Path: shell.portal.com!shell.portal.com!not-for-mail From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (TOKUS) Newsgroups: alt.satanism,alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick.chaos Subject: Satanism, Shadow, Chaos and K@s (Was Re: K@os FAQ and the good ...) Date: 13 Feb 1995 17:51:20 -0800 Organization: Portal Communications (shell) Lines: 263 Sender: tyagi@shell.portal.com Message-ID: <3hp2ao$d6h@jobe.shell.portal.com> References: Reply-To: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (TOKUS) NNTP-Posting-Host: jobe.shell.portal.com Xref: shell.portal.com alt.satanism:14653 alt.magick.tyagi:2123 alt.magick.chaos:3242 Kali Yuga 49950213 "Mr. Scratch" quotes Dr.NEMO III and writes: |> Q: What is Satanism? |> Chaos answer: "There are many attempts right now to DEFINE Satanism |> so that it ceases to be an unknown." |> A. To those who deny reason, there are *no* definitions and no reason for |> such questions. For the rest of us, Satanism is a specific philosophy |> first outlined by that name by Anton LaVey and embodied in *The Satanic |> Bible*. "He that is slow to believe anything and everything is of great understanding, for belief in one false principle is the beginning of all unwisdom." SB31 |I do not think this is an issue of those who deny reason vs. those who do |not. I know that it makes it easier for you to believe that those who |dispute your position are "unreasonable", but in truth, they are merely |disputing your definition. Precisely. |To you, Satanism is a narrow label, defined by a strict set of criteria. Stupidly and self-contradictingly so. |Chaos [WHO?] maintains (in a way that is certainly not "un-satanic" even |buy your definitions) that there are NO rules. None but those we make ourselves when it comes to definitions of religion and metaphysics. |They have adopted Satan as a figurehead against ALL social authority, That is the negative light, yes. One might as easily say that Satan represents the individual, the underdog. |as opposed to your own limiting of that rebellion to more specific kinds |of authority. I think the TOKUS alt.satanism FAQ (if that is to what y'all refer -- I haven't yet seen Dr.NEMO III's post in response) is fairly specific in its isolation of oppressive and coercive authority not accepted by the individual. |Your own vision of Satanism (as does mine) requires that some authority |remain in place. My thought also, but only inasmuch as it may come from each individual. |Chaos disagrees, but we cannot deny them that label. It is important to me that you understand that the Temple Of K@s Under Satan never takes intellectual positions, even while its members may make very specific statements, sometimes associating themselves with the organization in the process. That is, 'TOKUS' does not agree or disagree, as a whole, with anything, for it doesn't attach itself to beliefs or dogmas (at least as I understand it -- nobody speaks for the organization, though people may speak in association with it). Actually, to address your point, some people *do* feel that they have the ability, the right, even the mandate to deny others their own ideas and the expression of these. This only makes them assholes, nothing more. |> Let's be sane for a moment and be kind to Carl Jung's "shadow" archetype, |> so misrepresented in this posting. It is*not* a supression of "heresy" to |> attempt to define the meaning of words. It is the suppression of confusion. It is not so much the relative and contextual definition of words which I find troubling but the attempt to do so absolutely and in a very rigidifying manner. That is, to say 'Satanism means X' is much different than saying 'I see Satanism as Y', especially when 'X' is given ostensive (and often merely emotional) support regardless of its theoretical tenability or logic. And after all logic is not important, definition and language-control is. |I have done extensive work with the psychological "shadow" impulse, and |I'm not sure where you feel Chaos has misused or misrepresented it. I think |they did well for even bringing it up and applying it, as elements of the |shadow tend to be avoided among Satanists. Thanks for that reflection. |I think it is worthwhile to examine that the shadow is a dual being, |inhabiting both society as a whole and the individual, with both halves |working almost independently. I agree, and I'm unsure as yet how the social Shadow plays into the personal shadows of each individual, though I do think they may be related concentri- cally (more below). |While Satanists are able to embrace the societal shadow (Chaos's GMC), I'm unsure that all those who associate with the label 'Satanist' are truly embracing the societal shadow. Certainly in *name* they may be doing this, and yes, when it comes to wearing silverware, pancake and trenches there are likely many Satanists who may fit this type of 'gothic' stereotype. However, it takes more than just an overcoat and a change of language to truly enact the Social Exorcism. What it takes is people getting so far into our*selves*, those of us who are truly connected to the society in which we live (thus the value of LaVey's connection of status with social acumen), that when we manifest the Beast it triggers a severe and cataclysmic trauma reaction. |the personal shadow is far too painful and threatening to examine or |confront, so it is left to its own monstrous means (the rather stupid |and unethical behavior that is commonplace in this movement). I'm not sure that the personal shadow can be left out of this Great Rite. |My only complaint with Chaos' example is that they applied the former but |neglected the latter. That is a valuable criticism of the model. Thank you. As you claim to have extensive experience with Jung's Shadow concept, do you have any suggestions as to whether I would need to delve my own shadow in order to tie directly into that of society, or whether I might be able to manifest a reflection of society's Shadow without drawing upon my own shadow for substance. Is it possible that they are in some sense concentric as I have speculated, the societal containing the individual? This is a very important aspect of GMC theory and I appreciate your assistance, Mr. Scratch. |> This kind of nonsense (Chaos rules!) results in attempting to equate |> Christians and wiccans with Satanists. That is only the conclusion of a confused mind, Dr.NEMO III. It is not that Christians and Wiccans and Satanists are the same at all. Instead, they all result from the same heretical fount, afterwards twisted and co-opted into the tool of the establishment over time, and utilizing the tool of language control. |It is a pretty safe bet that many people are motivated by similar |experiences and urges, regardless of weather they are Christian, Wiccan |or Satanist. The differences only boil down to a matter of expression. Precisely. I'm glad that you can understand the theory involved. |One can imagine there are tremendous differences, but then you are just |doing the same thing that any Christian does when he sets up a great |division between Lutherans and Presbyterians. The division exists only |in so far as you have created a rigid criteria in your own mind. One |could just as easily say "the sandwich that is not tuna-fish is |peanut-butter". I think most of these belief systems, whether Christian, |Satanist or whatever, revolve around the human need to make sense out of |an essentially chaotic world, and the universal fear of death. In that |way we are comparable My interest is in steering *away* from BELIEF as a means of differentiation among the religious. What it leads to is group-mind organizations. It is a type of mind-control foisted off as some mystical Rightness. I agree that it is quite comfortable not to disagree with one's fellows, and yet at what cost? Where shall we draw the line of conformity and why? |> ...Before, it was Jehovah. Now its Chaos (or K@os, so that we have the |>latest popular fad of "cyberpunk" added to the crap). To my knowledge there are few who have made the creative leap away from conventional language to incorporate variations of presentation as a means of representing the very variation itself. That is, though 'Chaos' (whether this refers to a science, system of mathematics, magick, a mythos, whatever) may sometimes be intended to refer to unpredictability, subtle patterns of 'random' schema, etc., few actually take this into the literal realm and affect their own minds. Great mystics and scientists do it when we begin to create a new language to describe our experience. Thee Temple ov Psychick Youth was playing with this idea for some time, yet never seemed to capitalize upon it (I must take more instruction on this, nobody seems aware of it). Resistance is futile. It only demonstrates your stagnancy. |One of the reasons for the popularity of Chaos is the name itself. It |presents a kind of nihilistic atmosphere that avails itself to a world |that is struggling to keep its head above water. That depends upon the forum in which it is plied. Within the Chaos *Magick* field, for example, which probably comes closest to Satanism as it involves occult and magical technologies in its focus, 'Chaos' is usually seen as some substitute for 'Tao', and I take this further to implicate its utter unpredictability, patternlessness, and lack of structure (it is not that it is completely arational, which would be intelligible, after the fact, but that it cannot be completely qualified or quantified using rational means). And it is closer to other mystical fields which are usually characterized as 'nihilistic' yet truly aren't. Cf. Nagarjuna's concept of 'sunyata' and its 'lack of own-being', as well as the various Zen Buddhists who appear to reject language as a meaningful transmission-vehicle or skillful means of dharma transmission. More like a finger pointing at Moon than Moon herself. Applying structured ideation to surround 'Chaos' (or 'K@s'), we are able to arrest our uncertainty and the angst which wells up in response to it. And yet as the best existentialists will tell you (correct me if I'm off- base here, oh you Sartre-fans and Kantophiles), that angst is an indicator of our very LIFE. To shut it down through rigid definition and inflexibility in mind, body, behavior, is the equivalent of death, true insanity, whether characterized as 'spiritual' death or no. |If Chaos theory were called Infinitesimal and Random theory (I&R for short) These are the tangents which have less content value for me. 'Randomness' comes close, and yet the way it is usually applied within the program is not 'true randomness'. In fact, the entire notion of 'randomness' presupposes theological influences and/or the separation of human consciousness from Nature such that it comes to resemble the 'artificial' of 'artificial intelligence' -- another label of unfortunately limited applicability. Better that 'random' should mean 'we cannot detect any pattern within it' or even 'as near as we can tell, it shall never have a pattern or does not contain one' (this being a completely paradoxical and self-contradictory position, since one confirms things through pattern, and to have confirmed patternlessness through pattern......). |it would not have captured the imaginations of so many would-be-magicians. Absolutely. I agree, and many of these magicians take much less of it than is valuable -- leading to my differentiation from them as 'K@s', since already there were those who had presented 'the' definition for 'Chaos' and even my previously selected 'Kaos', delapidated and shorn of value, from what I can tell. Keep moving. Living systems are moving systems. |You are right to imply that it is largely the old wine in a new bottle, Chaos Magick? I think this is true. The notion of Chaos is what is newly applied, though the way in which it *is* applied appears rather conventional. Suspension of reality-mapping in any absolute configuration is not new to philosophers or to mages who have had philosophical training. |but there are |some intriguing positions that are being developed by Chaos magicians, |and I'll wait to see how they develop before passing my supreme judgement. I'd love to hear what you have heard about these positions, Mr.Scratch. tyagi/TOKUS ----------- "You're a mean one, Mr.Scratch." - sung to the tune of the Dr.Seuss classic The Abyss of the House of K@s