From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (NocTifer)
Kali Yuga 49950222 [Finally one just to you! :>]


<anonymous> and I continue our conversation:
 
|>|...It has been my impression ...that you are not a theistic Satanist;
|>|that you see deities in purely psychological terms.  Is this correct?

|> Absolutely false.  I sometimes see them this way.  Usually I
|> encounter them directly and personally.
 
|I guess I got the impression that you see them in purely psychological 
|terms because:
|(1) You have occasionally denied the existence of deities.

I'd appreciate direct quotes to this effect.  Usually I don't make such
blatantly extreme statements.  I prefer much more ambiguity and less
generality, especially wrt metaphysics and religion.

 
|(2) Your dismissal of my concerns about misunderstanding another
|culture's deities 

I didn't dismiss them.  I thought they were worthy of my response in
argument, which means that I gave them extreme value and considered
the alternatives worth presenting.  I do *not* consider you to have
been 'wrong' in any way.  On the contrary, too many Neopagans never
even consider the ideas you raised, thus I cross-posted.


|makes sense if one assumes that deities are purely psychological and 
|therefore purely subjective anyhow, 

All relationships are subjective.  Those beings with whom we *have*
those relationships may well not be.


|whereas if one assumes that deities have any kind of objective existence, 
|then it _IS_ meaningful to speak of one person's understanding being 
|closer to the truth than another person's.  

Unless there is no one 'truth' about the nature of the gods.  What if
they lie outside time and space in such a way that their manifestation
takes different forms and shapes to each person and yet their existence
per se is not some sort of 'psychological game'?


|Of course, it's hard (maybe impossible) for _ANY_ of us to have a truly 
|accurate understanding of a deity, and hence we need to proceed with caution.  

"Accurate understanding" is by itself a difficult state, let alone of some
other person.  I think that 'experience with the gods' is more important
than some metaphysical and intellectual conception.


|But is it reasonable to suppose that a tradition (or cluster of traditions)
|based on thousands of different people's experiences of a particular deity 
|over centuries or millenia has no more weight than one ignorant outsider's 
|encounter with what she/he believes is the same deity?

Well, this is the (extreme and biased) question which you raised through
objection and skepticism, quite legitimately.  I'd like to point out why
I consider the way you've phrased this (perhaps intentionally) to be extreme.

1) I don't presume that there is any single truth about any of this.

2) It is always reasonable to suppose coherent things as long as one's
   experience or intuitive sense leads one in this direction.

3) Being reasonable does not equate with 'constituting what is true'.

4) Numbers of people no more create truth than does a single book.

5) There is no such thing as 'a single deity', especially where the
   Indian gods are concerned.  Most regional tribes (clans) have their
   variation on the 'supposed' main-trunk, and yet it is only the
   synthesization process which leads people to associate these gods
   beyond the regional personality (and thus we have the various
   aspects of Siva and Kali which are in some senses nonsensical:
   multiple stories coming together in reflection of a multicultural
   merge).  The gods change over time and space.  Any rudimentary
   study of comparative religion and mythology will demonstrate this.

6) Beyond this, each individual has a different experience of the god,
   as with all things, just as with you and I, and thus the god will
   appear differently with different emphases within the life of the
   worshipper.  Similarities and conformity of experience can usually
   be attributed to social customs and restrictions (often imposed
   and political in nature, unless there is true ecumenism and acceptance).

7) 'Weight' depends upon one's goals.  We cannot assess the relative
   'weight' of any assertion until we have set out parameters by which
   we shall conduct this assessment.  This is as true for modern Scientists
   who investigate 'psychic phenomena' as it is for the student of religion
   or the dedicated Satanist who attempts to understand which description
   of Satan they shall find to most true for them.

8) The line between 'insider' and 'outsider' is more difficult to draw than
   you paint it here, especially when we begin to consider the nature of
   the gods.  If we define that line (as you appear to) wrt the social
   tradition and customs prevalent in association with 'a particular god',
   then we may arrive at the conclusion you appear to favor.  If we define
   that line wrt personal relationship that an individual has with a deity,
   then the nature of the god shall determine whether or not someone beyond
   a culture's borders can interact with that god.  This is why I noted in
   particular that your ideas about gods appears to resemble that portrayed
   by the African diaspora (recently heavily influencing Neopagan trads):
   you seem to be saying that gods are contained within social standards
   such as symbol and text, perhaps even the people themselves.  In this
   way yours is a somewhat more 'subjective' evaluation of a god that mine,
   since I tend to think of gods as individual concretizations of a vast and 
   universal mana-field (of) which they and we are (part).  Just as we are
   '(part of) the whole and yet individual', so are they.  When a god seeks
   to venture beyond a culture in which SHe is known, need she do so only
   through the medium of human expression?  Or can SHe do this directly,
   without regard to human constraints?  I think these questions illustrate
   some of the argument we have been engaging.

 
|(3) Your religious outlook seems to focus on concepts, such as "martyrdom", 

I created that model of Satanism for many reasons.  One of these was that it
seemed to fit some of the features of the past as I've heard it described to
me.  Another was that it illustrated the nature of the co-opting of language
which I sought to make plain was part of the movement (via the terms 'martyr', 
and 'cult' to which very many former Christians and those who have pain about 
Christianity still have strong jerk-reactions).  Still another was that it
was adversarial and innovative as a theoretical system, not only justifying
or explaining the motivations and deep psychological process ongoing within
the Satanic movement, but it relied on absolutely no 'supernatural' ideals
for its promotion.  It is DEscriptive, not proscriptive.  It is only a 
theory and presented as such.  I continue to consider many different models.

In this way you continue to misunderstand me when you associate this model
with me and 'my outlook'.  I don't 'have an outlook' (much less anything
else), and while I do enjoy playing with ideas and comparing these to my
experience, sometimes expressing this comparison or result in words, I
hardly attach myself to any theories absolutely.  More often I use them to
promote a more equable exchange or fill out a niche that I'd favored and
seen unrepresented by the major players.


|which have more to do with people's relationship to society than to any 
|particular deity.  

As I said, that model doesn't really include the metaphysical or 'super-
natural' dimensions of the discussion.  I think it could be explained
that Satan is a Midwife, assisting us in birthing ourselves through the
blatant engagement of our shadows and most difficult emotions.

Again I struggle with your consistent use of the phrase 'particular
deity'.  I do not see that it is easily supported except as a fantasy
or some kind of Platonic Ideal along the lines of 'THE dog from which
all others are derived'.  Perhaps you could explain this to me more
thoroughly and I'd begin to comprehend what I find so difficult here.

That file mostly attempted to set out a model for the behavior/practice
of 'Satanism' and did not really pay much attention to the god whom the
Satanist might worship (not all Satanists worship Satan, some consider
Him some sort of symbol, phantasm or (element of) the self).  In this
sense it was indeed a socio-political observation regarding what was
inclusively considered 'Satanism' beyond the bounds of normal language-
identification.

It must be understood that what one calls oneself and how others are
characterized is an important element of that model, and so while the
relationships a subset of self-identified Satanists have with their god 
is important to Satanism, it was not the focus of that model at all.
In many ways I'm approaching this from the outside in, looking first at
the broad behavior-system of Satanism, then the symbols and language
associated with the movement (thus my recent post of the 'Overview of
Satanic Symbols').

I'm continuing a massive compilation of theoretical expressions by the
public Satanists, many via Internet, some offline print.  I hope to
create a relative comparision of theoretical expression within a single
document and make this available to all Satanists as a way of exposure.
It is as much for my own benefit (finding out what all you folks are
about) as it is for the benefit of others (since others will enjoy seeing
the compilation and I get strokes for doing it too :>).


|If you do in fact have personal encounters with a deity whom you 
|believe probably has some objective existence, 

You are so good with questions, ....  This is one of the things I
like about you most.  As our correspondence proceeds I think you'll
begin to see that while I may play favorites with beliefs, I do not
retain any absolutely, and so right now I do not believe anything
wrt deities, and I do not maintain a certainty (or even a *decision*)
about their nature.  Even when I *interact* with them I don't do this
and I don't find a need for it.  It is so much mental glue to gum up
the works (along the lines of 'so, what do *you* believe?').  It seems 
to me a simplistic and ridiculous notion that one must hold to 
particular and limited idea-systems.

Your characterization above is therefore way too extreme for my tastes.
I don't believe anything and I have no idea either what you may mean
by 'some objective existence' or how one would go about verifying this.


|then why does your personal FAQ center around "the Great Martyrdom Cult" 
|rather than around your deity, 

I've addressed this somewhat above, but would add that I don't always know
my motivations and 'reasons for acting the way I do'.  In fact as I get
older I begin to release such ideas a rationalizations, preferring to act 
and wonder at the action, knowing my will and not seeking to explain it or 
provide some sort of conceptual framework from within which I can 
comprehend it.  

This can at times be a difficult for me, actually.  I tend to be somewhat 
of a planner and rationalist, and so to play rather than plan is both
exciting and frightening.

'My deity' is somewhat meaningless to me.  It is similar, perhaps, to the
notion of 'my lover'.  I do not own either.  I sometimes presume both to
be distinct entities with whom I'm interacting.  I sometimes see both of
them as masks for the Great Eternal Other encompassing all of which I am 
unconscious.  I describe them as I know them and their relationship with 
me.  Kali is She to whom I am dedicated.  I've described some of our 
interaction (elsewhere if not in the alt.satanism newsgroup) and will
likely never be sure of Her 'reality' or 'existence' or 'divinity'.  In
fact, I find the concepts somewhat hilarious as I compare them to Her.

All I can say is that She does not appear to be a fabrication of my
conscious mind, which is all that I presume *any* sincere and honest
religious person so related and dedicated could say.

The Great Martyrdom Cult model appeals to me as it simultaneously opposes 
the self-glorifying concepts so permeating human culture and supports the
individual religious path through dedication.  It is like Buddhism in
that it describes a process much less than an epistemology and morality.

In some measure it is one of the hypotheses which arose in my mind that
I did not see represented elsewhere.  I didn't see it within ToS or CoS
expressions, nor in Christian or Neopagan slanders and dementia.  And yet
it is a reasonable explanation for a great deal of the elements of
Western mystical and religious tradition, being also fairly unique in some
ways wrt Eastern systems.  I can't always say the same when speaking of
other 'Satanic explanations or exhortations'.  Too often there is just
more of the same, though I do appreciate what is there.

When I study a social identification I enjoy seeing how I fit into it,
where the boundaries are in the greater social mind, and proposing
alternatives in a sort of Socratic Dance.  Several times while doing
this I've arrived at theories never before encountered by me or others,
and this I consider to be one of the positive results of my examination.

However, I don't presume that the models I've derived (see _Liber Nigris_ 
or _Liber Scire_ for Qabalistic and Scientific models surrounding magick, 
respectively) are any more true (in some 'objective' sense) than the 
others which I was studying at the time.  This is as much true for me as 
when I'm studying Satanism.  I don't attach myself to it (though it suits 
the purposes of TOKUS to be associated with that file at this time) or 
reject the entirety of 'competing' or parallel expressions.  I find truth 
in all of them when they are coherent and conform to my experience in 
their various aspects.


|or perhaps your tentative beliefs about the nature of deities in general?

Hehehehehe.  I hope you have got such an eyeful above that you will begin
to see that my preference is to *suspend* such judgement, believing nothing
and experiencing life without assessment of the 'one true characterization'.
I find my philosophic and aesthetic experience and exposure is intensified
and I am pleased by the results.

It would be better (and I prefer when speaking with others of similar
things) to focus upon individual experience of the entities in question
and generalizations which can be classed within the category of 'mythology',
being neither entirely true (usually not literally) nor entirely false (often
reflective of deep and personal truths that 'facts and figures' cannot easily
approach outside the mysticism of Pythagoras or the general study of 
symbolism).

Diversity of thought and practice is what I appreciate when LaVey emphasizes
this, when it is taken up by Thelemites as an exercise of their religious
freedoms, and when it is championed by Chaos Magicians at it relates to their
practice.  I consider it a peculiarly *elven* quality, mythologically
speaking (relating to most pointy-eared and otherworldly types), and value
it more highly than I do any sort of ability to convey dogmatic syllogisms.

Additional discussion on any of these topics encouraged.  Thank you for your
time and insight, ....
 
tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (NocTifer)