Path: kudonet.com!kudo20!tyagi From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (nocTifer) Newsgroups: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.satanism,alt.pagan,talk.religion.misc Subject: Terminology and Theology, Pantheism and Worship Date: 11 Apr 1997 00:13:25 -0700 Organization: KudoNet On-Line Services Lines: 341 Sender: tyagi@bjt.net Message-ID: Reply-To: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (nocTifer) NNTP-Posting-Host: kudo20.kudonet.com Xref: kudonet.com alt.magick.tyagi:8936 alt.satanism:50022 alt.pagan:164388 talk.religion.misc:231558 [Orig-To: private conversation] 49970102 AA1 Hail Satan! a common element of dispute among Satanists and Neopagans (whose communities I presume to overlap) is that over terminology. the academic evaluation of 'pantheism', for example, appears to be at variance with the colloquial usage, and the attitude of some Neopagans seems to be at variance with a large element of the scholarly community on precisely this same point. here're some brief definitions of 'pantheism' as described within some of the Haus Library texts: _Pantheism:_ The doctrine that reality comprises a single being of which all things are modes, moments, members, appearances, or projections. Pantheism teaches the essential immanence of God in all creatures and things, identifies God with Nature and Nature with God, teaching that the forces and laws manifest in the universe, the entire Cosmos, the whole of reality itself, *are* God. _Dictionary of Mysticism_, edited by Frank Gaynor, p. 135. __________________________________________________________ I notice that Mr. Gaynor does not define "God" within this text. another source: Pantheism ... A pantheist is one who identifies the universe with God. Needless to say, in order to do this he must conceive the universe to be something other than a mere heterogeneous collection of entities of various kinds. The characteristic feature of pantheism is the view that all finite selves are differentiations of a single, impersonal spirit. Sometimes this spirit is regarded as a vital principle which stands to the physical universe as soul to body. Often, however, impersonal spirit is taken to be the ultimate reality, the sense world is reduced to the level of appearance which veils this reality, and the existence of any material world is denied. This theory, involving as it does the existence of impersonal spirit, may impress us as a very extraordinary one, for, it may be urged, experience never acquaints us with consciousness except as existing in selves. This is, in my opinion, a fatal objection; but the theory has been maintained by eminent philosophers. We are not concerned with its truth or falsity, but only with the question whether the word *God* can conveniently be used to designate such a being. In philosophy there is no uniformity of usage. Some philosophers have been inclined to apply the word God to ultimate reality if it possess some sort of coherent unity or systematic structure instead of being merely in the nature of an aggregate. Others have preferred to follow the prevailing usage in religion, and to employ the term only to designate a divine Person. Since the philosopher can always make use of a philosophic term, the Absolute, when he is talking of an impersonal ultimate, it seems wiser to adopt a more restricted connotation, and to let the word *God* always stand for a personal Being. _An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion_, by Robert Lee Patterson, Prof. of Philosophy, Duke Univ., Holt and Co., 1958; p. 114. __________________________________________________________ this includes my objection to the usage of 'God' in the context of 'pantheism' (due to its traditional religious and mystical usage) and addresses the friction of terminological usage between the religious and philosophical communities. the problem I see when taking someone's description of their (e.g. Neopagan) *religion* and attempting to apply the standards that are associated with the discipline of the *philosophy of religion* is that, as Harshorne and Reese explain quite well in their Preface to _Philosophers Speak of God_: [The conception of deity] is a subject in which strong prejudices have nearly always been operative. The histories and comparative studies have been written with a good deal of bias. Authors of various "orthodox" allegiances, and this includes multitudes of very learned men, have done what they could to make certain possibilities of for thought appear to be *the* possibilities. Not that they have done anything so crude as to limit the possibilities to their own tenets. This would have been too manifestly illegitimate and would not have satisfied their own or anyone else's conscience. They have done something more subtle and insidious. Not only is it usual to limit the inquiry almost entirely to our Western culture, and indeed (especially among European scholars) sometimes largely to one's own country, but there is the even worse tendency to SET UP ARTIFICIALLY LIMITED OPTIONS SUCH AS THEISM AND PANTHEISM [these are my emphases - nocT], or infinite God and finite God, or immutable and mutable God -- and many more. In every such case, analysis discloses that one may believe in God while being about equally far from (or near to) the poitions, mentioned, as customarily construed. GOD MAY, IN SOME ASPECT, BE INFINITE AND, IN SOME OTHER ASPECT, FINITE; AND THE SAME HOLDS WITH RESPECT TO the predicate "mutable" or THE PANTHEISTIC PREDICATE "COEXTENSIVE WITH REALITY," OR "INCLUDES ALL THINGS WITHIN HIS OWN BEING." In all intellectual fields one meets the phenomenon of half- truths confronting one another, agreeing only in this: that ALL ALIKE DENY THE WHOLE TRUTH, WHICH IS MORE SUBTLE AND MANY- SIDED THAN ANY ONE OF THEM ALONE. When something like the whole truth is expressed, the half-truth addicts pounce upon it almost as one man with charges of compromise, evasion, or confusion. It lacks the sort of dramatic trenchancy which men so love to defend -- and attack. _Philosophers Speak of God_, by Charles Hartshorne and William L. Reese, University of Chicago Press, 1953 (reprinted in 1976, this edition), p. viii. ______________________________________________________________ this summarizes rather plainly the way in which a variety of religious and philosophical people can come to such a confluence of dispute and disagreement over *intellectual* issues, and provides support for my contention that what really holds Neopagans together (be they Satanist or of some other category), is a set of VALUES. the terminological squabble over the word 'pantheism' (I find no capitalized version in my Am. Her. Dic. Bible) is best illustrated by this dictionary entry, in which both usages that are contrasted within this intellectual argument over taxonomy are mentioned: _pantheism_... *n.* 1. The doctrine of identifying the Deity with the various forces and workings of nature. 2. BELIEF IN AND WORSHIP OF ALL GODS. [my emph. - nocT] American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1982; p. 898. _______________________________________________________ with these comments behind me I would prefer to proceed to an evaluation of the typical lines of dispute between Satanists and (in some cases other) Neopagans around the notion of deity/ies. part of the problem which Satanists and some (other) Neopagans have with the term 'God' is that it is predominantly used by Deists or theists to indicate a personal Being (mentioned above), usually cosmological in scope, and often attributed a great number of qualities such as that of having fabricated the entirety of the cosmos, having omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence (note the similarity of this last to pantheism), etc. most Satanists with whom I've spoken on this issue and many Neopagans appear to feel that the term 'god' is best utilized in a less grandiose sense: that of relative equivalence to 'spirit', 'daemon', 'djinn', or 'orisha'. now this of course enters into the whole notion of universality of theology, how and if multicultural terms may be adequately compared, and whether there are real differences among these or if they can (essentially) be co-opted to the purposes (often syncretic) of the speaker or author. almost all CoSatanists (Satanists of LaVeyan or merely Church of Satan variety) with whom I have shared time speak of 'humans as gods'. this perspective appears to signify 'potentate' or 'activator' in the sense originally (in a time of lesser technology) applied to nonphysical and/or "natural" (nonhuman) entities called by a variety of names. this usage appears also to be popular among some Neopagans, and it suggests an atheistic and materialist trend toward the veneration of deity as power-house, Final Cause (rather than the more Christian First Cause), and the continuation of the adoration of the feudal "Lord God" from Christian culture. re: insisting on 'polytheist' rather than 'pantheist' this is a linguistic dispute which cannot be resolved by resort to terminological rigidification or citation of origins, and comes to what I generally term 'semantics', in that we are merely attempting to legislate the language's use rather than come to understand the usage of another person and reason accordingly. re: the quality of life-centeredness and the idea that 'God is All' anything which relates to nervous systems, such as various Buddhistic ideologies, or 'harm' (implying 'to those beings which are alive') are predominantly more life-centric than a veneration of the cosmos as a whole. where 'nature-worship' or 'nature-veneration' somehow presumes that *living* beings (with a precise notion of where to draw the line -- usually around animation or motion) are more important or natural or whatever, this is exemplified most clearly. even moreso those who engage anthropocentrism (most organized religions of any type). re: everything being 'God' meaning 'everything is equal' Christianity includes some pantheistic tendencies (in the sense that God is considered *omnipresent*) and pantheism says nothing as a *term* as regards our relation to the rest of Nature. just because everything is "God" this doesn't logically mean that "everything is equal" in any sense, as there might be hierarchy to the divine, as is supposed in several religious cosmologies. there are often other semantical disputes inherent to discussions of 'pantheism', comparing 'worship' to 'veneration' or 'reverence'. it's no small issue, and one which impacts communication in Neopagan and Satanist communities greatly. on the whole I have more often heard Neopagans and Satanists blanketly presuming that 'worship' amounts to 'obeisance or begging'. most Neopagans and Satanists don't tend to accept that type of relationship with our gods, and the reason that this is the case appears to reflect greatly on WHAT WE TAKE OUR GODS TO BE. given the above-mentioned notion of a god which is comparable to the spirit or the orisha, or even moreso the acceptance of equating *humans* with gods, of COURSE we shall have resistance to begging and slavery to them, since this flies in the face of most religious instruction throughout time. the matter may truly be resolved on the basis of *relationship to the deity*. given a cosmological Creator who dictates from an eternal residence the very Nature of Reality, it would be to our *advantage* to obey Its every whim and dictate. those who don't will be pulverized, and this is the character and explanation for the Christian 'fear of God'. however, if, as in the larger Neopagan and Satanist communities, we see humans in identity, on relatively equal footing, or as part of a grand, homogenous (I contend usually 'materialist') divinity, then immediately there is a change in our interaction. suddenly we have no reason for obeisance even though we may have inspiration for reverence. I contend that this latter perspective is PERVASIVE in Satanist and Neopagan culture and describes in part one of its significant differences as regards theology from that of its elder religious. however, this is NOT DEFINITIVE, as those who worship our gods as principles of the cosmos or even as some sort of Cosmocreator or mystical Counterpart while yet acknowledging and reverencing lesser 'gods' will make plain (examples being perhaps the Neopagans who worship 'the Goddess' in this way or perhaps those who accept Satan as 'the dark force of matter'). Kali is often to me (and especially as regards my monasticism), all *that I am not*. that is , We are a Cosmic Pair, the (naga)Siva-Kali(-ma) Dyad, and constitute All-that-Exists (Pan/pan). this is a mystical relationship and one which I do NOT expect to be taken in anything but a subjectivist sense (seen from the perspective of the worshipper, in this case me). part of my practice involves precisely the type of valuation of all beings (even the 'inanimate' or what is conventionally called 'nonliving') which pantheists of a philosophic variety are supposed to adhere. what this means to me is less that 'we are all equal' (something which I truly do not understand given the variety of form), but that I am shown a direction to my meaningful relationship and growth -- that is, anything which I somehow take to be 'lesser' than myself I would do best to support and enhance as I am able and anything which I view as 'greater' in some absolute measure I am best to analyze and come to know more closely, seeing its relative value/power/being. combined with this, I take a great deal of delight in 'coming to know myself' through a variety of disciplines, shaping and honing not only this perception but this very mysterious being ("me") in ways which may sound confusing to you *and* me. when I throw myself before the altar in Kali's Temple I do so without thought, as a discipline, though knowing that in some measure I am acknowledging an INTERDEPEDENCE that is not at all alien to the philosophy of pantheism. I don't obey Kali because She is 'Kali, a powerful and fearsome goddess with whom I shalt not fuck' (!), but because, having observed that Her suggestions BENEFIT ME through their following (especially in the long-term), I naturally tend to listen carefully and apply what I hear from Her as I am able. this is by no means a relationship that has come about through a lack of doubt and dispute on my part. I have disregarded Her suggestions, fought with Her ideas, and generally been convinced through experience that this sort of deviation is UNWISE. now quite beyond this I would say that there are some for whom Kali (and a variety of other gods, inclusive of Jehovah) must take the form of their Masters. this is a very special relationship from which few emerge having ascended to any degree of Mastery themselves, though I presume that there are and/or have been some. too often people remain in the Master-Slave relationship and, more horrendously, attempt to legitimate their experience through converting others to it. however, this in NO WAY disputes the relationship's efficacy! the system of "guru-chela", as it has come to be called in the Hermetic culture (after the Indian), is a very special one, one which I would support on an individual basis. where this becomes an INSTITUTION, with various clergy presiding in authoritarian control, I begin to have great difficulties and tend to avoid and oppose it no matter where it lies, especially where it proliferates and serves as limitation to individualism. obeisance and begging don't appear to be popular in Satanist or Neopagan religion. it hits too close to the Judeochristianity from which these essentially Hermetic neuvo-religious have emerged. re: the convention of 'we are gods' #> this is a modern convention, this egalitarian pronouncement of divinity, #> is it not? only the reigning monarchs and emperors were considered to #> be "gods" (Ceasar, Pharoah, Huang Ti, etc.). what could 'gods' now mean #> to those who speak in this way (and many Satanists do!) that everyone is #> a "god", especially when linked to 'power' as if the powerful is the god #> (do we then worship power?)? ... it appears to have arisen with the Romans or other pre-Christians and conflates human ascendancy to influence with cosmological centrality. previously the gods were supposed central to the Works of the World, and once humans began to have enough social power they sought to take on (/usurp) the role of that divinity through identification as (at first) the Child of the Divine (Emperors, Pharoahs, etc.) and (later) the Divine Itself (Romans, Neopagans, Satanists, others) in a co-option of terminology characteristic of all religious but especially to the Great Martyrdom Cult. the difference between what Toland called the 'Pantheist' and what may be described as 'pantheists', who may or may not identify with the term Toland coined strikes me as imperative to understand. it amounts to the usage of 'Satanist' to describe people like Crowley, who never applied the term to themselves but might be described by its modern senses (which LaVey suggests in a qualified 'de facto' phraseology). #> ...that there is a greater and more complex topic #> here overlooked: whether there may be 'gradations of divinity' such #> that while Pan is divine we pay special attention to any one aspect #> of this All/Pan at any particular time, why and how. (re: pan/Pan) Hermetics like Crowley and other mystics who influence a great deal of Neopagan and Satanist thought conflated these two terms to no end. their conflation is at times quite valuable, and acknowledging this is important in unravelling semantical disputes such as may occur within our community. blessed beast! nocTifer tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com -- see http://www.hollyfeld.org/~tyagi/nagasiva.html and call: 408/2-666-SLUG!!! ---- (emailed replies may be posted) ---- CC public replies to author ---- * * * Asphalta Cementia Metallica Polymera Coyote La Cucaracha Humana * * *