From tyagi Thu Mar 9 09:32:53 1995 Received: (tyagi@localhost) by jobe.shell.portal.com (8.6.10/8.6.5) id JAA01775; Thu, 9 Mar 1995 09:32:52 -0800 Message-Id: <199503091732.JAA01775@jobe.shell.portal.com> Subject: Re: Embarrassing Satanism To: kfilan@netcom.com Date: Thu, 9 Mar 1995 09:32:51 -0800 (PST) Cc: tyagi@HouseofKaos.Abyss.com, dvera@met.com, tim@toad.com, cthulhu@necronomi.com, sarikka@Eng.Auburn.edu, craigh@gladstone.uoregon.edu, egan@ccsnet.com, nigel.kay@onlinesys.com In-Reply-To: from "kevin filan" at Mar 8, 95 06:31:12 pm From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (NocTifer) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 16448 Status: RO Kali Yuga 49950309 Kevin Filan (kfilan@netcom.com) wrote: |> |...this Elist..., ...I have a limited audience, ...conversant with |> |the basic principles of magick, mysticism, and occultism. |> |> Heh, sure. That's some mighty wide brush-stroke, I think. | |How so? I would venture a guess that everybody on the list so far is at |least familiar with the basic writings of Crowley and LaVey. I'm not sure that either Crowley or LaVey expressed the 'basic principles' of those subjects. In any case I tend to consider these subjects to be much more complex than others do, so I can understand why you might assert this. |Everybody here, (I think) has done magickal ritual. This means that I |can use a term like "Thelema" without having to explain _what_ Thelema is. In a very rudimentary sense, this is true. Literally we shall know it means 'will' and that this has something to do with magick (used by Crowley and LaVey and others). I don't think most people who have done magical rites have a comprehensive understanding of the term, however (me included). |If I say "LBRP" I think most of the people here are familiar with what I |mean. That's what I'm talking about. Gotcha. |> I think you may be confusing volume with substance. I can make my killfile |> eliminate everyone except those whom I specify. It can be as focussed as |> any Elist. This comes at the cost of screening out possible substance that |> I have not as yet identified.... | |Some of us (Diane has brought this up) have time constraints which limit |our participation in the Usenet newsgroups. And I've been making _heavy_ |use of my killfile as well.... Wait, did you get my meaning? There is a way to instead of selecting each individual to screen out *reverse the process*, screening out everyone unless you specifically select them or some subject-txt within their header. This would kill all the noise and take you less time, since you'd never see any- thing you didn't want to see and wouldn't have to spend time killing people. |I see a difference between killing an animal for sustenance (i.e. eating |animal flesh) and sacrificing an animal for religious purposes. Unfortunately this is the case in most 'advanced' countries. My suggestion is that combining them might prove better for us *and* the animals. I'm not trying to convince you that you should do this or support it. I'm giving you a rationale (for which I was asked) for including animal sacrifice in Satanism. I think that we are all conditioned against it by the predominant, Christian culture (including me). |...I am not in favor of the violation of property laws in the name of |"Satanism" without a _damned_ good cause. (And "my" kitty is my kitty |and thus not yours to sacrifice). That resolves the pet issue, then. I don't wish to treat anyone or anything as my property, since I find that owning living being sullies my relationship with them. To each their own. I respect your desire to do this. |> ...quick and practiced blade. The people who have cared for her |> do the sacrifice. They cry as the life drains from her body. | |Interesting magickal ritual. Not one which I would wish to participate |in, but I can see the value in this. I'd be interested in hearing about |how it worked, in any event. I've never done it. Never claimed I had. My point is that there may be very great value in *integrating our religion with our lives*, and if we are going to consume flesh, it makes some sense that that flesh be of a being whom we loved (cf indigenous hunters who revere their kill). I'm not trying to get converts here, I'm making a rational argument in support of animal sacrifice in place of tidy, packaged butchery. I understand, Kevin, that you don't personally wish to take up this kind of practice. I might not either (I might, if faced with my own ideas here, go completely vegan (rather than eat the meager amount of flesh that I do). I might continue to live in the way I always have). |I personally don't see why this whole issue of "animal sacrifice" is so |important, anyway. My recollection is that y'all were condemning the actions of 'jerks' and wanted to hear of the value of their 'silly' behaviors. I suggested (and continue to do so) that these behaviors may be very important kinds of self-transformation, and that they can be instituted in a humane and rational manner (even accepting property laws). Now that I argue the point, I hear you saying "*I* don't want to do that!" That's very nice, but it is pretty much tangential to the discussion. You 'support the right' of people to do these things, fine. Do you see that other behaviors adolescents are taking up may be incredibly important to study and understand, rather than reject as 'insane' or 'depraved'? |> Actually if there is going to be a group like this (Elist, whatever), |> then I'd also prefer it be underground for the nonce. Much easier to |> administrate. If we're going to create an alternative to alt.satanism, |> then by Devi(l) let us do it properly and with great care! | |For the time being I'm not particularly interested in creating an |"alternative" to alt.satanism. More like a "Koffee Klatch." I have no |problem with alt.satanism continuing to exist, and, as I've said, feel it |serves a valuable purpose. I meant 'another forum dedicated to the discussion of Satanism' by 'alternative'. Not that it will replace or look like it, just that it is a different medium discussing (ostensibly) identical things (though with more focus). |> See _Tao Te Ching_. When Tao is lost, Love is born. |> When Love is lost, Respectability is born. When Respectability is |> lost, laws are created. When laws are lost, woe is the meat and bread |> of the Age. | |Good point. But we live in a world where Respectability is lost |already. I'm trying not to create laws so much as see Respectability |reborn. The tender reed of Respectability grows where the laws and codes have been left to rot. |The way to do this, I think, is through an internalized set of |personal standards. Pulling on the reed to make it grow, we tear it out by the roots and kill it. |Mutual education _is_ necessary to support individualism. It's only when |it becomes tied up with "mutual acceptance of dogma" and "groupthink" |that it stifles individualism. How can we prevent that mutual education from becoming groupthink? It seems to be a natural human ability (sometimes very important!) to accept ideas, consider them to be true, and act accordingly, promoting these memes 'for the benefit of all'. Philosophy is painful. What will inspire people to take it up? |...Let's take that example that we've raised and that you've complained |about; the teenage Satanists who break into a church, paint pentagrams on |the walls, and sacrifice Old Lady Harrison's cat on the altar. _What_ |can we "learn" from this? I think this question was already raised and I've already pointed out one thing which can be learned (the value of animal sacrifice). It is not my job to help you learn from their deeds. I have offered several examples of why their actions may be very important (esp. for them). I only hear you repeating the questions and overlooking/misunderstanding my motives. |Rebellion? Perhaps... but I was already aware of "rebellion" and quite |capable of behaving anti-socially before studying this example. Ever spray-painted a church with a point-down pentacle? If so, how did it feel? What was it about this which you think could be used by more 'mature' Satanists? I suggested before that people like Earth First! may be doing very important politico-magical work. So might these teens (though they are going about it in risky ways). I hear no response other than to ask the same questions again. |What I'm talking about here is self-interest. I happen to think I |function better in this society (i.e. can get what I need out of it) when |people _don't_ see me as a magician. By this rationale minority religions have been repressed for years and will continue to be so, not to mention occult practices. I understand your need to avoid confrontation. I'm not saying you should change your ways. I'm only suggesting that the alternatives are not unreasonable (i.e. identifying as a Satanist, doing 'weird' or 'taboo' things in public, etc.). In fact, they can become a self-transformative act all unto themselves. It is much easier to conform to the conventional and think we are unconventional. It is like 'supporting the cause of freedom' through voting rather than through exercise of that freedom. |...I find people listen to me _far_ more closely than they listen to |someone dressed in black and sporting an inverted pentagram. I'm sure, but that is because not enough people wear black, sport an inverted pentagram, and behave like mature adults. Get enough of these folks publically active and the convention will change. ::shrug:: You are describing a dynamic of our culture which I agree exists. My point is that it is malleable and we all get to choose our lines of demarcation regarding how we shall or shall not conform to the conventional. I support your conformity. I also think it is important to support those who are being *UNconventional* (perhaps moreso), including, perhaps, seeing the benefits of some of their illegal activities. |In a congressional hearing regarding another "Helms Amendment," who would |be more persuasive: Nat Hentoff or Anton LaVey? Anton LaVey is not a politician. Politicians do best by conforming to the herd. If one wishes to persuade rather than live one's life, then one would do best, as you are pointing out, conforming. The problem begins when one wishes to live one's life and this is drastically UNconformist. We can try to change the culture around us (requiring that we conform anyway in order to be heard) or we can do what we need to do and face the consequences (the pioneers are always the risk-takers). |>|...the "Heh-heh-heh-Satanism-is-COOL" mode.... |> Why? What is it about the 'other sorts' which you find distressing? Is |> it that they don't have intellectual aspects which interest you? Is it |> possible that there is something about them which reflects something in |> yourself that is difficult to resolve? .... |Not so much that they "distress" me as that I feel they have nothing to |offer me. Thus, I don't choose to share my (limited) time with them. I think you've missed the last question I asked. I know how you feel about them (you agreed with Diane's comments), my question concerns why this feeling comes up, how much you have investigated it, etc. I gather that it is simply not in your interest to look at it. I suggest that looking at our reactions and the bases for them is a very important enterprise and that we may miss valuable teachings by merely acting on them. On the other hand, acting is also very important at times, rather than endlessly reflecting on things. I understand this. |> I don't know how you can determine who really considers themself to be a |> Satanist via Usenet. There are likely hundreds of Christian noisemakers. |> There are likely hundreds more teens who are playing around, insincere but |> playing at self-characterization. | |In other words: they're not really Satanists. You're using the same kind |of reasoning here that you condemend Diane for earlier, Tyagi. They say |they're Satanists. So, for the time being, let's call them "Satanists." I presume everyone who says that they are Satanist is so. I cannot know and do not wish to take the time to try to determine qualifications, thinking that creating such qualifications may end up blindering me. I much prefer to generate ideals within the Satanist movement toward which people may with to aspire. I may not choose such aspirations myself, but some need them. |And let's agree that they _are_ playing at self-characterization. For |the time being, I'm not especially interested in helping them along that |path. Again, this is more due to time constraints than anything else. Of course. I'm agreed here. Where I think we may disagree is to your words above. I don't equate 'I don't know if they are Satanists....' with 'they're not really Satanists'. I think playing at self-characterization may well be a very large part of Satanism, for example. |...Many of today's "Satanists" affect this "ruder than thou" attitude in |an attempt to present themselves as "enlightened." All it succeeds in |doing, IMHO, is in presenting them as "assholes." If I were to meet any of these people (and I have met a few online), then I'm sure I'd have little to do with them myself. I have great difficulty with anger directed my way. They need to make boundaries, are shoving people away from them. This is what I think is accomplished by their action. On the other hand, I have met a few people who at first did act the asshole part. When I didn't bite at their spume, they settled down and we became very good friends. It may be the case that certain approaches are more appreciated by these people than others. I'd treat them like a kind of alien being or alternate species, investigating what kinds of approaches worked with them and what didn't. In this way we may be able to better understand what they are doing rather than merely classifying them as 'assholes' and abandoning them. [General note: Time is what we make it. We do not have to be the slaves of time. This is one thing I learn about magick. If one wishes to do something, 'not having enough time' is no excuse for a mage. I think it more honest to say 'I am not interested in doing that' and leaving it at that.] |...they need to remember that the best love spell of all can often be |soap and water, used liberally, combined with the ability to carry on an |interesting conversation. Comments like this are why I made the remark I did above about 'broad brush strokes' wrt the principles of magick, mysticism and the occult. I think that the above is a very fundamental misunderstanding of the nature and practice of magick and amounts to a generalization which is useless to most beginners. |As LaVey points out in his _Satanic Bible_, the best "love spell" of |all isn't going to help an unattractive person win the affection of a |sex goddess. I think it far less extreme (and therefore less fallacious) to simply say: "Magic is like nature itself, and success in magic requires working in harmony with nature, not against it." SB128 There is no such thing as 'an unattractive person'. There are only people who may or may not conform to the standards of beauty of a particular culture. People are people, after all. If we wish to attempt to conform to those standards in some way, then we will either have to change the object of perception (one's body, etc.), or the perceiver (attitudes, misdirection, illusion). Beyond this, however, there is also the attitude and confidence of the mage, and here magical rites can be the most persuasive. I think that you are oversimplifying and your words would likely merely discourage rather than encourage and assist. What you appear to be mentioning is "E. The Balance Factor", in that essentially one ought to become aware of one's limitations and take these into account. I tend to agree, but I also think that what we sometimes see as our 'limitations' can become our greatest assets ('beauty experts' will often agree with this assessment; cf Barbra Streisand's nose, or any of a thousand 'classically ugly' sex objects). |> |...I think the best protection from whatever form of "anti-Satanist |> |hysteria" is to stay underground. |...I'm talking about not seeing a need to _publicly_ identify myself as a |"Satanist." I understand that some people wish to do this. I support |their right to do so. I'll defend them against unjust attacks with every |weapon at my disposal. But, again, I feel my defense looks more |effective coming from an "outsider" than it does coming from a "Satanist." I see, you were not generalizing, as it appeared. You were saying what you wish to do (i.e. the best protection *for you*). Cool. I hope you can see why I took that as a generalization. NocTifer (tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com)