooling our knowledge.

Top
#67698 - 06/23/12 07:13 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Jason King]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Jason King
Do you actually believe the genesis of mythological devils is to be found in a fear of self-consciousness? Really?

Of course. Cf "Reflection #12 here.

The slave religions generally promise/hope for/feel that they are entitled to [through Grace] re-inclusion in the homogenous Objective Universe - except for a few oddballs like the AMORC who think your separate consciousness just gets reincarnated up or down, depending upon your karmic report card.

Since my dad was Michael Sr., my parents nicknamed me "Archy" after the cockroach in Don Marquis' archy and mehitabel. As I was indeed the reincarnation of this eminent philosopher, this was entirely appropriate. I bring this up because in "archy hears from mars" I summed up the situation of the big lumbering human things on this planet.

i am still doing the best i can but after all i am only one and my influence is limited
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#67700 - 06/23/12 08:09 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



Hmmm I'm not so sure about the current reaction of the general public to Satanism.

I still don't think too many people would tell a prospective employer in a job interview, for instance, that they are a Satanist.

It is still a bit of a scary sort of word and all it takes would be for a few idiots out there to start some serioous criminal thing and the media/govt/Christian's might be after the Satanists again.

Can I just call myself an Indulencenist or some thing like that?

Top
#67701 - 06/23/12 08:18 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: ]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3928
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Originally Posted By: MatthewJ1


It is still a bit of a scary sort of word and all it takes would be for a few idiots out there to start some serioous criminal thing and the media/govt/Christian's might be after the Satanists again.


You say that as if it would be a bad thing. Once the word is accepted by all, once Satanist is just another, fully palatable religious choice among the rest is the day it has lost it's meaning, and ceased to be a left hand path methodology.

Bring on the baby slayers and resultant spooked herd. Bring on the scorn, the fear, the nervous laughter..for without these things, what is the point?
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#67706 - 06/23/12 09:30 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: ]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: MatthewJ1
I still don't think too many people would tell a prospective employer in a job interview, for instance, that they are a Satanist.

Depends upon the job ...



 Quote:
It is still a bit of a scary sort of word and all it takes would be for a few idiots out there to start some serioous criminal thing and the media/govt/Christian's might be after the Satanists again.

At least in the countries of the 1980s' Satanic Panic (USA, Canada, UK, Australia), that was pretty well discredited, whereupon accusers and profiteers switched over to the Catholic Church and their own parents & relatives. Follow the money and etc.

At the moment and for the foreseeable future, Islam is the scare-religion in fashion.

 Quote:
Can I just call myself an Indulencenist or some thing like that?

"Epicurean" sounds fancier and implies more elegant parties.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#67708 - 06/23/12 09:44 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Asmedious Moderator Offline
Moderator
senior member


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 1750
Loc: New York
General Reply:

I may be completely missing the point in this thread but if I'm not mistaken it's a very old argument and has been around since I started reading online Satanic Forums in the mid 1990's.

The argument is that Satanism has become stagnant, it's old, moldy, and what was considered to be new, original, enlightening and fun in the 1960's is now nothing more then a desire for nostalgia and Halloween type entertainment for it's practitioners, therefore it has lost its original appeal to some people and it is time to redefine it for a new generation. Times have changed and moved on, yet Satanism is still stuck in 1966. There isn't much to discuss anymore for most Satanists because we have heard and read just about anything involving the philosophy, so it's time to come up with some more substance that can be discussed.
Surely, Satanism can evolve and be an active player in today's new world if someone could only redefine it and make it a better mouse trap.

Yet no one has come up with anything better. All that have tried have failed. Either their ideas are so complicated and filled with fancy verbal diarrhea that people quickly lose interest at the forced attempt the author is trying to put forth in the hopes of becoming the next Grand Puba, while others can write volumes on the “idea,” that there is “something,” better out there without actually coming up with anything.

I don't have a fancy argument as to why it is so, but for me LaVey's Satanism is still the best mouse trap for me.

I do enjoy the nostalgia aspect of it. If I had the means to do so I would build my own Black House, invite friends over, and have us all dressed up in silly yet high quality costumes then drink, smoke, eat with our hands, participate in black masses, have gorgeous females on the alter and generally have a blast. Why? Because it would be fun and a great way to decompress from the every day bullshit that we all have to put up with. No other reason, but from my point of view it's reason enough to do it.

Non of this would stop us from taking our costumes off and putting on normal “acceptable,” clothing and then going home to our more sophisticated homes, and back to our “normal” jobs where we would behave in a sociably acceptable manner.

Being a LaVeyian Satanist doesn't stop me from expanding my mind and embarrassing modern ideas and memes, but doing so doesn't require me to attempt to drag Satanism with me so that it too can be modernized.

If I am motivated to do so I can achieve anything that the limits of my intellect will allow without the need to change or to redefine what Satanism is.
On the flip side, Satanism cannot motivate me to become anything more then I already am, because only I can do that, through my own efforts.
I do not strive to be a better Satanist, but instead I strive to be as advanced as I can be for my own benefit, and not for the benefit of Satanism.

My Satanism isn't stuck back in 1966, because I am not stuck back in 1966. It evolves with me. I don't evolve with Satanism.
Satanism’s core tenets defy the type of person that I am but I do not define what those core tenets should be, because if I tried to do so then I would be defining Asmediousim not Satanism.

So yes, I may think like the Satanists of the 1960's but at the same time I am also able to think like a man living in 2012, so what am I missing out on?
_________________________
"The first order of government is the protection of its citizens right to be left alone."

Top
#67725 - 06/24/12 05:34 AM Re: Dethroning Satan? [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
The slave religions generally promise/hope for/feel that they are entitled to [through Grace] re-inclusion in the homogenous Objective Universe - except for a few oddballs like the AMORC who think your separate consciousness just gets reincarnated up or down, depending upon your karmic report card.


I'm sorry but this just strikes me as a square peg of analysis being forcefully hammered into the round hole that is human mythic expression. It's almost like when the bunny-wiccans try to convince us that all evil is a result of male patriarchy. Too much theory based on unwarranted assumptions revolving around a faulty metaphysics.

Self-consciousness is actually untreated in most Western exoteric traditions until theology pressed philosophy into service late in the game. Which fact is why I find the Eastern schools to be far superior as genuine metaphysics, but that is neither here nor there.

Now if you're referring to "will" as opposed to "awareness," then you might be halfway to the midpoint of making an argument, but still, I would hold that this is just not what myth is doing with "devils" and other ontological evils.

To make it realrealsimple, think of it like this: things happen in the world that I do not like and that I cannot assign positive personal meaning to. These things are bad and scary to me. As a myth-maker, I assign these to a separate sphere of reality called Evil. Next, I tell you a story of how this Evil came to be (either from Chaos, or from Good, depending on the myth in question), why it is ultimately a part of the Plan of Existence, and how it will lead to greater Good.

Such an analysis makes far more sense, and is much more in line not only with the myths as they understand themselves, but also with comparative mythology as a discipline. People didn't fear the Self, the Self was a given. They feared aspects of the world which were dangerous and lacked science. They feared death above all, and with it, pointlessness and suffering.

Dr. Aquino, I believe at times you mistake your particular worldview/metaphysics for the operative spirit of all cultures and mythologies. It's like looking through a jaundiced glass - everything's yellowbrown. As an analogy, consider gravity. It explains the motions of massive bodies as well as can be had at the moment. Now consider Aristotle's understanding of why bodies move. See how the former is focused on science and the latter, assumption?

JK
_________________________



Top
#67727 - 06/24/12 08:58 AM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Jason King]
SkaffenAmtiskaw Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 06/24/09
Posts: 1318
Eloquently put, JK.

The habit of assigning discrete metaphysical properties to physical objects as well as metaphysical entities is something I've always found a little too neat. Too convenient.

That being said, I can certainly understand how such logical leaps can be taken with the support of a reinforcing ritual practice that is primarily aimed at self-exploration and self-deification. I don't mean to derail the thread or anything; I just think this is an interesting tangent to explore.

To wit: to what degree can ANY journey of self-exploration featuring ritual practices avoid the pitfalls of flawed logic and self-deception? I know Crowley likened the insights from divine insight to semen or suchlike, denoting a contempt (and perhaps appreciation?) for uncritical handling of pipe dreams.
_________________________
"I'd rather be right than consistent" - Winston Churchill

Top
#67732 - 06/24/12 01:29 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Jason King]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Jason King
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
The slave religions generally promise/hope for/feel that they are entitled to [through Grace] re-inclusion in the homogenous Objective Universe - except for a few oddballs like the AMORC who think your separate consciousness just gets reincarnated up or down, depending upon your karmic report card.


I'm sorry but this just strikes me as a square peg of analysis being forcefully hammered into the round hole that is human mythic expression ...

Then on this we shall have to agree to disagree.

 Quote:
Self-consciousness is actually untreated in most Western exoteric traditions until theology pressed philosophy into service late in the game.

Indeed. Satan's great sin was not evil, but separateness (which underlay what was perceived as evil). Humans have spent a long time hating and fearing the Devil for the wrong reasons.

 Quote:
Which fact is why I find the Eastern schools to be far superior as genuine metaphysics, but that is neither here nor there.

Many of them are pretty and aphorism-fun, but all come back to human dissolution into the OU - nirvana, samadhi, and all that. Same self-fear/hatred repackaged.

 Quote:
Now if you're referring to "will" as opposed to "awareness,"

These are not opposing concepts. The moment isolate self consciousness affirms and expresses itself, you have "will". Without ISC there can be no will.

 Quote:
To make it realrealsimple, think of it like this: things happen in the world that I do not like and that I cannot assign positive personal meaning to. These things are bad and scary to me. As a myth-maker, I assign these to a separate sphere of reality called Evil. Next, I tell you a story of how this Evil came to be (either from Chaos, or from Good, depending on the myth in question), why it is ultimately a part of the Plan of Existence, and how it will lead to greater Good.

Without ISC you would be unaware of anything (OU or other ISCs) impeding your self-expression. Humans (with ISC) have mispersonified resistance as evil, just as they frequently assume their own expression to be automatically good. Really not that complicated or obscure, but you wouldn't know this from noninitiate blatherings.

 Quote:
Dr. Aquino, I believe at times you mistake your particular worldview/metaphysics for the operative spirit of all cultures and mythologies.

Quite the opposite, actually; they're wrong and I'm right.

May I gently suggest that this is veering off-topic (the present/future viability of "Satanism").
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#67736 - 06/24/12 02:10 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [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
May I gently suggest that this is veering off-topic (the present/future viability of "Satanism").


Sure you can. But it might seem a bit, errr <cough>, umm, I'll be polite: silly. Given the fact that you wove this skein and all.

And yeah, agree to disagree might be your best option here (insert clueless smiley #3259).

Please allow me, kind sir, to butcher all of mythology and then step back, hands up, claiming "off topic" to your reply. Yes, very well then.

JK
_________________________



Top
#67738 - 06/24/12 02:26 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [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: Dr. Aquino
Many of them are pretty and aphorism-fun, but all come back to human dissolution into the OU - nirvana, samadhi, and all that. Same self-fear/hatred repackaged.


Sorry, dude, I chopped it just before the all important smiley. Seriously, though, I must claim that you do not understand either nirvana or samadhi. Unless, of course, you believe the Eastern schools to be infected with the mental retardation that is property dualism.

JK
_________________________



Top
#67747 - 06/24/12 06:30 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Jason King]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1647
Loc: Orlando, FL
JK, I think this is a rather fruitful topic but might be serviced better in a thread of its own, which I will begin composing now...
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#67750 - 06/24/12 08:41 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Jason King]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Jason King
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
May I gently suggest that this is veering off-topic (the present/future viability of "Satanism").

Sure you can. But it might seem a bit, errr <cough>, umm, I'll be polite: silly. Given the fact that you wove this skein and all.

As written then and re-read now, I think that post of mine was very much to the point of this thread, whereas [re]diversions into Setian metaphysics are not.

 Quote:
And yeah, agree to disagree might be your best option here (insert clueless smiley #3259).

If you force me to be less diplomatic, your retort was stupid and undeserving of any further time on my part.

 Quote:
Please allow me, kind sir, to butcher all of mythology and then step back, hands up, claiming "off topic" to your reply. Yes, very well then.

And once again.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#67752 - 06/24/12 09:14 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
If you force me to be less diplomatic, your retort was stupid and undeserving of any further time on my part.


C'mon Mike, even while certain arguments have less to do with the initial post, the gentlemen do have a point when it comes your debating skills. Setians might very much have evolved beyond the primitive satanists but during the evolution it seems they have lost their ability to confront criticism and hold their ground.

Each time there is pressure, there seems to be some good reason why that subject has to be avoided and I start to think that's maybe because you, as well as others, know this is an argument you can't win. Maybe that's because it is constructed out of pixie dust. Why else wouldn't there be a good case to be made in favor?

If one repeatedly sees this same pattern unfold, isn't it normal people start to wonder if Velluti wouldn't have made a great Setian?

D.


Top
#67761 - 06/25/12 12:08 AM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Diavolo]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
C'mon Mike, even while certain arguments have less to do with the initial post, the gentlemen do have a point when it comes your debating skills. Setians might very much have evolved beyond the primitive satanists but during the evolution it seems they have lost their ability to confront criticism and hold their ground.

Sorry, Diavolo, but a stupid retort is a stupid retort:

 Originally Posted By: Jason King
I'm sorry but this just strikes me as a square peg of analysis being forcefully hammered into the round hole that is human mythic expression. It's almost like when the bunny-wiccans try to convince us that all evil is a result of male patriarchy. Too much theory based on unwarranted assumptions revolving around a faulty metaphysics.

Mr. King is quite intelligent enough to know and do better than this, as is clearly evident from many of his previous posts. In my initial response I attempted to convey my refusal to respond to such cant without being blunt about it, which simply elicited a sarcastic rejoinder.

 Quote:
Each time there is pressure, there seems to be some good reason why that subject has to be avoided and I start to think that's maybe because you, as well as others, know this is an argument you can't win. Maybe that's because it is constructed out of pixie dust. Why else wouldn't there be a good case to be made in favor?

Ridiculous. My history on 600C makes it abundantly clear that I have had no compunction about responding, at length, to tough questions - even if it's a previous one re-asked, or one which is extensively addressed in various of my downloadable writings.

If you or anyone else wishes to bite on Mr. King's fishhook here, by all means be my guest.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#67763 - 06/25/12 12:55 AM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I'm sorry Mike but you're trying to paint a different picture than reality shows. More often than not, when criticism is to the point and people anxiously await to see what you'll bring to the table, there's always this deus ex machina you invoke that miraculously saves the day. What people see is someone who does not like to enter a debate once it becomes critical to that what he claims. But strangely it doesn't seem to hinder you from constantly criticizing yourself.

First I assumed it must be some strategy and I even might think you're an intellectual guerrilla were it not that using a spray gun filled with water hardly qualifies as such. I'm also not interested in biting any hook because I'm not stepping in because I see you as an opponent, such would after all require someone that is intellectually threatening.

This intrusion of mine is as a moderator and as such I can't but ask why someone that considers himself a Philosopher and quite evolved beyond us, has such a hard time standing his ground while normally, he should be whooping the intellectual ass of all amateurs. It can't be harder than swatting flies.

After all, regardless what opinions or ideas; right is right and wrong is wrong and to come to such conclusions, arguments are used. Those areas beyond one can still agree to disagree.

You just tend to leave a bit before this beyond.

D.

Top
#67764 - 06/25/12 01:09 AM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Diavolo]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
This intrusion of mine is as a moderator.

In that case I respectfully decline to discuss this further with you and will now exit this thread.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#67765 - 06/25/12 01:53 AM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
DreamMystery Offline
member


Registered: 01/01/12
Posts: 167
Loc: Here
I think you make a good case Dr. A, if people took the time to carefully read a chunk of your writings.

Jason King doesn't realize that the fear of the unknown only comes about because there is a "self" which doesn't know something. This is the root of all fears. Not the unknown itself, but that there seems to be something that NEEDS to know what it doesn't already.

This thing is forced to deal with the unknown to survive, and it wonders why? Why must I exist? It seems like an error, unnatural, evil. The forces of nature ask no questions, the ocean waves feel no fear, they only surge on with serene cruelty.

The self must always be in conflict with the world, and the world seems so much more powerful than the self. What is powerful is good. A master morality kind of good. So the self must be less good, to harmonize with the greater power is to become more powerful by identification and efficacy but without the self growing at all.

Then comes the original rebel. He discovers that the self can grow (xeper). He sees the potential of the self to grow enough that the OU can be held at bay without bowing and scraping to it. That the self by growing effective enough may overthrow the other and create his own custom tailored world which he may do with as he likes, free at last from the shackles of the OU.

Not without it's beauty and explanatory power.



But I'm a non-dualist myself, and so here is my refutation.

After the self has broken free and enters his little SU the question is, can there really be eternal happiness here?

Think about it, after 40 quintillion years of creating and destroying and observing your little SU what is there left to do?
What will you do if boredom sets in? With no outside influences things will begin to stagnate at some point.

Like playing a video game on god mode, it will get old. Despite any self-imposed limitations to provide challenge, the whole thing will start to seem forced.

Then one day you will realize that you are really in a kind of hell, and only you can keep yourself there, and only you can get out.

How to get out?

By untangling the strange loop of your illusory "self" and becoming God. The little "you" is not lost, for time has no meaning here, it exists all at once and what was still is.


Don't worry though you have all of eternity to figure it out.

Top
#67766 - 06/25/12 07:40 AM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: DreamMystery]
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: DreamMystery
Jason King doesn't realize that the fear of the unknown only comes about because there is a "self" which doesn't know something. This is the root of all fears. Not the unknown itself, but that there seems to be something that NEEDS to know what it doesn't already.


This analysis is neither here nor there to the conversation at hand. I could concede it and neither Dr. Mike's nor my position in exchange would be altered. Consider the root of the present disagreement:

 Originally Posted By: Dr. Mike
Summarily Set is the name by which the Temple of Set apprehends the neter/Form of isolate self-consciousness, of which manifest entities such as you and me are particularizations.

Humans are generally uncomfortable about this, even frightened of it, which explains why they have cartooned it as Devil/devils and so on. All sorts of antics about "Satanism" ripple out from this.


Now, what is being said here? Simply that mythological devils are hypostases of self-consciousness. This is required in the good Dr.'s analysis because it is how he interprets his particular "devil". However, this is just really an untenable position if one understands even the slightest bit of comparative mythology. Or any single mythology.

It is a refusal to understand the myths as they understand themselves, which is tantamount to telling George Lucas that his concept of the Force is really just the Holy Spirit because you are a Christian. It smacks of arrogance unbefitting a man of his education.

There are many reasons for the inclusion of "diabolical" entities/forces in myth cycles, and they tend to vary from culture to culture, cycle to cycle. The least common denominator, as I mentioned before, is an inability to reconcile rational paradigms (typified by pantheonic order) with the bald facticity of death and meaningless suffering.

Now granted, as these are intentionalities, they are of course held by selves. But this is a tautological addition to the issue at hand, essentially adding nothing but smoke and mirrors. In other words, to say that "selves have fear" does not translate into "the self fears the self," or if we are to be a bit more silly with it, "the self fears the fact that there fear in the self". Or hey, we can go even further: "the self fears the fact that there is fear in a self which has fear".

I'm reminded here of the "X is true" infinite mirror of auto-redundancy. Or, in a nutshell, the fact that mental states are necessarily intentional does in no way speak to their self-reference.

However, I must say this: if you are not Aklo redivivus, then you are the best new addition I've seen here in a bit.

JK
_________________________



Top
#67777 - 06/25/12 02:04 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Jason King]
DreamMystery Offline
member


Registered: 01/01/12
Posts: 167
Loc: Here
Good points.

The good Doctor here IS quite arrogant in his analysis, he seems to get this from the functionalist movement begun by Malinowski. The local understanding is not given any importance by this movement.

For example there is a people who have a corn god. This god tells them to bury a fish with every corn planted, because it pleases him. The functionalist says "I don't give a damn why the native THINKS he does it, truth is he is fertilizing this plant."
So religion is interpreted as adaptive behavior, it could be only psychological in its benefit like "confession" for example.

So what I think he is doing here is saying "I don't give a damn what the local people THINK satan is all about, satan is really the fear of the isolate self which causes numerous problems for people without them being aware of it."

This school of anthropology is not in favor these days.


Current anthropology does take the native understanding into account, which I think is great, as long as we don't enter into some kind of hard relativism where female genital mutilation is "just another way of life".

Anyway the point is this:

Dr. A thinks he knows better than the masses the underpinnings and functions of their mythology.

It is a bit hubristic, but who among us isn't?

Satan is taken by you to mean "Adversarial Facticity" is that what the Hebrews and Christians themselves thought?

I admit that I haven't read the full works of Augustine or Aquinas, or Maimonides but I don't think they would agree with you. Maybe I'm wrong.

Certainly the "Masses" wouldn't agree with you. God is obviously the source of "Facticity" and the adversary is either his tool (Judaism) or a delusional rebel who will get his in the end (Christianity).

I think a certain degree of mistrust of the local understanding is good. Especially when we are seeking "Facticity" and not a post-modern "Point of View/Way of Life" that is of equal value to any other "Point of View/Way of Life".

If you reject Solipsism, their must be an "Objective Reality".
Objective reality implies an Absolute. That which does not depend on anything else. Current science accepts multiple Absolutes in the fundamental forces, Matter/Energy, and Space/Time.

It is my opinion that these too will be reduced further and further until the one true Absolute is understood. This may not be in our lifetimes, or even achieved by humans.

"...in a nutshell, the fact that mental states are necessarily intentional does in no way speak to their self-reference."


We all know that there are mental states that we do not consciously intend, such as depression. These states emerge with unconscious intent. The intent of Depression is to take a time out and figure things out, even if this caused in a way which may be counter-productive to the conscious self and overall survivability of the particular individual.

This unconscious emergence of mental states is the will of life itself as a community. Depression doesn't help you but it helps others think their way out of situations, and at worst causes other individuals to defeat you and take your resources for his benefit and thereby the benefit of life itself.


So if you are under the common illusion that there is a self which intends, then all fear is intentional.

How would this intentionality be viewed by the reflecting individual?

As wrong, weak, evil, existential terror. Tracing the root of this as far as you can will lead you to the very idea of "isolate self". The isolate self is feared by the self reflecting individual who looks for the "why" behind evil/fear.

So self-reference is the bedrock upon which stands intentionality.

By Self-reference I mean Self as individual.

If you intend something, there has to be a "You" to intend it.

By intending you are implying that there is a self and that self is in a relationship with an other (object of intention).


What I'm trying to say is this:

Aquino's metaphysics works pretty well if you haven't overcome the illusion of self.

We all start out with this illusion, it's how we're built.

Once you have had the experience of No-Self, it all looks pretty silly.

Top
#67786 - 06/25/12 03:39 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: DreamMystery]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: DreamMystery
We all know that there are mental states that we do not consciously intend, such as depression. These states emerge with unconscious intent. The intent of Depression is to take a time out and figure things out, even if this caused in a way which may be counter-productive to the conscious self and overall survivability of the particular individual.

This unconscious emergence of mental states is the will of life itself as a community. Depression doesn't help you but it helps others think their way out of situations, and at worst causes other individuals to defeat you and take your resources for his benefit and thereby the benefit of life itself.


One could wonder why then within certain family trees there is a clear need to take some time out among all generations. Major and severe depression is in 40/50% (and higher) inherited and considered a genetic predisposition.

D.

Top
#67789 - 06/25/12 04:02 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Diavolo]
DreamMystery Offline
member


Registered: 01/01/12
Posts: 167
Loc: Here
Genes are the vector through which this "will" expresses itself.

Strictly speaking there is nothing willing anything, it's just a manner of speaking (writing whatever).

It's just easier than going through the whole stream of processes and mechanics step by pedantic step.

Life is driven by Will-to-Power. That is quick easy and cogent.

Life is a human construct attempting to describe self-replicating protein clusters. Meh, it's more accurate but somewhat insulting if you know your audience.

A little Reification is like "Chunking" things. I assume you don't need everything unpacked for you.

Top
#67790 - 06/25/12 04:14 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: DreamMystery]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Pixie dust.

You're talking about intention as if there were something calling the shots and deciding it is a good idea to be depressed right now. I doubt that very much which is why I asked what exactly is behind this intention and deciding it's the right time for something?

I could ask the same about schizophrenia; what's the intention there? It's hardly different from severe depression.

D.

Top
#67792 - 06/25/12 04:36 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Diavolo]
DreamMystery Offline
member


Registered: 01/01/12
Posts: 167
Loc: Here
I read an article in Pschology Today or something like that a while back. They tried to make the case that depression had some evolutionary advantage to explain its continued existence. They said that in mild forms it helps the individual to step back from life and rewire behavior patterns. Severe recurrent depression could only be explained through a death wish which frees up resources for others.

This applies to humans in a hunter-gatherer society, but it doesn't work as well in modern society.

I'm not sure I buy it completely but there is food for thought there.

Some diseases like schizophrenia would be hard to explain using the evolutionary model. It seems likely that it is just a failure of biology, it doesn't promote anything really except the death of the individual which would free up resources.

That's only if you buy into group selection.

My fundamental insight is that there is nothing "Willing" anything, anywhere.

There are only teleonomic processes and awareness.

Top
#67796 - 06/25/12 04:58 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: DreamMystery]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I'm not disagreeing mild depression isn't a good indication something is wrong in someone's life and it might be beneficial to discover exactly what and address this. What I disagree with is that depression is somehow intended to produce this change. Depression is a result, not a cause.

In nature there is as little intention as there is purpose. That what we call love, as an example, is a chemical imbalance in the brain which, among other things, affects the prefrontal cortex which in turn affects our thinking which results in impairing our judgment while increasing our risk taking. Popularly called; looking through rose colored glasses.

While this certainly increases reproduction, it's not the intention. In the past, those suffering this disability simply had more offspring than those that didn't and only because of that, it became a dominant trait among humans.

D.

Top
#67806 - 06/25/12 05:59 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Diavolo]
DreamMystery Offline
member


Registered: 01/01/12
Posts: 167
Loc: Here
An interesting question is whether ascribing intention where there is none is a useful strategy or not.

A storm for example can't be predicted or even completely explained even today. Does personification give us foothold into the unknown?

Instead of worrying whether the storm will destroy you, you think of it like a person (god, spirit). People can't be explained or controlled absolutely (yet anyway), yet we feel some sense of control because we think we understand what they want/need.
In reality we don't know anything that is really going on in their head, but the illusion of control in us prevents complete paranoia.

Psychological experiments have been done which show that people who think they are in control, even when they aren't are healthier mentally and physically.

Will-to-Power vs Will-to-Truth who wins?

I've been thinking about this for awhile.

Which is better:

A Sunday Christian that seeks success as part of a Calvinist inspired protestant church. He has affairs, does dirty business deals, beats his kids, but on sunday he goes to church and prays for forgiveness. He feels absolved but continues his lifestyle.
He enjoys the accolades of the community, wealth, and love from his submissive wife and kids. Does he seek the Truth? No he doesn't give it a second thought.

or


A satanist seeking truth and power, questioning even his own convictions to root out self-deception. Every day is a struggle of Self-overcoming, deliberate transgression, constant reminders to himself that their is nothing out there he can trust completely or love unconditionally. He rejects forgiveness, even of himself, after all he is the only god there is, and if he can't be perfect, nothing else has a chance.
He achieves much in his small circle of friends, but is unknown or rejected by society.

I don't know...

Truth vs Power. Can they be reconciled?

Top
#67807 - 06/25/12 06:46 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: DreamMystery]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Being able to discover patterns is what enhanced survival for humans in the past.

Grumpf eats red berries - Grumpf gets sick - Grumpf dies.

This inevitably, after enough deaths, resulted in the tribe realizing there was some causal link between eating those berries and dying.

Storms produce lightning which create forest fires resulting in danger for the tribe.

This understanding also enabled them to link storms to danger with the only difference they were clueless why those storms sometimes appeared and other times not. Gods might very much be a result of trying to find a pattern for these unknowns and as such find a way to either control or predict them. This is where intention comes into play. Even to cavemen it was pretty obvious the red berries had no intention to kill them, unlike the bear, lion or wolf who to them was obviously a free-willed agent. Storms were quite unexplainable but by adding gods, and intention, they could try to please the gods and thus control the storms.

Intention is something we attribute to something external in an attempt to predict its future actions. It certainly has use at that level but it all too easily makes us see these intentions as something real.

I don't see Will to Power as something one can compare against something else because WtP is the drive behind all life and manifest into everything where life manifests itself.

As such, that what you call “will to truth” is driven by WtP.

D.

Top
#67869 - 06/26/12 05:32 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Diavolo]
DreamMystery Offline
member


Registered: 01/01/12
Posts: 167
Loc: Here
Good point. This means that the Will-to-Truth (The seeking of "Facticity") can be counterproductive. Power is Truth applied towards an end. If you can't apply Truth to your benefit, it is without value.

This also means that illusions can be useful. This is how all major religions succeed. They aren't factual, they are powerful.

Top
#67923 - 06/27/12 07:35 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Fnord]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
Interestingly enough a friend of mine recently became interested in Satanism from another friend of his who picked up from who the hell knows. He brought it up with me recently and started inquiring about rituals. This exchange didn't last very long after he learned of my disinterest in ritual. Another friend of mine has also shown a more casual interest in it but is exploring it none-the-less.

So if interest in Satanism is waning, I don't notice it. Nor does it concern me that it might be.

Perhaps the dying off of rhp belief sets has also caused people to be less inclined to pursue alternatives. This is an agreeable trade off in my mind. Besides, as has already been mentioned, Satanic principles are becoming more commonplace even if they aren't recognized as such. A rose by any other name, as it were.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#67939 - 06/28/12 10:43 AM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino

That you are trying to make sense of your selves, of the implications of your consciousness, is commendable. That you persist on chaining this effort to an obsolete, inadequate, and inaccurate totem is quite the other thing.


First off, I like the smileys. You use them in a creative way and that it gets under people's skin is funny to me.

Satan, to me, is symbolic of the enemy of faith. To be the enemy of faith, one must embrace doubt. To embrace doubt, one must take the onus to actively pursue truth. To pursue truth one must commit to eating from the Tree of Knowledge (symbolically) until truth is found. Being that there is no one universal truth this must be a solitary journey for each individual to find meaning for oneself.

Belief/faith is symbolic of the enemy of truth because if one believes he/she has the answer(s) then he/she stops seeking truth (aka descent into the dystrophic).

Being that +60% of the world's population report a belief/association with one of the three Abrahamic religions then I think using Satan (in the context of enemy of faith) as a symbol of non compliance/rejection of belief/rejection of groupthink makes perfect sense.

Of course, Satan also exists as the symbol of rebellion. Satan recognized his position as less than dominant and disliked the taste of it in his mouth. In order to rectify that situation, he sought to throw down with the baddest motherfucker in the universe. Those paying attention here will recognize that there are many things to learn about confrontation from this story.

Lessons learned, Satan goes about the business of becoming crafty and wise to obtain that which he needs.

In the above context, I can think of no better way to symbolize myself than as a Satan.

In my world, if I actually believed in a literal, cognitive, anthropomorphic, omniscient creator Satan, Set, God, etc. then I would feel absolved of at least some responsibility for myself in recognizing 'higher powers' orchestrating from above.

As such, I try to live my life in that exact place where rubber meets road. I like a good heady philosophical conversation as much as the next heretic but to me Satan is about 'doing'.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#67943 - 06/28/12 11:38 AM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Fnord]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3147
The symbol of Satan was called obsolete (from my part) as soon as the need of an inward looking perspective was held. The symbol itself actually hindering progress as it was still a kind of idol-worship.

The label Satanist in itself reduced as an abstraction for a memeplex, a certain drive, a vibe as it wills. The ritualistic part was fun up to the moment it became boring and lost its power of mental/spiritual rebellion.

Symbolizing myself as a Satan is futile for the hidden idolatry and mirroring to an archetype. An internal focus still needing external reference as a point. I prefer to plunge into the depths and see what comes out of it. Satanism is not doing, I do and not "the Satanism". Satanism just being the name for the drive and memeplex possesed.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#67948 - 06/28/12 12:30 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Dimitri]
RAIDER Offline
member


Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 152
Loc: PA
I'm enjoying this discussion. The bottom line for me is that I am 'in the driver's seat'....unlike other belief systems that would have me think of myself as secondary at best.
_________________________
DARK WOLF

Top
#67964 - 06/28/12 04:29 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Fnord]
DreamMystery Offline
member


Registered: 01/01/12
Posts: 167
Loc: Here
 Originally Posted By: Fnord
Satan, to me, is symbolic of the enemy of faith. To be the enemy of faith, one must embrace doubt. To embrace doubt, one must take the onus to actively pursue truth. To pursue truth one must commit to eating from the Tree of Knowledge (symbolically) until truth is found. Being that there is no one universal truth this must be a solitary journey for each individual to find meaning for oneself.


Faith is not the enemy, lack of discrimination is.
If we can't know any truth for sure, then all "knowing" is faith, if only in yourself and your methods of pursuit of "truth". Discrimination comes in when deciding if the facts point to a "Truth/Faith" which is better than your current one.

Without "absolute truth" somewhere out there, even if forever beyond us, how does science work? Gravity is a fact, a part of the absolute truth, if it wasn't we would have more levitating monks than we could ignore.



I like your case for Satan as a good symbol though. The only sticking point is that his defeat is built in. That could signify the inevitable death of the individual I suppose...

Top
#67974 - 06/28/12 06:59 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: DreamMystery]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
Gravity does appear to hold true under the set of conditions that we currently live under. Is gravity a fact elsewhere in the universe? How about everywhere in the universe? What if some cataclysmic event happened and the earth shifted poles? Would gravity work in the same way? It wouldn't matter, I suppose, as we'd all be dead.

Scientific method is about expected results under certain conditions and the conditions are subject to change.

If ever there were a model of 'real' reality it would have to include all tools used to measure it... including each individual (and their perception of it).

I see your point regarding discrimination. Around here we call it sorting wheat from chaff or process or praxis. All part of the trip.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#68739 - 07/12/12 09:36 AM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Fnord]
Latvian Offline
member


Registered: 07/15/11
Posts: 475
Loc: EU, Latvia, Riga (old town)
 Originally Posted By: Fnord
...Satan goes about the business of becoming crafty and wise to obtain that which he needs. In the above context, I can think of no better way to symbolize myself than as a Satan.
I associate myself too with Satan and I share quite similar attitude, what You described, but people sometimes have their superstitious prejudice and white/black brains... They cannot understand, that Satanist is man or woman, who knowingly leads his actions to get what he/she want.

Of course I don't care much about opinion of herd and proudly sometimes name myself - Satan!
_________________________
In Sorte Diaboli

Top
#77935 - 07/11/13 03:17 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Diavolo]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6847
Loc: Virginia
 Quote:
Satanism as a whole has been in decline for more than a decade;...


As a whole? That right there tells me that 'Satanism' is being viewed as collectivism. Last time I checked, my Satanism isn't on a decline. In fact, it's just given momentum when I employ it. If I'm being complacent and lazy about things, I'll come around when the results are staring me in the face. I typically kick it up a notch, reassess any given situation and proceed accordingly.

An effort to dethrone me usually results in the adversarial force getting a run for its money. I'm still here, getting over it, through it or around it when it rams its head into my gut.

 Quote:
Are we purely clinging to it for nostalgic reasons and if, are we willing to have this nostalgia drag us down the pits of oblivion or is it time to cut where it hurts but in that, make the blood flow again?



Using Satan is Nostalgic by its very nature. Culturally speaking, the articulations haven't lost their flair, even if more and more people recognize it for what it is, vs. what they are told it is.


As for the idea of a sub-culture, that trite has been postulated for the better part of my adult life. Today, its what exactly? Internet forums, Social Networks, the occasional television broadcast, headline or book published? The only recognizable counter-cultural movement occurred before I was even born. Even then, I remain skeptical of it as anything but a loose cabal of people in it for the media snatch and grab.

When I think of an effective sub-culture, I'll use body-modification as a contextual example. At any given time, I can 'see' members of that sub-culture represented by the modifications they carry. Now-a-days it's like every other person you bump into either has tattoos, piercings, or some surgical implement on their person. There was a time when this was rare, or even unheard of. It extends to areas of the culture where it was once a taboo, such as in the workplace. I see it more and more in various fields of industry. The cashier at the grocery store, the business meeting I'm attending with stuffed suits, and even myself firmly planted therein.

If anything 'Satanism' is more visible than it ever was with the advent of the Internet and Social Media. Satan is just as much an impenetrable symbol as it ever was. It's not as if the kitsch and pop isn't still exploring the diabolical. The Devil is still a favored character at Halloween because of its connotations not in spite of.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#77937 - 07/11/13 05:24 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: SIN3]
Le Deluge Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/05/12
Posts: 1790
 Originally Posted By: SIN3

Using Satan is Nostalgic by its very nature. Culturally speaking, the articulations haven't lost their flair, even if more and more people recognize it for what it is, vs. what they are told it is.


Indeed. I have found this to be unique to Satan. As a general rule, a symbol will lose its flair. Thus, we have sparkling vampires etc. That may, in part, be due to a weak mythos. Many a "Dark God" was assimilated. Satan should be "dead" ... yet isn't. I don't believe it is due to the Nazareth mythos. It just rolls on. The tricksters remain. Yet, more effort is required. Their fires burn, but they don't necessarily flair in a cultural sense.
_________________________
Apres Moi ... Le Deluge

Top
#77938 - 07/11/13 05:27 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: SIN3]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3147
 Quote:
As a whole? That right there tells me that 'Satanism' is being viewed as collectivism.

When there's a label involved it stands there'll be a certain collective involved who will try to polish it in many different ways. The overall decline, which I agree with, does take place in the sense many will prefer to settle in a certain dark ethical/moralistic occult fluffy-ism and very few getting upfront (unless provoked after a good long boiling in withheld loathing/frustration).

While some might see a justification and affirmation (of the label) in writing tons of blogs, making videos or doing broadcasts on Satanism, being "artsy"/creative with "obscure" subjects/undertones (or for the sake of it),... I prefer to label it as or pretension, or (the previously mentioned) fluffy-ism.

If the devil is only justified in appearance, I'll be one hell of a saint. But hey, the devil sells best. Even if it became a microwaveable meal.


Edited by Dimitri (07/11/13 05:32 PM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#77950 - 07/11/13 11:11 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Le Deluge]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6847
Loc: Virginia
Indeed, it seems to have 'always been', for the lack of a better phrase. I mean, if it saturated all of culture it would seem that it would no longer be necessary as a modality.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#77951 - 07/11/13 11:16 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Dimitri]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6847
Loc: Virginia
 Quote:
When there's a label involved it stands there'll be a certain collective involved who will try to polish it in many different ways.


This to me just sounds like an effort to provide reference and definition, not necessarily a collective of Satanism.

His phraseology stated that Satanism was on a decline, not that people weren't polishing up their own respective practices and thoughts about it.

What you personally consider fluffyism would seem an irrelevant point to that effect. It's just more status quo.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#77961 - 07/12/13 03:00 AM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: SIN3]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3147
 Quote:
This to me just sounds like an effort to provide reference and definition, not necessarily a collective of Satanism.

On whatever side it is being turned or looked at, as soon as there's an association with the label (or just usage), a virtual collective is formed where each and every individual wearing said label is representative. Even if said individuals are upholding banners which contradict the associated ideas/thoughts from that label.

 Quote:
His phraseology stated that Satanism was on a decline, not that people weren't polishing up their own respective practices and thoughts about it.

Context my dear... can you see it?
The people polishing their practices and thoughts are the main reason "why" it can be generally said. It's something easily noticed unless when being part of that greater group who has mistaken the devil for appearance instead of words and deeds.

 Quote:
What you personally consider fluffyism would seem an irrelevant point to that effect. It's just more status quo.

Exactly, hence the reason why the idea of "decline".


Edited by Dimitri (07/12/13 03:04 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#77966 - 07/12/13 07:04 AM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Dimitri]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6847
Loc: Virginia
As if this hasn't always been the case? I see no more of a decline today than I did say, 20 years ago.

In an effort to point out that I have misunderstood, I wonder if you understand what I'm saying here?

It's also as if its being discerned by individual users entertaining themselves or waxing philosophical on the Internet.

How would you measure the deeds? I see plenty of chest-pounding about these oh so important things people claim they are doing, but how do you investigate that, then attempt to prove it? By saying "Wow, that guy wrote a fantastic Essay, he's doing real shit in the world?" Surely not.

The deeds, are relative to personal effort, experience and achievement in one's own life.

And excuse me while I reject the collective. From my vantage point, my deeds and efforts are not that of the next guy. Maybe his only aspiration is to play badass from Mom's Basement.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#77973 - 07/12/13 10:07 AM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: SIN3]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3147
In the debate you're wanting to hold, or the view you're ascribing to, of the "satanic landscape" not having changed that much I disagree with. You already hinted at the reason (and an argument backing up the why) where the thing became more "visible" (and triggered me to make the comment some believe the devil to be for, or justified in, appearance).

The typical response of the own achievements, experiences, efforts and deeds are the only that matter is actually more questionable than definite. A cheap cop-out, in my opinion, as it illustrates the lack of recognizable achievement. I tend to have higher standards than the typical self-gratifying actions as credit for the own "Satanic" praxis/philosophy. In many cases where this answer was given were with people who reached (pardon my language) shit in their lives and prefer to exaggerate pretty mundane actions as if "special"/exceptional. Most of the time accompanied with some pseudo-intellectual banter how it fits within "their paradigm" and are steps to become as the(/an) archetype. It's delusional at best.

 Quote:
And excuse me while I reject the collective. From my vantage point, my deeds and efforts are not that of the next guy.
Yet you're a radio host, and have published a certain amount of letters/journals. IF I'm not mistaking, there's not really a rejecting but moreover the (perhaps subconscious) opposite.


Edited by Dimitri (07/12/13 10:17 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#77976 - 07/12/13 12:28 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Dimitri]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6847
Loc: Virginia
To clarify, this is not a formal debate.

My point of view stands. Your opinion, is just that - yet another opinion.

My statements about visibility, is that 'Satanists' are more visible with the advent of Social Media and the like, not necessarily that the 'Satanism' is transparent.

Recognizable achievement to me, is demonstrable by a hell of a lot more than talk on a forum. If you're standard sits there, I'd say your bar is pretty darn low.

In terms of my activity on podcasts, and other forms of experssionism in Social Media I make my purposing resoundingly clear. However, let me clarify something:

I can quote myself from a previous podcast:

"I'm not your fucking Guru. I'm not here to teach you about Satanism, or how to 'be' a Satanist. I'm throwing my perspective out there, my .02 to the pot for perspective and its not explicitly for the Satanist."


The Devil's in the details. So if a Satanist is out there listening, reading, or trying to figure me out and can see my message between the lines - good for him, I say. If he's utterly lost and believes I'm positioned as a Satanic 'teacher'-type, he's probably doing it wrong anyway.

Plus,I put out my share of disinfo with purpose, if my Lokean activity unnerves you, it tells me what you're made of.

So again, aside a loose cabal of people expressing their opinions, or engaging in this medium for entertainment value, how is Satanism itself on a decline specifically? You haven't provided any specific examples, and to me that's the kettle calling the pot black (e.g. cop out).

If you're just opining the idea that people out there, (faceless strangers are misappropriating the term for their own means) are ruining Satanism, it seems to me you've missed the point of the Darkness that surrounds Satanism. It's not meant to be clear, concise or demystified for the lay person. There's a level of ambiguity required, shadow and bending of the light or else there's no point in calling it Satanism.

So again, if you believe I'm part of this collectivism to right misdeeds performed by the Nomos you must have me confused with someone or something else.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#77980 - 07/12/13 01:27 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: SIN3]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3147
Looks like I hit quite a sensitive nerve.

 Quote:
My statements about visibility, is that 'Satanists' are more visible with the advent of Social Media and the like, not necessarily that the 'Satanism' is transparent.

Indeed, and with said visibility it also comes to notice how watered down/"fluffy" it became. Devil in appearances etc..

 Quote:
I can quote myself from a previous podcast:

"I'm not your fucking Guru. I'm not here to teach you about Satanism, or how to 'be' a Satanist. I'm throwing my perspective out there, my .02 to the pot for perspective and its not explicitly for the Satanist."

The Devil's in the details. So if a Satanist is out there listening, reading, or trying to figure me out and can see my message between the lines - good for him, I say. If he's utterly lost and believes I'm positioned as a Satanic 'teacher'-type, he's probably doing it wrong anyway.

Which begs the question of "why". Why, if you don't see yourself as a teacher, would you even get out of your way to make such podcasts? The only suitable answer I can form when reading this as objectively as possible is one of plain contradiction between the words and deeds. So please, do enlighten.

 Quote:
Plus,I put out my share of disinfo with purpose, if my Lokean activity unnerves you, it tells me what you're made of.

To be honest I never watched or listened to any of your podcasts nor did I read any of your publications. I was only aware you did those things after you mentioned your site(s) by hyperlink or by name during your stay here.

 Quote:
So again, aside a loose cabal of people expressing their opinions, or engaging in this medium for entertainment value, how is Satanism itself on a decline specifically? You haven't provided any specific examples, and to me that's the kettle calling the pot black (e.g. cop out).

Well, being overtly busy with "Satanic" themes (be it through various arts (such as poetry, craftwork, music)) to the extend it becomes a means to justify (the own Satanism or "Satanity"), the need of sharing opinions/perspectives as a satanist, etc...

 Quote:
So again, if you believe I'm part of this collectivism to right misdeeds performed by the Nomos you must have me confused with someone or something else.

The skeptical question asked was "if you reject collective(s), why create so many things which create or are destined for them?" with your presumed Lokean activity standing aside.


Edited by Dimitri (07/12/13 01:36 PM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#77981 - 07/12/13 02:15 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Dimitri]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6847
Loc: Virginia
Ha, says you. Interpret, rinse and repeat.
(You may need to do this at least 3x as prescribed).

Nah, I don't see it that way. That's what I've been saying. There's always been a *cough* watered-down essence a midst the 'Satanism' of individuals. As for the symbols and such, it would be redundant to repeat previously made statements at this point.

Sharing perspective isn't 'instruction', why even post on 600, if that were the case? Are we all 'teachers' here? Talk about watered-down. I haven't learned a damn thing yet since I've been here. Still waiting for that little bit of wisdom to be thrown at me, by all means have a crack at it.

Kicking ideas around is one thing, to position oneself as the instructor is another.

You say contradiction, and yet you don't even know what I talk about, or my expressions by your own admissions. So please, enlighten me on these alleged contradictions.

As for the idea that it's for 'them', again I believe you are mistaken. It's all for me. Me and mine. Most complaints voiced in my direction are typically that I do too much for 'myself' and that I should give something back to the world. I disagree, I don't owe it shit.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#77983 - 07/12/13 03:13 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: SIN3]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3147
 Quote:
Ha, says you. Interpret, rinse and repeat.
(You may need to do this at least 3x as prescribed).

I expected as much..

Oh I do acknowledge there always has been a notion where the "public" upholds a watered down version. Although, from what I can tell, together with your mentioning of social media and the "tattoos"-parable I can quite easily assess there is a decline if only by reason more people start sporting the appearances but not the truthful affiliation. Or, as in chemistry, if more water is added to the solution the greater it becomes deluded until the point it loses significance.

 Quote:
Sharing perspective isn't 'instruction', why even post on 600, if that were the case? Are we all 'teachers' here?

Now there's a difference. Up here, or any other social network like SIN, it's a nexus where you can talk with "peers" (although intellectual differences can be easily spotted and certain levels recognized..hence the white, yellow and blue). The other things are the proverbial "you" talking to the anonymous and unknown public who happen to cross that small place in cyberspace which more than often rubs off as "instructional" (and is seldom admitted as such while context and writing style do indicate).

 Quote:
I haven't learned a damn thing yet since I've been here.
Not that surprising. I don't believe it has to do with the scarcity of interesting topics.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#77984 - 07/12/13 03:24 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: SIN3]
Kemble Offline
member


Registered: 01/24/13
Posts: 139
 Quote:
I disagree, I don't owe it shit.


Not meaning to sound like an ass, but 'it' gave you the languages you speak including your ability to constructively think with those linguistic patterns efficiently, the places you can live, the food you eat, and I can keep listing stuff that frankly we would never function without provided by the world 'outside.' In a sense your self is a small fraction of what constitutes your life, although the pivoting point, and there is a deep integration with people and the world out there in the life process. It wouldn't be 'owing,' rather contributing back to the 'Other' that sustains you so that it in turn can serve your self in a fresher, better capacity. Two way street.

Top
#77986 - 07/12/13 03:47 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Dimitri]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6847
Loc: Virginia
Well, on that note there will always be the 'poser' types but they are usually short-lived. The same people seem to be spread-out across various sites, some old, some new and many I've seen that end up shirking the label and become jaded by it.

And don't get me wrong here, it's not as if I'm saying that my ideas won't be challenged. They always have been, and I welcome that. Trials by fire so to speak. I think for the most part, we all call bullshit on each other for that very reason. We, in this context meaning participants. I just don't think that it's necessarily always from a perceived peer-group. Half the time (maybe more) I don't recognize a peer, though I do recognize a person on the level.


As far as styling goes, it can give that appearance (being instructional) but again, it's just a particular 'style' we each have when calling bullshit on ideas.

Some of my content is actually calling bullshit on my own, and it inspires me to create a bit of prose about it. Whatever value that has to the general public, is highly subjective. The feedback alone is just a Siphon for for 'Me' not for 'Them'.

There's been quite a few interesting topics here, which impels me to comment on them. It doesn't mean I've learned something new or changed my point of view because of them. I'm always learning and I welcome the idea of learning something new. I've only been here a short while anyway. Don't take it too personally Dimi
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#77987 - 07/12/13 03:54 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Kemble]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6847
Loc: Virginia
In this context, 'the world' equates to systems of people. If say, a particular person contributed something to me personally, enhances me in some way, I usually extend the gratitude for it in due time. It doesn't mean I'm in debt to them, or that 'the world' is entitled to my contributions. As I stated previously, I throw down my .02, and sometimes I get change back.

Similarly, it would be like buying a book. The author benefits from my capital, and I take away from it what I find useful. Some books are just crap, and don't really contribute much aside the paper they are printed on. I use the pages in my paper crafts, so I at least get that out of it.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#78310 - 07/20/13 08:58 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: SIN3]
Azrael999 Offline
Banned
pledge


Registered: 05/20/13
Posts: 66
You know, Aiwas thinking. Well first off do you know, or maybe you don't yet, how Egyptian Books and pictures are metaphorical images to tell a story, a personality trait etc.(Off Topic but still relates). With all the Invocations and Psychodrama that was incorporated into the Satanic Bible-Anton, not the Rev.Ceasar999 Satanic Bible, And the Satanic Rituals-Anton, there may have been an external catalyst as far as the ideas and theories behind the Official Church of Satan, Satanic Bible. So if something doesn't make sense at first, the Abyss" an ever rolling sea knowledge." To my knowledge the choice of taking the left hand path and being your own god. Starts too make sense.

"Why run when you can walk, why walk when you can sit, why sit when you can sleep." (Why sleep when you can become an Egyptian Necrozombie) JK.-Metaphorically speaking he might not have been talking about the 7 Dudely Sins(Sloth) but a theosophy of question everything. Breaking down the Mental Programming of the Mundane-Day to Day thought process that our society as a "Stick to the Book" mentality so abides by,and Because of a fear of Adverse thought. Can be a cause of a lot of problems that our generalized society fears. And that's OK because without these people that think outside the box it's just repeatative knowledge
just regurgitating the same knowledge that a generation before also has learned. This is also what the Catholic Church is scared of. They think that our society as a whole is too underdeveloped as a society for the knowledge that has the potential to cause more destruction and chaos. As far as that is concerned there right. Well OK kind of too late though. And yes, there is a lot of flufyism as far as trying to be trendy or shock people. I don't care, that's on them if they want to "Do the Dance," and just skip to the "Good parts." (Stop) and join the crowd, is their main Idea.Trendy

"It's not Compulsion it's Indulgence" Like (Smokin) to me though in that aspect it might start out like that but then it turns to Compulsive behavior, addiction. (My) addictions I've dealt with through my own "Power of self,"-Being your own god"
No higher power but yourself. Hardwork and credit due to the unknown hand...

"It's not Compulsion it's indulgence" Could mean quite a few things, I'll have to do a little more research and.Chick on it, this theory has the potential to help alleviate ones, battle of conscious that holds them back from the empowerment of the "Godhead" meaning you. Which in turn will fulfill the "Life after Death Through fulfillment of the Ego." And you have learned it isn't always that transparent though. Flip the script and guess what, as Below so you reign above them above the firmaments of wrath. In whose hands I gave you Vassels to vein the Earth, Roots huh. So lack of understanding of a Religion of faith in one self is scary because why?


Is Satanism coming to a downfall, Um Yeah OK...

-----ACS--------
_________________________


Top
#113757 - 08/05/17 12:22 PM Re: Dethroning Satan? [Re: Diavolo]
Azrael999 Offline
Banned
pledge


Registered: 05/20/13
Posts: 66
leave the poor sheep testicles alone if its not a scapegoat its a sacrificial sheep testicle. r u a goat r sheep. Least Goats have balls.
_________________________


Top
Page all of 9 12345>Last »


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

Generated in 0.142 seconds of which 0.004 seconds were spent on 142 queries. Zlib compression disabled.