Date: Sat, 07 Jan 95 18:44:20 EST
Path: shell.portal.com!svc.portal.com!decwrl!legato.com!news.Stanford.EDU!agate!iat.holonet.net!met.com!dvera
From: dvera@met.com
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Message-ID: <10068XOOLOVVRPISBTH@met.com>
Subject: Re: Satanic vs. Promethean (was: 'Reclaiming' Sata
Lines: 59


cal@hplb.hpl.hp.com  wrote
(in response to Tim Maroney):
 
 > I have not been able to swallow the idea that Satanism was
 > worth redeeming. 
 >
 > The difficulty (as I see it) is that the idea of Satan is
 > primarily one of opposition to the status-quo; it is an archetype
 > of rebellion, of individuality, of the one against the many.
 > Rebellion does not have to imply a positive agenda - we see this
 > in politics, where a political party can oppose quite effectively
 > without a programme of its own.  The conventional archetype of
 > Satan *does* have a positive agenda in the form of corrupting the
 > human race, and encouraging us to commit sins such as lying,
 > cheating, violence, murder, hate, and so on, but you and others
 > have been careful to dissociate your definition of Satanism from
 > the popular archetype, and you emphatically do not endorse these
 > activities. The result is that you have a "deity" or archetype
 > which is *against* but not *for*, and there are many people to
 > whom that description applies - generally people who know what
 > they don't like, but have still to form a positive conception
 > about their own lives. It does not surprise me that your
 > (previously) fellow Satanists include a large percentage of new
 > wine and half-baked cakes.
 
Yes, you've pointed out an inherent problem with those forms of
Satanism that revolve around the rebellion theme.
 
My own form of Satanism does not revolve around the myth of the
angelic rebellion, but around my _experience_ of a Dark Force, to
which the myth of Satan as "Lord of This World" seems more relevant
than the myth of Satan as rebel.  Also relevant is the idea of Satan
as Muse, as portrayed in 19th century literary Satanism (and
ironically in fundamentalist propaganda as well; hard-core
Christians have traditionally seen Satan as the inspirer of new
forms of art, music, and science).  More about this in some
forthcoming long messages to Michael Aquino and Tim Maroney.
 
Why do I find the figure of Satan worthwhile?  Because "Satan" is
the name that our culture gives to the Dark Force; and I consider
myself to be on much more solid ground re-interpreting a myth from
our own culture (with which I'm already familiar) than re-
interpreting a deity from another culture (which would require years
of study for me to really understand).
 
 > [As another aside, some of the classical arguments *for
 > monotheism and *against historical Mediterranean paganism are
 > interesting and have something in common with your sentiments
 > above]
 
I have often wondered whether, in fact, there _WERE_ any
philosophical arguments in favor of monotheism and against
polytheism.  Can you recommend any books that contain these
classical arguments?
 
 
Diane Vera