From tyagi Tue Apr 25 11:37:00 1995 Received: (tyagi@localhost) by jobe.shell.portal.com (8.6.11/8.6.5) id LAA16171; Tue, 25 Apr 1995 11:36:58 -0700 Message-Id: <199504251836.LAA16171@jobe.shell.portal.com> Subject: Re: Reasons for Satanism To: JSINGLE@MUSIC.LIB.MATC.EDU (Raven) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 11:36:57 -0700 (PDT) Cc: tyagi@HouseofKaos.Abyss.com, alt-magick-tyagi@cs.utexas.edu, alt-pagan@cs.utexas.edu, alt-religion-wicca@cs.utexas.edu, alt-satanism@cs.utexas.edu In-Reply-To: <25APR95.07955279.0018.MUSIC@MUSIC.LIB.MATC.EDU> from "Raven" at Apr 25, 95 07:21:57 am From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (Lorax/TOKUS) Orientation: House of Kaos, St. Joseph, Kali Fornika, US -- Kali Yuga X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 15646 Status: RO Kali Yuga 49950425 Nice cascade effect. Raven and I continue, though I'm bowing out soon: |tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (tyagi/TOKUS) writes: ||jsingle@music.lib.matc.edu (Raven) writes: |||tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (tyagi/TOKUS) writes: ||||jsingle@music.lib.matc.edu (Raven) writes: |||||For many people, your statements that "Satanists are witches, Satanists |||||are pagans" would be taken as confirmation of all that Christian dogma |||||claiming that "Witches are Satanists, pagans are Satanists". || ||...I think that the term 'Satanists' incorporates both Witches and Pagans ||(and Christians if truth be told). | |This spreads the term to cover ALL religions, possible exceptions being |Judaism and Islam -- but I seem to recall that you include those, too. No, I was awkward in my phraseology cuz I'm getting tired of the wrangling. See my file on the GMC. |At that point, why not use the word "religion(s)", instead? Because Satanism isn't yet a religion, from what I can tell. I know I'm quite ignorant about this and I'd love to hear more, but so far I haven't seen what I think constitutes religion out of it. Look at it like this: we've got this lava-like stuff that erupts out of the social milieu every so often, the latest blister-burst of an initiatory maturation. What I'm calling 'Satanism' here is the LIVE STUFF, the lava that is still blazing hot, almost too hot to handle. Witchery, Christianity, Witchcraft and Wicca are all older crustations of this lava, hardened into stone-religion. I'm really not trying to put a valuative on any of these things at this point, just trying to illustrate why I say that these are related and how. Now of course you ask why not say 'religion'. Because there are many other religions solidifying out of other cultural processes. Buddhism erupted out of Hinduism quite a while back and caused a sort of chain- reaction across Asia and to a lesser extent in other areas of the world. Islam erupted out of Christianity in a different way than did the Wiccan- Neopagan-Satanist branch from what I can tell, and much earlier. I don't see the Muslim focus upon martyrs like I do within the complex I'm trying to describe here, and I don't know if Judaism well enough to say that it really qualifies, though they certainly do link heavily with the 'Holocaust', so I'd tend to say yes there too. |The name "Satanism" connotes something to do with Satan, and though in |the case of non-literal symbolic usages like LaVey's that may be a very |distant connection indeed, it is stretched beyond recognition when |applied to those who don't venerate or believe in even the symbol. Sure, but you're talking about the rationalization of the terminology; i.e. referencing the New Symbol of Revolution, as if the focus of the revolution itself, of the mythic and ideological icons held forth as indicative of the movement are less important than that something is struggled *AGAINST*. My contention is that in large the JCIWS Current (that is how I'll reference it from now on, or GMC -- Judaism, Xtianity, Witchcraft/Wicca, Satanism) is *reactionary*, and come out of a similar source, siezing upon different elements of consciousness over the time of their development. I agree with you that it is misleading to call all of it 'Satanism', though look at the literal origin of the term: 'shaitan', adversary or opponent. What could be a more appropriate name for a reactionary current which identifies itself in contradistinction to its predecessors and focusses on this distinction as a means of individuation? Struggle, opposition to the establishment tradition is CENTRAL the living energies of this Current. Take away the opposition and you rarely have the makings of a religious movement. The Dialectic, the inherent dualism of some aspect of the ideology, goes way back to the Ahura Mazda-Ahriman pair and flows through nicely in various forms: ethically (good/evil), metaphysically (spirit/matter), and most importantly, in terms of IDENTIFICATION. Why else do Neopagans cling so tightly to the word 'pagan' except that it is a badge of ostracization at the hands of the Opponent? Even 'witch' has most often been utilized deprecatingly, and this is championed by the reconstruc- tionalists as a reverse-image of its previous usage (e.g. not the evil old hag out to cause mischief, but the benign and youthful beauty who is dancing and fucking and making brews and herbal remedies to heal the sick while worshipping the fountainspring of all life!). |I realize that you use that term with your own idiosyncratic definition, |but since you don't give that definition before each time you use it, |you are communicating a different meaning from your private concept. I'm talking to you. I'm being fairly consistent about my usage (I don't always stick to these consistencies, you know). You know what I'm talking about. My intent is not only to discuss this with you but also to flat out demonstrate the methods that the GMC utilizes in developing its Current, as I see it. This includes a type of guerilla warfare of words, using them in very precise but unorthodox ways to insert a new meme and broaden the minds of those who get exposed to it. It is sort of like playing a popular tune but with such variations that it becomes transformative in the HEARING. We get used to the same old word-meanings and grow ignorant until the shifting, slithing toads of Meambulung creep into our home. |By analogy, I could say that "Tyagi has been implicated in several |murders, including the murders of children" -- and not bother to explain |that I consider killing animals for food to be "murder", such that by |eating beef (and veal) you're complicit in murdering cows (and calves). You sure could. Of course then you'd be resorting to ad hominem argument rather than telling us what you think. It isn't that I'm really trying to deceive. I actually think that there is SUBSTANCE to my contentions. |Changing word meanings that far without notice is misleading enough to |constitute outright deception, which is a hostile act in itself. Deception is part of the Way of the West. Satan is the Father of Lies. Hostile? You've used that term with me more than once now, I think (or perhaps it was your recent spat with Blackjack). I think that when it comes to theology and metaphysics, which I tend to discuss, imagination and experimentation are more important than knowledge and tradition (to borrow some from Einstein). You can call what I do 'hostile' if you like. If I was just trying to play a fun game of 'nyah nyah got you there' tricksterism then I could understand opposing it. However, there is more to me than that. I would rather that you merely said what you thought about my posts than attempting to derive their intents. I suppose you are attempting to focus on the repercussions of assertions within Usenet. Well, I'll be the first to say that I'd rather see ALL MANNER OF ASSERTION here, and will oppose those who try to 'protect the innocent' from that which they deem 'false'. Instead, say it is false and say why. People will take who they wish as their authorities and go from there. I've got into this in most forums in which I take part because there are always those who claim that there is 'dangerous information' or 'misleading and dangerous claims' that may be associated with my words. Thank you for warning this forum about the dangers of taking me too seriously (or, more importantly, literally). I presume the caution ought apply to all people who say anything anywhere. Nuf sed on that and I plead with you to stick to the topics rather than moving discussion focus to that on the authors. |||||This tends to negate all the hard work that has been done toward making |||||the public aware of Wicca's non-Satanist theology. ||The three-fold Law of Revenge works against such things. Their money'd ||be better spent informing people of who they are, not of who they aren't. | |When Christians have spread so much misinformation about Wicca, either |some effort is spent rebutting it, or it gets accepted for lack of any |rebuttal, a "silence gives consent" situation. I've rarely heard any Christian speaking of Wicca. Most often I've heard them speaking about their own concepts of 'magic', 'witchcraft', 'witches', 'satanism' and perhaps 'black magic'. This is their theology. The issue isn't what their theology includes (let them have it), it is whether there is FREEDOM OF RELIGION and PROTECTION FROM VIOLENCE within the culture at large. Focussing on these latter will benefit all of us instead of continually participating in immature religious squabbles. I'm not saying that the energy and time spent letting people know who you are is wasted, only that expecting that this will lead to emancipation is foolhardy. The establishment (whether it stays Christian or no) will merely switch the terms, level some newfound atrocity at its perceived opponent and mobilize rigidification in response. Fundamentalism *leads* to opposing fundamentalism unless the cycle is stopped. It is a great big pendulum, moving from 'Christian' to 'Wiccan' to 'New Ager' and to 'Satanist'. The words and names may change, and sometimes even the practices change too! (:>) Yet the essential component remains, and the GMC, its lava flowing out over the expanse of human ingenuity, sloughs off more of its molten core to the rigification of religion in response to the fundamentalist assault. Thus the Witches and New Agers join the forces of the Christian and Muslim in assaulting the Satanist because this is the New Kid on the Block, the relative New Challenger, previously fabricated in the imaginations of the dominant culture (as were 'christians' and 'witches' before them) and now becoming the Vehicle of Liberation for countless adolescents and mystics, itself rigidifying and paving some new routes for the next lava flow (which will perhaps be the Warlocks or the Sorcerors or the Poisoners or the Assassins, etc.). It goes on and on and on.... |For Satanists to join in spreading that Christian misinformation about |Wicca is likely to be taken as a hostile action -- not the best way to |get the friendship, trust, or cooperation the Satanists claim to want. I agree completely, and have often argued just this when speaking both to Neopagans and Satanists. Argument and reason does not quell the aching desire for the expression of anger at the perceived Opponent, however, and it will take some time before there is a restive peace among the factions of Neopagans, let alone the religious in the West. |The claim that "Witch = Satanist", coming from avowed Satanists, is |likely to alienate some Wiccans who might else have been sympathetic. Yes, it might. But it also carries with it a very interesting concept, which I don't see you addressing here: who gets to define the terms, why do we select what we do, what does it matter who identifies with what, and where and why shall we derive 'accurate labels' so as to 'put this all in perspective'? Is it VALUABLE to do that (put this all in perspective)? If Mr.Scratch wants to see Witches as Satanists then fucking let him do that and get on with your life. Same goes for Hindus who want to see Yeshua ben Miriam as an incarnation of Visnu, or the Buddhists who want to see Muhammed as a bodhisattva. They get to decide that and it is to OUR best interests that they argue precisely these things, challenging the status quo and what we think, in our comfortable squalor, we may know. We know too much, I think. |Not that this consideration will keep you from your word-games, |but then the outcome of hostility should not come as any surprise. Ouch. You know, I've been assaulted by people for some time who say I'm 'playing word-games'. As if language isn't a game with rules and players and such (an infinite game perhaps - see James Carse). As if playing (not like sticking by all the rules, but on a playground, as children, exploring and making new things with fun toys) is something 'bad' or 'wrong'. I think that games are beautiful and wonderful. It is only those who wish to have all the rules defined and all the variables tied down who complain that people aren't 'behaving properly'. Is it truly 'hostile' to do as Humpty Dumpty does and ask 'who is to be the master'? Or shall we take this as an art, a deep and lasting self- transformation of gaudy and expensive relationry, 'paying our words extra for the work we make them do'? Take my expressions as assaults if it pleases you to do so. When I'm at my best I don't bother resorting to individual insults such as this, nor do I respond to them. No, usually I just like to say what I think, and this draws heated criticism from those who would rather that I be thinking and saying something more in line with their ways. |||||But then, to link a completely separate AND UNWILLING group of people |||||into that hate and fear, well, that's a violation of THEIR choice. |||If it were only being inflicting on those who originally misrepresented |||other's theology, that might be seen as talion, "eye-for-eye" justice -- |||but retaliating against bystanders only creates more problems. |Mmm. I think some Wiccans might see it more as: Christians on one side |(trying to push Wicca into the gutter), and Satanists on the other side |(trying to pull Wicca into the gutter), both groups [being seen as] part |of the same effort -- not only do they share the theological figure or |symbol named "Satan", they are both trying to force Wicca into that, |despite its wanting no part of either group or their shared concepts. Excuse me if I don't take this complaint very seriously. I doubt that many Satanists are out proselytizing Wiccans and telling them that they ought to conform to Christian stereotypes. Discussion on Usenet hardly amounts to such 'pressure', especially not when you begin to compare the very real threats and hostility (to use your word) levelled at the Neopogan community by the Christian establishment (if Witches/Pagans were to change their names this might help matters, but that wouldn't be in line with the martyrdom ethic ;>). |I did bother; that was the quote below; you then called it "very nice". It was nice. I just didn't want to extend this very much further. We use our terms differently. So be it. We prefer different ideas. So be it (svastika - it is good). I don't mind. To me what I'm hearing from you amounts to a minor argument and largely beyond the original issues. As I said, there's more than enough dastardliness to go around. I'm not saying anything about you here. I don't know you except by your very wonderful posts. But I think it is silly to say that Satanists are somehow the oppressors to the Neopagan martyrdom when the interaction for years has been, if anything, quite the opposite, Neopagans helping Christians to define Satanism for the purposes of Christian condemnation. Lorax/TOKUS tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com --------------------------- Reduction of self does not refer to the visible ego, but rather to dissolving the bindings that cause the self to be separable. It is not an emotional question - it is a technical one, having to do with occult structures and karmic momentum. The visible ego is a manifestation of these structures - trying to attain higher awareness by reducing the visible ego is like trying to correct bad vision by pulling out your eyes. No more touchy-feely Zen! kerrym@world.std.com (Kerry M Miller) (Usenet:alt.zen)