From tyagi Wed Mar  1 12:12:34 1995
Received: (tyagi@localhost) by jobe.shell.portal.com (8.6.10/8.6.5) id MAA23934; Wed, 1 Mar 1995 12:12:32 -0800
Message-Id: <199503012012.MAA23934@jobe.shell.portal.com>
Subject: Re: Satanic Org (SO)
To: dvera@met.com
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 12:12:31 -0800 (PST)
Cc: kfilan@delphi.com, tim@toad.com, cthulhu@necronomi.com,
        tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (mordred)
In-Reply-To: <9502251753.D3065zV@metro.uu.holonet.net> from "dvera@met.com" at Feb 25, 95 05:53:15 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: 17864     
Status: RO

Kali Yuga 49950301 [dv: cc'd to kevin, tim and cthulhu]


Dvera and I continue our dialogue:

|>|...don't ...exclude people whose interest in Satan (the Dark One) is 
|>|tangential.  ...acknowledged distinction between people whose interest 
|>|is central and people whose interest is tangential.

|Generally it would be decided by the individual.  

If such a division is to be made, then this is the method I favor also.


|(I'm not yet sure how we would deal with cases where other people feel 
|that an individual is misrepresenting her/himself.)  

Or about those who refuse to or cannot choose.  I think it should be a
tool to assist us rather than a restriction-clause to expel and exclude.


|...reasons why...: ...To explicitly acknowledge that both categories 
|are welcome, 

You could do this in the 'Welcome Letter' without making it a necessity,
else you could just make it known that *you personally* saw this
division and wished to make it known that both groups were welcomed.


|and to try to accommodate people in both categories (as well as various 
|self-defined subcategories within these two groups, of course).  

I'd prefer that emphasis be taken off it, else it will merely lead to more
sub-divisions and side-swiping among the immature.  I get the impression
that you are doing this as a positive means of excluding the 'adolescents'
and 'noisemakers' more than anything else.  I'd prefer just specifying what
is *not* welcome in the forum/group/network (org-feud, pissfights, etc.)
and screening both initially and then on the basis of expression.


|(2) To allow for the fact that some people may feel comfortable discussing
|certain matters with people in only one category or the other.

In elists, at least, it is customary to request an introductory post as part
of one's initiation to the group.  In this way people could get a fix on what
sort of Satanist someone is.  Part of what I think would be best excluded is
a *definition of Satanism* for the purposes of the group.  Subgroups can form
within the overall clearing house and do their own thing.  Let those who feel
uncomfortable discussing their Work within a contained private forum of
Satanists begin their own, candy-coated and cotton-fluff-bunny alternative.

I hope you don't mean by 'substance' wrt the Neopagans that they get into
wonderful hugfests and foodfights.  This kind of 'sharing' rather tries my
patience and turns my stomach.  If there is something that *you*, Diane,
would feel uncomfortable expressing to anyone within the overall group we
may be creating, I'd like to know what kind of thing this is and what you
feel you have to fear from a wide-open forum without all the hierarchy and
nomen-division.  I'm not saying you are wrong, just trying to understand
where you're coming from.


|(3) In general, I hope that by explicitly acknowledging the
|distinction and explicitly welcoming both categories, I can greatly
|reduce any perceived need for "unholier than thou" squabbling.

This is one of the benefits of heavy admin against such stuff.  I think
that Mr. Rhoades, while I don't appreciate his public (or private)
expressions in terms of their content) runs a nice ship-shape elist in
the wolf (Ref://star9@prairienet.org; CoSatanists).  I began some type
of discussion which they didn't like (questioning CoS principles,
challenging paper gods) and was promptly warned.  I think we might
benefit from having a broad-minded yet stern individual to moderate only
for noise rather than substance-type, providing one warning and then a
boot to those who are just causing trouble (as she sees it :>).  Objections
on the preliminary warning can be taken up in private exchange among other
participants if there is some disagreement regarding admin-methods.


|>|...the distinction I want to make should simply be
|>|"monocentric" vs. "polymorphic"...

|>...I would suggest instead 'polytheistic'...
 
|I want a word that refers to personal _focus_, not beliefs.  

I was not intending the central focus to be about beliefs.  I don't tend
to believe anything, strictly, varying my conceptualizations as the need
and whim arises.


|_I_ am polytheistic in the sense that I believe in the existence 
|of many deities (which I tend to see as distinct deities, not just 
|facets of the One), 

I presume this belief informs your activities, then.  Do you ever
interact with these divinities?  If so, what is your relationship
to them?  To me, *that* is what determines polytheism and monotheism
and pantheism: what is my perceived relationship to the god(s)?

To answer for myself, I simply do not decide whether gods are plural
or singular, only Kali or many facets of Kali or multiple-gods which
include Kali.  I don't decide, and my actions are that I actively
worship Kali and am focussing heavily upon 'the Dark/Wrathful' gods
in intellectual study and, as I understand it, my overall relationship
with them is as 'devotee'.  However, as I live in a predominantly
Christian environment, Satan takes one of if not *the* foremost seats
in my life.  I admit that I don't accept many of the popular Christian 
notions beyond the association with Dragon and Serpent, Flesh and 
(Ruler/Substance of this) World.


|but I am personally focussed on only one deity, hence "monocentric".

I think that there are few enough people like you that either you would
be best to start up a singular organization (as you've described) which
is dedicated to exclusivity where Satan is concerned or merely be very
outspoken about your relationship within the more substantive forum
which we create.  Making any sort of 'official distinctions' will only
lead to more politicking and confusion, from what I can tell, though
discussion about the different types of Satanism (including yours) would
seem a very important activity on our parts.
 

|>Satanist, Wiccan, Christian and other things, yes.  I think there
|>are subtle differences.  Much like 'a homosexual', such things do
|>not exist exept in our minds.
| 
|I disagree with your idea that sexual orientation or spiritual
|orientation "do not exist exept in our minds."  

I do not feel understood.  I say that 'a homosexual' does not exist,
just as 'a Wiccan' does not exist.  A person who behaves in homosexual
ways certainly exists inasmuchas the perceptions perpetuate.  In the
same way, *to me*, a person who acts in Satanic, Wiccan, Christian,
etc., ways exists, but I have never met 'a Wiccan' or 'a Christian'.
I consider these latter to be obfuscatory language-games without any
substance (and I've been accused enough re: language-games to have
some background in the matter! ;>).  Of course those who are standing
outside the veil will tell me that the distinctions are absolute and
permanent.  Even you say you disagree with this assertion.


|...the differences exist along a spectrum, and that they are somewhat 
|subjective.  This does not mean they have _NO_ objective existence.

The differences in what?  Behaviors?  I'd agree.  The person themself?
I think that is fantasy.  It is somewhat different than we use labels
to identify what people spend much of their time doing or for what they
have received a great degree of training: lawyers 'do law', chefs 'do
cooking/cuisine', truck-drivers 'drive trucks' and Satanists 'do 
Satanism'.  The difference between these things is that while law,
cooking and driving trucks are easily-defined behaviors (leave aside
for the moment the ideals within each profession), most religions are
entirely diffuse in their range of behavior accepted for identification.

This makes the comparison with said occupations facile and awkward.  The
only way to 'be sure' that someone is 'doing Satanism' is to precisely
define what 'Satanism' includes (or any other religion, for that matter).
Once this is done, then it leads to all the petty and stupid political
in-fighting regarding 'doing Satanism', demonstrating the castle-in-the-
clouds created by defining 'Satanism' (or 'insert-religion-name-here')
in the first place.

When I say someone is Satanic, I mean to imply that they think that they
are so and take actions which indicate to me that they have a strength
of their assertions to that effect.  Beyond this I cannot know who may be
'a Satanist' and typically disclaim all notions of self-identification on
this level with a giggle.  Most religions are set upon *ideals*, and to
identify with the labelling usually implies a type of arrogance that I
don't choose to perpetuate. 

Not only this, but calling oneself a 'sage' in Confusionism destroys the
very valuable function of the ideal.  It isn't that the state is indeter-
minable, but that social labels are best determined by society unless they
are part of some sort of personal working carried out in public.  This is
what I do to a certain extent, collecting esoteric fragments from various
religious and identifying with their *process*, rather than their endpoints.

Example: Wiccan -- I relate to the word itself in one (possibly specious)
definition --> 'bending'.  I am Wiccan in that I bend things and bend with
them, intentionally, in a work of magick.  I happen to take as my standard
the notion of harm, such was I taught the code of ahimsa, and this does not
preclude honest grappling and antagonism.  The struggle of life is healthy.
I happen to have always loved the pentagram inscribed in a circle since
before I knew about Wicca or Satanism.  I have always preferred devotion
to the feminine and been a 'kitchen witch' of sorts, making of my life a
living ritual rather than trying to fix my life with rites-on-the-side.  In
this way I ignore the 'Goddess-and-God, High-magick/Quarter-calling,
pseudo-ecologic' claptrap of most Wicca, finding my rite beyond simplistic
recipes and ceremonies and my Great Rite equivalent to my Great Work, a
sexual Play of dancing with my goddess.


|>I may be classed, I may qualify under certian understandings of
|>these terms, based upon the way I live....  
|>No, because I'm not changing forms.  I ...synthesize these paths 
|>and so qualify for the identifier....
| 
|OK then, can you suggest a better term than "polymorph" or "polytheist"?

I suggest 'polycentric' for the division you are attempting to make clear,
and for myself, attach the suffix 'syncretist'.  I am weaving the various 
divinitory centers into a grand cloak called 'my life'.  I do not 
exclusively focus upon the Christian notion of Satan, though this is a
large part of my studies as I become more acqainted with the popular texts.

 
|Although I wouldn't say your synthesis is "wrong", it does mean you
|have a very different spiritual orientation from those of us who are
|more exclusively focussed on "Satan" (the Dark One).

By your meaning of 'Satan (the Dark One)', this is true.  And yet this
is what I wish to make clear to you: there are different notions of
what 'Satan' means, of course, and 'exclusive focus' upon these various
notions will take many forms, even becoming incomprehensible.  

I am thinking of Satan and Kali as different personalities which Nature
('the All' as I understand Hir) takes on in order to interact with people.
In this sense, 'exclusive focus' upon Satan is rather silly, since any
focus which we may take that centers upon Nature (I have no idea what is
beyond/beside Nature) will of course focus upon Satan.  

When I look at your foot I am still looking at you.  When I wish to
interact with you I will more often focus upon your *face* (and this
may be what you are talking about) than on your foot.  In this way,
if you identify Satan with the face rather than the whole, we are
quite different, since while I do see Hir face changing for me,
a different entity coming to interact with me at different times, I
don't necessarily separate them out and pay sole attention to the face
called 'Satan' by Christian or Satanic hordes.

My own focus is upon Kali, in this way of thinking about it, though I
do identify Kali and Satan at an essential level, as I have said,
through the body of Nature of which They are personalities (or a single
one, diffracted through perceptual inaccuracy).
 

|>I'm ...setting about describing the esoteric principles of my path 
|>as I understand them
| 
|I'll be very interested to see your description.

Well, you can see quite a bit of the groundwork within the ftp.portal.com
site, especially in the /pub/ss/Usenet/Avidhyana directory or others, such
as Satanism.  I call Middle Way Tantric Monasticism, though I have not
keyed in my most recent speculations on this path.

 
|>|What do _YOU_ mean by "dark"?

|>My ideas usually conform to normal notions expressed in symbol-tomes....
 
|When I use the terms "light" and "dark", I am _NOT_ using the terms
|symbolically.  I am referring to the literal _FEEL_ of a spiritual
|energy.  

Hmm?  I'm not sure I understand.  Everything is a symbol except when you're
talking about direct experiences (being hot/cold, blinded, overcome with
emotion, etc.).  When you say 'dark' (as in 'I worship the darkness'), then
you are meaning that you are worshipping a particular *experience*?


|...the spiritual energy somehow causes sensations which, in the mind's 
|eye, make one "see" light or dark.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand this.  First, please understand that
to me 'spiritual' is a rather gobbledy-gook term since I have never been
subjected to the JCI indoctrination dividing up the universe.  I have,
since then, understood it to be roughly equivalent to 'subjective'.

Second, I take words like 'energy' within occult systems to be very
subjective descriptions of biophysical events, sometimes feeling like
electrical or plasmatic movement within the body.  Therefore, when you
say 'spiritual energy causes' you transcend my experience and under-
standing.  I gather that you experience sensations in result of doing
something you consider 'Satanism' which you describe as 'seeing the
darkness'.  

As you have said this is not physical, I am at pains to understand you 
as meaning anything but a symbolic statement which is only explainable
using other symbolic terms (like those I described to you from Cooper).
I'd love to know what you found objectionable about those descriptions,
especially where they were *indicative* of Satanism wrt Christianity and,
presumably, monocentric Satanists.
 

|I classify a religion or occult system as "light" or "dark" based on
|the imagery of its central rituals.  

'Its central rituals' is the key phrase here.  I can see the value in
this, though I'd point out that relativistic elements often protrude
in such a system.  By some I am considered a saint of light, by others
a demon of darkness.  As I cannot presume the arrogance of certainty,
I let myself and others alone in this regard except in tentative and
inquisitory evaluation.


|...Golden Dawn magick... rooted in "light" energies because its 
|central rituals, e.g. the Lesser Banishing Ritual of the Pentagram, 
|involve the visualization of light.  

This is a rough and useful categorization system.  Part of the difficulty
comes when we begin to see that what is 'Golden Dawn magick' varies
across the globe, especially when you begin to notice that its variations
include 'Thelemic' and 'Enochian' streams, and not all of these find the
value in that light-visualization (which I tend to loathe, personally ;>).


|Christianity is "light" because its God is always described as "Light", 
|never "Dark" -- at least by mainstream Christians.  

Your caveat here at the end is rather important.  Many Christian mystics,
indeed of most religious paths, see very directly into the Void/Darkness of
their divinity.  I agree that most popular Western religions are light-based,
and my own identifications with them do not include this light-focus.


|...most (not all) Wiccans seem to be most comfortable with "light" imagery,

Of course.  They are conditioned by Christianity from their youth and
derived from the Hermetic tradition which is heavily-influenced by
Christian, lux-o-centric mysticism.


|..._my_ central visualization is of a dark flame from below the ground.

Then you can teach me of this, for I know of no 'dark flame', nor even
why this is any different than a 'lake of fire' in that the flame casts
light as surely as any star, and is only a *symbolic* 'generator of darkness'
(my own central visualization is of a black hole a la modern physics).
Entropy is my focus-point, the chaotic and coercive force of Destruction,
punctuated by moments of apparent creativity.


|...anger is not necessarily "dark".  Some kinds of anger are "dark", and 
|others are "light".  

Indeed, though within the popular mind those emotional states categorized
as 'dark' more often include despair and sorrow, mourning for the passing
of an impermanent world, than they do anger.  Look at those who care to 
intensify their experience of the world with stimulants on a regular basis.  
See how their clothing tends towards the black, their rooms tend toward the
lightless, and their sounds toward silence.  Sensitivity yields a greater
appreciation of isolation and buffer from the noisy, light-filled city.


|Both "dark" and "light" have both creative and destructive aspects.  

Of course, but when you begin to move toward what is *popularly*
associated with the darkness (as you have remarked on concerning
the character of Satan Hirself), then it is more often associated
with the destructive, left-hand/sinister/individualistic, and negative.


|...emotional states as such aren't really the main point of what I 
|mean by "dark" and "light".

I feel like I have missed this main point of yours, somehow.

 
|>|Perhaps we should start an ongoing mailing list.
|I hope soon to get an account on a unix-oriented BBS, which will
|make it easier.

That would be lovely, yes.

NocTifer
tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com