From tyagi Wed Mar  1 14:19:40 1995
Received: (tyagi@localhost) by jobe.shell.portal.com (8.6.10/8.6.5) id OAA18089; Wed, 1 Mar 1995 14:19:37 -0800
Message-Id: <199503012219.OAA18089@jobe.shell.portal.com>
Subject: Satanism and Such
To: dvera@met.com
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 14:19:37 -0800 (PST)
Cc: kfilan@delphi.com, tim@toad.com, cthulhu@necronomi.com,
        tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (mordred)
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: 23174     
Status: RO

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

|From: dvera@met.com
|Date: Sun, 26 Feb 95 00:40:00 EST
|Quoting: >kfilan@delphi.com (Kevin Filan) 
    
|> 1) Let's toss the whole "Degree" system out the window.  

This aligns with my interest.


|>in the Church of Satan seems willing to provide any specifics)
|>basically has degrees for sale to the highest bidder.  

I suspect it is more like the ToS than anything else.  Things aren't
for sale as much as 'dependent upon recognition'.  Such 'recognition'
can be determined by politic and subterfuge as well as payoff.


|...If my proposed group ever gets big enough to require some sort of 
|hierarchy, I'd want it to be a purely functional hierarchy,
|i.e. based solely on the amount of responsibility a person has been
|taking for the organization as a whole, not on any purported measure
|of occult prowess.

This is the supposed method of the CoS presently, though it may have
'spiritual overtones/symbolisms' of which I am as yet unaware.  See
theories on Trapezoidalism.

 
|>...My _ideal_ Satanic organization would be closer in spirit to a 
|>network for the exchange of information and experiences than a 
|>"Church" or "Temple."

You folks really oughtta study Chaos Magicians and Thelemites.  They are
often (not always, especially with the immature and/or religious) attempting
to achieve similar goals, often sacrificing important experiences and 
avoiding politics on the basis of exchange/reflection.  I must say that
I also favor this.

The 'loose network from which people could create informal close-knit
groups' is precisely the lines of operation which is purported by the
CoSatanists, btw, at least in their rhetoric.

 
|>...keep this organization, ...  relatively secret.  

Makes sense to me.


|>...As a quiet, underground group, we could do our own thing without 
|>getting caught up in the bullshit which pervades so much of the modern 
|>Satanic community.  

Ha, dream on.  Humans are humans, and we tend to draw boundaries and
play games in similar ways regardless of whether o not we are supposed
to be 'beyond this'.  I think you better plan for more than secrecy to
keep out 'the bullshit'.  Either heavy hierarchy (centralized and based
solely upon noise-factor) or a lessening of your needs would appear to
do the trick. ;>

Your point regarding the 'young punk who wants to defend the One True
Satanism' is what concerns me most, though I don't care how old or what
genre of individual is presenting this old-fashioned king-of-the-hill
mentality.  If there is to be moderation, *that* is where I want to see
it applied -- restriction of restriction, reduction of noise.


|> 4) I would also want membership to be by invitation only, and
|>only upon the unanimous decision of the other members.

Here we enter into politics, immediately upon the concept and concern
about 'membership'.  Fascinating.   Now we begin to face the problem of
'decision-making' and 'administrative power'.  In any enterprise these
are to be problems, and the issue as I see it is conformity vs. freedom.

You would appear to desire conformity to group-will.  This is part of
the problem with all groups of people, in that it is coercive of individual
integrity while being conducive to harmonized energies.

 
|I'd like my network to exist on several levels, including a public,
          ~~~~~~~~~~
|accessible contact point.  

I'm getting confused here as to whether we are assisting Diane in setting
up her organization/network/etc. or whether there is to be some sort of
group movement/action/project/work.  Diane, how do you see 'your network'
connecting to or relating to anything which we are talking about doing here.
Are you setting something up with which you desire assistance or are you
trying to work with others to make something we all want/need?  By your
switch from 'organization' to 'network' I see that you are taking what we
say here very seriously, but your terminology is somewhat confusing to me.

'Contact-points' means publicity and exposure, necessitating administration
for filtration of a reproduction of alt.satanism in an elist capacity.  With
the onset of administration comes responsibilities and hierarchy.  How this
hierarchy and administration is structured is important to me and will
affect the content and atmosphere of the entire group.


|...only groups which would have no _official_ status within the larger
|network, but would be free to use the network as a means of finding
|potential members.  

How will this network you envision differ from alt.satanism, exactly?


|I agree with you that for purposes of serious occult study, 

Aren't there occult elists?  If one wishes to pursue occult-studies (if
I'm understanding your words at all here), then can't one go to ARCANA
or FiatLVX or a Neopagan elist?  Or are you talking about 'Satanic
Occultism'?  Does the ToS or CoS elist in either case satisfy there?
If not, shouldn't that particular discussion wait until there are a
great deal of interested people, rather than to divide up the likely
greater group of those interested in all aspects of Satanism by 
whatever definition (e.g. religion and magical endeavor)?


|a private by-invitation-only group is the only feasible way to do it.  

I think moderation is underestimated, especially when the guidelines
regarding such are specified in detail.


|invitation-only group has a larger, more public framework within
|which to find and get to know compatible people.  

Alt.satanism?


|level, to facillitate contact among like-minded members, the larger
|network could officially sponsor various special-interest groups,

You may be starting too big here.  I'd recommend starting much smaller
and then snowballing with careful and intentional measures, remaining
inclusive wherever possible.


|occult subculture than I am, would you happen to know if the term
|"Chthonian" is already "taken"?  If so, what does it mean?  

'Taken'?  As in is it used?  Yes.  A small cabal has formed a very
eclectic and notorious 'Cthonic Ordo Templi Orientis' if memory
serves.  'Cthonic' generally means 'of the earth', comparable, in
my way of thinking, to 'infernal'.


|...someone whose spiritual orientation revolves around dark energies 
|with a "down there" feel.  

Check out 'infernal' or 'subterranean'.  I'm sure there are others.
Grant likes the term 'cthonic' also, perhaps from Lovecraftian usage.


|...uses "Chthonian" to refer specifically to people who take seriously 
|one of the alleged translations of the _Necronomicon_.  

'Cthonian' is made up, perhaps Lovecrafted.  I've never heard of some
sort of broad categorization for people wrt the NCon, and I've done a
moderate amount of research regarding both book and horror-creator.


|I want my proposed network to be very informal at first.  If and
|when it gets large enough, I might eventually want to formally
|incorporate it as a "Temple" or some such, but with the
|understanding that its basic purpose would still be to facillitate
|information-sharing and networking, whereas the real occult work
|gets done in the various smaller, private, unofficial groups that
|members create on their own (via the network or otherwise).

Here I'd mention some comparable developments.  First off, the only
way to determine the course of any group is to direct it consciously,
with some sort of control-system (often hierarchical).  The way you
are speaking of how you want all this to go indicates to me that you
wish to take a great deal of power in shaping the thing.

Second, 'information-sharing and networking' occurs on many different
levels.  I am currently heavily involved in an organization with a
slightly broader focus of networking (occult and mystical information).
We are only dealing with each other on an administrative basis, even
while the various members may or may not have contact with the others
in their respective fields.  Email for more on this (OMNet).

Last, I think you might as well (I'm going to address this as 'your
organization' until you begin speaking of it differently Diane) very
carefully delineate the administrative from the information-sharing.
They are rather two different activities, the former setting the
stage for the latter.  One way to go about this in a very direct
sense is that whoever posts the most and most substantive material
to the forum has a greater degree of administrative influence.  How
these variables are to be determined (e.g. by some resident dictator or
consensus or popular vote) is also important.  This all gets very
complex very quickly if you are serious about the enterprise.  You
can of course bypass the entirety of pre-planning and just go for it,
though this will not guarantee the direction you will be heading unless
you are in complete control.
 
 
|>...One hundred years from now, Anton LaVey will be remembered as a 
|>classic American figure in the tradition of P.T. Barnum.  

Likely true, if not a minor occultist/religionist.


|>Michael Aquino will probably not be remembered at all.  

Agreed.


|>a strong, vital occult tradition will spring up from either of those sources.

I'm stuck on that 'occult' term again.  Could you explain what you mean by
this, Kevin, and why you associate Satanism with 'the occult' or 'occultism'?
After all, even Neopagans include those who 'do not do magick'. :>


|...my own form of Satanism does contain the seeds of a "strong, vital 
|occult tradition" 

Aren't everyone's Satanic seeds 'strong and vital'?  :>

What do you mean by an 'occult tradition', Diane?


|...mine will be one of the very few public forms of Satanism that exists 
|for its own sake.

In this we are similar, Diane.  Perhaps you have hit upon a common theme
which will on its own exclude all elements which we despise.  Hehehehehe.
 

|...their primary aim is something _other_ than to facillitate occult study.  

You too with this 'occult study'?  I remain confused on the point.  However,
you appear to be saying contradictory things here.  You say that your Satanism
*exists for its own sake*.  Then you say that it *exists to facilitate occult
study* (whatever this may be).  OMNet *exists to facilitate occult and
mystical study*.  If you want an org *without* religious and philosophic 
allegiances (unlike what you appear to be making), then I suggest you look
at OMNet and its activities before creating what may be a different animal
doing the same things.

See ftp.portal.com/pub/ss/OMNet for files pertinent to this discussion.


|...means of recruiting alienated youth into extreme right wing politics.  
|...[or CoS:] a.k.a. "stratification" or "social darwinism", ...
|to steal the Neo-Nazis' thunder.  

Politics, yes.  That is one means of religious expression --> karma yoga.


|The only public "Satanic" group I know of which does exist primarily to 
|facillitate occult study is the Temple of Set, which sees "Satanism" 
|merely as a stage on the way to Setianism.  

So you are looking for a 'Satanic' group which exists to facilitate
occult study (define 'occult' more precisely and you'll have a beginning
of a Statement of Purpose).  Ok, now that you've identified what you
wish to create and an organization which is similar, distinguish some
of the problems of the ToS and what you'd like to do to prevent those
problems (such as was already mentioned, abolishing the degree system,
which takes away the very powerful social symbolism of occult orgs used
world-wide).


|(And Setianism, despite its use of the title "Prince of Darkness" and 
|the phrase "Black Flame", seems to be decidedly un-chthonic in its 
|overall approach -- would you agree?)

'Stellar' is how I'd categorize ToS.  It appears to have a greater
fondness for the Lovecraftian Alien Visitor to the Natural World theme,
though I am very unfamiliar with its popular cosmology.  I'd contrast
'stellar' with 'cthonic', and suggest that CoS is much more cthonic in
a real sense.  Money, power-politics, resources: these are the markers
of the 'material, earthen world'.  

If you mean less than is normally 'cthonic' (i.e. something apolitical
and nonstellar), then you'd be creating what appears to be a different
organization completely, one which would in a way combine elements of ToS,
CoS and Neopaganism.

 
|There are, as far as I know, no organizations devoted to
|Luciferianism either, as well as hardly any organizations devoted to
|Satanism _per_se_ (or what I'm now calling "Chthonian" Satanism)
|AS AN OCCULT ENDEAVOR.

Does 'occult endeavor' equate, for you, with 'magical working'?  Are you
trying to tie in earth-based energies with Hermeticism, in essence,
changing the orientation and rejecting some of the lux-o-centrism of
much of the Gnostic and Hermetic traditions?

If so, then you and I are very similar in our focus/intentions, though
likely at variance in our methods.  I think that 'Luciferians' ought
to be used to indicate a type of 'false Satanist' -- they who portray
themselves as oriented around Darkness but instead conveying a very
Light-oriented expression and path.

Ah, but perhaps you are seized upon the 'increased consciousness'
paradigm -- progress of awareness, of individual accomplishment, of
'bringing forth the creative black flame of Satanism'?  I think that
this is just more of the same, dressed up in new clothing.  

I like to associate intellectuality with heads and sky-gods and light,
emotionality with ground and bodies and underworld entities.  I notice 
that this is a prevalent paradigm, symbolically, if not literally, and 
I would like to know if you see its value and/or wish to utilize it.  
Pehraps it is this which you mean by 'occult endeavor', and it may also 
participate in the 'humans are broken and need to be fixed' mentality 
to which the ToS is heir.


|...(_IF_ Chthonian Satanism existed in public form, which it doesn't 
|yet) 

What would/does it look like?  Will it sacrifice the individual will
for the purposes of devotion to the cthonic god?  I don't hear any
notion of individualism within your rhetoric when you speak of this
type of Satanism, Diane, and the way you seem bent on breaking into
the popular consciousness, I wonder if you''d be just creating another 
herd into which the rabble can fit rather than merely treading your
own path.  Cf. LaVey and Aquino and how they get in the way of their
organizations.


|...(Of course, as far as actual occult work is concerned, Luciferians 
|would generally work best with other Luciferians, and monocentric 
|Chthonians would generally work best with other monocentric Chthonians.)

Why?  This appears to be very important to you, this division, and
especially at the 'occult' (i.e. magical) level.  Perhaps it is because
you see that ceremonial workings of a contained and resolved mythic
structure (e.g. pull out the Christian tape or Neopagan tape and input
the 'Satanism' tape) is or will be attractive to Satanists, on the 
whole?  

In comparison to your expressions here I am a 'Kaotik Satanist', since 
I don't associate Satanism with occult study per se, seeing it as a 
religious path that may or may not include this, similar to the Neopagans.  
We're not just seeing a difference of foci here, but a completely 
different in working style.

 
|...I see no reason why a public Satanic group needs to worry about 
|respectability _per_se_. 

Due to politics.  If you don't want people to shit on you, then you'll
have to start looking at how to prevent them from doing this.


|However, as for drug use and other _illegal_ activity, it may be
|necessary -- to avoid the likelihood of RICO charges -- for a public
|group to at least mildly frown upon drug use, etc.  

Thus we remain broken by the governments into cliques and solitaries.
If you begin to suggest behavioral constants for others or members of
the group, then I shall not stick around.  I do not wish to be involved
in one more formatting schema.


|We should probably consult a lawyer regarding exactly what sorts of
|precautions we need to take against legal harassment.  

Make sure it is a Satanist lawyer.  After all, I presume that the law
is not more important than your Satanic principles, is it?  Or do you
conform to whatever society you find yourself living in and claim to
be an 'individualist'?


|regardless of the official stance of my proposed network, 

I recommend *none*.


|various smaller private groups -- which, as I said, would have no
|_official_ status within the public network -- would of course be
|able to do whatever they want as long as they're discreet about it.

They will of course do what is respectable.

 
|>(We don't understand the light, after all, until we understand the 
|>darkness).
 
|I disagree with that last parenthetical statement.

[much omitted] Diane, your language is difficult for me to understand.
I don't know if it is because you use terms very loosely and without 
reflection or if I just haven't figured out what you are saying.  I
look forward to your continued expressions and could engage you almost
unendingly on particular issues (though I don't want to belabor the
difference between us in this regard).  Examples include "...spiritually
-inclined people" and "...white-light deities and energies...".


|...just as most people are heterosexual but some are gay and some are 
|bi, so too most spiritually-sensitive people are drawn to "light" 
|deities and energies, while others are drawn to "dark" and others are 
|drawn to both "light" and "dark".

This was sort of the point I was making wrt single individuals ('a 
lesbian'; NOUN) as compared to orientation ('lesbian in behavior';
ADJECTIVE).
 

|...spiritually polymorphous people _TEND_, on average, to be in 
|certain ways more sophisticated than _MOST_ exclusive ...monocentric 
|white-lighters. 

'More sophisticated' is the operative phrasing here, as I see it.


|Of course, since you're into Golden Dawn magick, you're probably
|thinking in terms of the Qabalistic Tree of Life (which is supposed
|to be apprehended from the bottom up) -- a paradigm I don't agree
|with, except that it may be a reasonably accurate map of _some_
|people's spiritual nature.

You people are talking about something in-between Chaos Magick, in
which one makes things up as we go along, and darkness-orientation,
in which one intentionally creates darkness-oriented magical rites and
dedicated workings for whatever motivation/purposes.  The former gives
emphasis to individualism and egotism ('Use the tools, don't let the
tools use you') and the latter focusses upon particular thematic and
symbolic constants ('Satanism is about X, not some sort of syncretic,
light-dark sandwich'), and is more limited in scope.

I note that most Chaos Magicians (self-identified) I know focus more
heavily on 'dark' (cthonic, demonic, destructive, animalistic, etc.)
entities/energies, though this relationship is not cemented and it is
likely not popular among the most fringe to the movement.
 

|...spiritually polymorphous people ...tend to be more sophisticated 
|than most monocentric Chthonians too 

I interpret 'sophisticated' as 'more intellectually-oriented', 'more
investigative, curious, and interested in more than their own gonads'.
Am I close?


|...I want my network to include Luciferians as well as monocentric
|Chthonians, to help keep the overall intellectual level higher than
|that of most "Satanic" groups.

This is where you and I are very similar, Diane.  I enjoy a more terran
or cthonic base of worship and manifestation of my magical enterprise,
and yet I prefer very complex intellectualism.  

This is where I find value in Hindu models of chakras and how I see
that it is not 'light-centeredness' or 'dark-centeredness' which is the
issue as much as finding a place of equilibrium that works for each,
whether we describe this as 'cthonic', 'stellar' or else.  I personally
associate intellectuality with stellar, head-centeredness and the vast
fulcums of light-based politics, though I am coming to master its
subtleties by degrees.

My preference is to see the head-chakra as one pole of a magnet-like
whole, the emotional as the center, perhaps in polarity with the action
and/or politics/karma center at the diaphragm.  The pair for the
intellectual is the sexual center, that earthy, rutting, cum-and-blood
perfection which destroys the intricacies of intellectual fabrication.
 

|I hope thereby to create an environment where monocentric Chthonic
|Satanism can finally emerge as a genuine form of spirituality
|(rather than just a theatrical gloss for various other aims).

I hear that you are attempting to affect the mass-opinion, the global
or at least societal consciousness.  You are attempting a political
working of sorts (in the way I mean politics: changing others),
rather than some personal and introspective project without regard
for how the herds see you.  Yes?


|>...suspect ...that people as independent,
|>free-thinking, and just plain ornery as genuinely "Satanic"
|>individuals are unlikely to work well together in any but the
|>loosest kind of group.

I agree and have similar experience.

 
|Are you interested in the kind of organization I've described?

I am as yet unsure of its structure and/or purpose.  How will it manifest?
As an elist?  As a named entity, generating group-ego?  As a moderated
newsgroup?


|...Tyagi's TOKUS... devoted to occult study, 

The Order of K@s has no specific designated purpose that I know about.  
Perhaps you are aware of some aspect to it that I am not.  I gather that
one may seek instruction from it and become a member of sorts, but I
have found no consistent doctrine amidst the concepts associated with it.
I'd almost consider the metaphor of a dark wellspring to be more appropos
than a 'black flame', since the wellspring requires you *come down and
drink*, whereas the black flame generates its darkness for you without
your having to do anything.
 

|...isn't a "group" of more than one person.  

I identify the Order of K@s with the AA, GWB (though TOKUS is the
counterpart to the Whiteness of This August Org), and the Body of
Christ as I understand it.

That is to say, you may be correct that there is only one person who is 
a member TOKUS, though I am unsure as yet that this is true.  Remember,
there are different types of 'organizations'.  Those which are truly
'occult' are formed as a manifestation of inner (subconscious) needs of
those who join in the workings.  This is what is known in some circles
as an 'Inner' Order (in TOKUS' case, of K@s), though you will hear
several instruct you of the vulgar significance.  See Case's _True and
Invisible Rosicrucian Order_ or many of Crowley's ideas surrounding
the AA.
 

|And it is unlikely to become such, given how abstruse Tyagi's approach 
|is (even I don't understand it).

Mine is but one star shining in the depths of darkness.  You may be
a member of TOKUS and not know it, just as you may be a member of the
Great Martyrdom Cult.  These things aren't about identification as
much as they are about currents, eddies, movements in the occulted
streams of consciousness.

NocTifer (tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com)