From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (NocTifer)
To: CoSatanism Elist

To the extent that Satanism
is a rather fluid and ambiguous term, meaning different things to different
people, I think that for some individualism certainly does override at least
some other parts of Satanism (engaging the 7 Deadly Sins, for example; if
it did not then a competition would develop as to who could do the sins best
and most expertly, rather to have everyone settle in to their own natural
niche).


Quite often people within a group-
ego will fantasize that they are the Establishment of Truth, and within
this herd they will of course be correct.  However, beyond the confines of
the herd-mind it is fairly easy for outsiders to see that there are several
groups forming dogmas of their own choosing.  Of course I have nothing
against dogmas, yet we ought recognize them for what they are, else we shall
delude ourselves.


I think LaVey fairly identifies that authority as 'human nature':

"Satanism, realizing the current needs of man, fills the large grey void
between religion and psychiatry.  The Satanic philosophy *combines* the
fundamentals of psychology *and* good, honest emotionalizing, or dogma.
It provides man with his much needed fantasy.  There is nothing wrong with
dogma, providing it is not based on ideas and actions which go completely
against human nature."

SB53


Re: the word "Satanism" and its meaning

There could be a lack of common ground or dogma
and yet a limitation on the range of definition based upon historical
and etymological roots could be established by any group or groups with
reference to that range.  The word doesn't lose *any* meaning, it just
loses *particular* meaning.  It becomes more *complex*.


|Especially when professed Satanists themselves accept critically any 
|definition in the name of individuality and individualism.

Even if this is done the word 'Satanism' would not *lose its meaning*.
It would be given a broader range of meaning enriched by each individual
who found within it a reflection of their experience.  In fact, this is
what MEANING is: a set of variatiable reflections on the experiences of
those who read a word.  There is no way to restrain association of any
particular term except in a coercive and political fashion, and this would
effectively kill the language or at least the term in question.


|CUI BONO?
|~~~~~~~~~
|But who would gains from such confusion of terms, relativity and extreme
|focus on individualism? 

This is a very important question.


|An obvious benefactor would be any group trying to establish itself as
|Thee[...]ee Church of Satan. 

Actually this is false.  The creation of an establishment, normative and
authoritative, is well-aided by the restriction of language surrounding
its base-level tenets.  Just like the land barons of a finite realm, so
are organized groups that attempt to control language empowered to mold
the minds of the general herd in their direction.  

This is one of the values of restraining factionalism and the parameters
of thought -- it not only keeps the sheep in line, but it makes the labors
of those who would rebel and oppose the establishment all the more 
difficult.


|Pretenders to the Throne (so to speak) would definately have to discredit 
|the "first mover" - here, without doubt, Anton LaVey. 

"The basics of Satanism have always existed."

SB53


|Of course, by creating all the confusion, they limit their own
|possibilities of absolute ascension, but at least it puts them at level
|with the Church of Satan.

Only those who find value in historicity and lineage could agree.  Those
who do not put precedence and number before individualism (which does 
appear to be your argument) would just see this as one more herd clutching
desperately to a worn dogma.  The dogma may be a useful tool, just as
believing in a god during ritual is useful, but beyond the context of its
use (i.e. in the world beyond the organization) the terms ought be seen 
for what they are, no?


|The weak and insecure (would-be Satanists).... would benefit from a
|strong emphasis on individualism. 

Interesting.  I'd thought that a robust and secure individual who makes
up her own mind about things based upon her own standards would be more
to benefit in that the insanity of mob-rule would not be given preference.


|...some people are afraid of being rejected by the Church of Satan 
|officials ...  The fear of rejection demands that the importance of the
|"classifier" be downplayed, IQ or CoS officials authority, respectively.

It is very easy to promote this perspective, and yet it presupposes the
notion of an absolute authority, which can never be established.  The
whole issue comes down to 'ownership of religion', and I think history
has shown that human nature detests such dominion.  In this way the
whole 'antifactionalism' and 'semantic control' levelled by many
CoSatanists and ToSatanists may be evidence that their dogma is sullied.


|Very similar to the "sour grapes" proverb.

Given that the motivation is as you say, I agree.


|...now they have a way of elevating themselves above even Dr. LaVey: 

Actually, it may be more complex than this.  It is possible that LaVey
is fallible, in a beautifully human way.  It is possible that he has
failed to understand certain elements of the philosophy which he has
himself espoused.  There are many possibilities, and I don't think that
I could support any of them presently.  I'm just pointing out the
alternatives to a cult of personality.

It is this which inspires me to begin categorizing Satanism the way I
have categorized other social complexes, especially when there is likely
to be a great deal of argument about the nature of authority and faction,
of structure and definition.  Islam and sufism are rather similar, though 
perhaps for different reasons.


|...When everything is completely relative no one can have authority, 
|because you cannot say anything meaningful about anything as the 
|individuals interpretation trancends everything - 

When everything is completely relative, I agree completely.  Usually my
argument comes upon the point of partial relativity (i.e. relative to
the individual with variable levels of authority based upon their life-
experiences -- even the CoSatanist philosophy appears to encompass this
with its support of entitlement based upon success in the greater 
society).


|...some very important rules regarding Satanism have been broken: 

It is very wonderful that you are stating your rules for (Co?)Satanism.
It helps me greatly to know how you define and understand the subject.


|(1) The fact that individualism is part of Satanism (not vice versa) 

Again, this is a very important point and perhaps one which I'd find
great value in elaboration.  What would Satanism look like if it
(forgetting the 'complete relativity' objection for the moment) was
part of individualism?  I'm not sure I understand this.


|and (2) that Satanism is not relativistic to the point of 
|skepticism/Pyrrhonism (in effect it is the creed to "doubt
|everything" amplified to uncritical levels [if that makes any sense?]).

Oh I think it makes a great deal of sense.  I think you may be pointing
out a very important dynamic polarity here.  As the SB says, doubt is
the great liberator.  However, what it does not say is that if doubt
is taken too far it may divest us of our security at the expense of
maximized freedom.  That is, I hear you saying that part of what gives
Satanism value for you is that common ground, that shared presupposition
regarding what it includes and how it shall be pursued. 

Such expressions are quite important, and I think that they strike at
a sensitive issue I've noticed within most Satanic organizations: what
are the limitations of requirement to conformity regarding the dogma
and when does this become herd-mentality?  I have not ever really heard
a satisfactory analysis of this, nor of how the extremities ought be
prevented or discouraged without leading to their opposites and thus
failing all the same.


|In my opinion what is disrupted is the Satanic epistemology, i.e. the way
|we acquire knowledge.

I disagree completely.  I think this is only disrupted at the outmost
extreme of relativism.  Perhaps this is all you are talking about, yet
I had the feeling that you were intending to support the notion of an
incorporated dogma within the CoSatanic group -- i.e. multiple sources
of authority (LaVey, Aquino, Bolton, etc.) are somehow dissolutory and
detrimental, you seem to be saying.

And yet what I think is disrupted by a minor variation of authority is
not epistemology -- the way we acquire knowledge may remain consistent,
it will just have several centers of origination -- but CERTAINTY.  
That is, 'authority' in the sense of central control, will be destroyed.


[discussion of weak and insecure people bypassed as largely irrelevant]

|...a strong ego would allow changes to itself as it would not face 
|extermination - merely partial change. 

Absolutely.


|...the personality/identity "reproduces" or preserves itself....

Yes, and flexibility of thought and value can be of very important
benefit here.


|...Be too critical/afraid and you will continue to misinterpret whatever 
|studied.

Yes, that is the outer extreme.  There is also another, which the SB
points out: 

"Without the wonderful element of doubt, the doorway through which truth 
passes would be tightly shut, impervious to the most strenuous poundings 
of a thousand Lucifers."  

and "The most dangerous of all enthroned lies is the holy, the sanctified, 
the privileged lie -- the lie everyone believes to be a model truth."

or "He that is slow to believe anything and everything is of great
understanding, for belief in one false principle is the beginning of
all unwisdom."

SB39/32/31


|THE ACQUISITION OF KNOWLEDGE.
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

|How, then, [do] Satanists acquire knowledge? 

There be grave mysteries here.  Knowledge has its own limitations, as the
QBL is quick to teach.  There are subtleties of knowledge and type (infor-
mation, understanding, experience, gnosis) which do not always yield to
the same method.


|Here is my approach:

|Usually, when faced by something new, I accept for a while the subject
|studied with a loyal, faithful attitude, treating as far as possible the
|author as a friend. 

For me my approach differs with my experience.  If I have extensive
experience with a subject of study, then I tend to approach a new author
or speaker with a challenging mind, neutral in commencement and moving
this way and that as I grapple with her expressions.  If the challenges
yield fruit, then I am more likely to give her ground in future assertion.


|...generally I am quite able to suspend my disbelief.

I admit that different subjects bring up different biases toward my study.
For example, when I notice that there are popular notions about a subject
then I am more often inclined to challenge these most strongly.  Often
they give way to immense depth and meaning where otherwise left to the
suspension of my disbelief, I would never have discovered or imagined the
alternatives.  Of course when it yields nothing I am more likely to see
what happens from following the particular foci to their ends, unopposed.


|...it is dangerous to accept (more or less) uncritically that which is 
|served to you, but I figured that afterwards there would always more 
|than enough time to be critical.... Sometimes a new, fresh book can 
|overshadow one's existing knowledge, but when the info gets integrated 
|a more balanced view almost always emerges.

If one *has* existing knowledge.  That is part of the strategy which must
be employed, I think -- isolating valuable first impressions to lay the
groundwork for further exploration.  Formatting my knowledge base with
one paradigm, for example, I may lay prejudices and biases which shall
forever after prevent my absorption of a key esoteric concept that is
in some measure antogonistic to the balance.


|In time I have become somewhat more intolerant to other peoples opinions,
|but having entertained many different thoughts I feel that what I'm into
|now is really a _choice_.

I'm not sure I understand this intolerance except as entrenchment.  Could
you explain, perhaps, why you have made such a choice and what you gain
from it?


|temper yourself as did Spinoza when he said that the truth is never found
|when you are inflamed by a wonderful speach, rather it is found in the
|quiet hours that you share with yourself.

Beautiful.  Thanks.


|CLOSING REMARK.
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

|And if I may say something to you Noctifer: Having followed you for some
|time on alt.satanism you have both exalted and enraged me, you are
|impossible to pigeonhole (which is a compliment), but you should be aware
|that strangers will approach you with extreme caution as they now not what
|axe you have to grind.

Thanks for the feedback.  I do think I understand you, and while it is
quite valuable for me to be aware of this, I am of course not likely to
base my tactics upon the approach strangers are likely to take -- not
because I don't care, but because my course is founded upon myself, upon
my own needs and nature.  Through the variation of context I shall most
probably experience all the numerous reactions possible among humans.  I
have been thrown out of forums, forced out, welcomed with glee, hailed
as the mascot and ignored completely.  Eventually I stopped trying to
base my actions upon what I wanted to get and just worked with the
energy, dancing and playing in a seething frenzy of delight. :>


|       "Lie to a liar for lies are his coin;

The Liars are the fabricators of the religions of the world. ;>


|       Steal from a thief, 'tis easy you'll find;

Real thieves no more care for what they take than does the cat care for
the mouse.  The event, the intrigue and challenge, are what is paramount.


|       Trick a trickster and win the first time --

The first time, yes.


|       But beware of the man who has no axe to grind."
|              Eastern proverb, "Secret Life of a Satanist" p.227

Very lovely.  I would encourage readers to interpret this poem.
Is this saying that 'everyone has an angle and if you can't see
the angle of a stranger then they become the danger'?   Or is it
more of a tongue-in-cheek commentary on genius and play?


|Hr. Vad
|(jk1604@hdc.hha.dk)

Marvellous!  You do inspire me.  Right on the razor's edge, thou art.

NocTifer
tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com