Sign In
User blogs
Tag search results for: "notes from the inferno"
Member *Originally published on my blog on the old SIN site, 2011-2012 thereabouts.
I've often been questioned, asked candidly even, about why I chose to label myself a Satanist when I don't really adhere to any religion. This is kind of akin to asking me personally why I chose a life path that compels me to thrive on conflict, reject the notion of 'nomos' (law), and cultivate the mindset of the adversary--when in reality--I could have chucked all those realizations and just moved with the tide of things, having everything handed to me and accepting my lot in life, predestined yet directionless. My perception of religious belief is similar to the latter. Belief, to the religious, is often equated to loyalty and conviction (faith). I always make a distinction in the question: Does a fundamentally religious person dwell more on whether their beliefs are true or whether they're going to be true to their beliefs?
I suppose, from my life experiences, one can discern that some of the desires and goals I wanted to achieve were constructive, but somehow I was always drawn to a sort of 'destructive' tendency (call it a hidden desire or disposition within myself) to walk the path of transgression. For me, this had its beginnings after looking inward, cultivating my anger and guilt from turning my back on religion, and fostering a mindset of learning without imposition. To not look upon transgression as a stigma but rather a positive realization of thriving from experience and overcoming adversity--this process always starts internally and for some may never be externalized. It's the effect of fire, of antisocial implosion, a raw conflict of the mind that creates through destruction.
Constructive goals, such as finding order and organization in my life without placing the self secondary (my own concepts of 'god' and 'pantheon'), or discovering insight through learning and creating, became primary motivations. I reaped many of the social rewards and benefits of being constructive in this way. Yet within me always lay a certain frame of mind that ran contrary to this. Not a type of solipsism or misanthropy, but more of a destructive human animal tendency that wasn't detrimental to the self. This was never a passive-aggressive impulse as I experienced it. In some types of conflict, I can only simply describe it as an emotional, somewhat carnal perception, like the feeling one has when they have the urge to violently spit on something. It goes beyond socially imploding or going against the flow. It's a natural, carnal reaction to the ignorance (and lack of comprehension) expressed by those cloistered and fraught with holding religion as a personality descriptor and adhering to a 'divine plan'. To the religious, the concept of Satan cannot be understood apart from the dichotomy of good and evil. To manifest an adversarial disposition, from the satanist, there must be a clear understanding of this separation of ideology.
In this context, one can perceive the abstract interpretation of Satan as a 'conflict', a principle of separation. It entails a symbolic expression of man's duplicitous human instinct and nature. A representation of two distinct human qualities: One embraces amorality, physical indulgence, will to power (insofar as an acute awareness of the power of destruction to manifest progress), and the desire to transgress standards of morality or ethical behavior. The other is a quality of detachment within the self, a desire to transcend human and physical needs. To willingly suspend disbelief and explore magic and asceticism, in order to heighten one's intuitive awareness of the world around them.
This dichotomy is often attributed to higher or lower aspects of human nature, and the ability of the human mind to hold opposing ideals sacrosanct. Aspects of human instinct considered 'lower' are often feared and misunderstood as evil qualities when determining meaning, so the symbolism and connotation within Satanism naturally defines a sort of 'carnal adversarial' human instinct that is not 'god' centered.
I intuit the concept of betterment through conflict. I accept and understand the duplicity of inherent human nature, enough to intuit strength and weakness in the self. Perhaps this is a byproduct of being nurtured in an environment of lawlessness and counterculture, enough so to recognize the polar separation of ideas that manifest 'satanic' conflict.
Insidious imposition of religion rarely fazes me. I root out the deceit and turn it against an individual concept, each and every time. Imposition means that one does not respect my freedom. The limitations of faith-based belief, the esoteric codes and double standards (hidden under 'occult practice'), reveal a fundamental shackle of self-deceit: One is too weak to live with doubt and conflict. One is too weak to own responsibility. Many cannot see how this kind of faith bolsters these weaknesses.
To the pragmatist, and the satanist, it's quite simple to reduce this weak-willed nonsense to a childlike false sense of entitlement. It boggles my mind that some socially inept adults can be as weak minded as children when reacting to doubt and conflict. A thin mask of self-divinity (believing you are your own god) can hardly be construed as a carnal/satanic attribute when there is no substance. To be enamored of the concept does not liberate one from the reality of external influence and praxis. As a seeker of knowledge (in the carnal and adversarial sense), to resonate with form is easy. To resonate with substance, not so easy.
by sonofject
I've often been questioned, asked candidly even, about why I chose to label myself a Satanist when I don't really adhere to any religion. This is kind of akin to asking me personally why I chose a life path that compels me to thrive on conflict, reject the notion of 'nomos' (law), and cultivate the mindset of the adversary--when in reality--I could have chucked all those realizations and just moved with the tide of things, having everything handed to me and accepting my lot in life, predestined yet directionless. My perception of religious belief is similar to the latter. Belief, to the religious, is often equated to loyalty and conviction (faith). I always make a distinction in the question: Does a fundamentally religious person dwell more on whether their beliefs are true or whether they're going to be true to their beliefs?
I suppose, from my life experiences, one can discern that some of the desires and goals I wanted to achieve were constructive, but somehow I was always drawn to a sort of 'destructive' tendency (call it a hidden desire or disposition within myself) to walk the path of transgression. For me, this had its beginnings after looking inward, cultivating my anger and guilt from turning my back on religion, and fostering a mindset of learning without imposition. To not look upon transgression as a stigma but rather a positive realization of thriving from experience and overcoming adversity--this process always starts internally and for some may never be externalized. It's the effect of fire, of antisocial implosion, a raw conflict of the mind that creates through destruction.
Constructive goals, such as finding order and organization in my life without placing the self secondary (my own concepts of 'god' and 'pantheon'), or discovering insight through learning and creating, became primary motivations. I reaped many of the social rewards and benefits of being constructive in this way. Yet within me always lay a certain frame of mind that ran contrary to this. Not a type of solipsism or misanthropy, but more of a destructive human animal tendency that wasn't detrimental to the self. This was never a passive-aggressive impulse as I experienced it. In some types of conflict, I can only simply describe it as an emotional, somewhat carnal perception, like the feeling one has when they have the urge to violently spit on something. It goes beyond socially imploding or going against the flow. It's a natural, carnal reaction to the ignorance (and lack of comprehension) expressed by those cloistered and fraught with holding religion as a personality descriptor and adhering to a 'divine plan'. To the religious, the concept of Satan cannot be understood apart from the dichotomy of good and evil. To manifest an adversarial disposition, from the satanist, there must be a clear understanding of this separation of ideology.
In this context, one can perceive the abstract interpretation of Satan as a 'conflict', a principle of separation. It entails a symbolic expression of man's duplicitous human instinct and nature. A representation of two distinct human qualities: One embraces amorality, physical indulgence, will to power (insofar as an acute awareness of the power of destruction to manifest progress), and the desire to transgress standards of morality or ethical behavior. The other is a quality of detachment within the self, a desire to transcend human and physical needs. To willingly suspend disbelief and explore magic and asceticism, in order to heighten one's intuitive awareness of the world around them.
This dichotomy is often attributed to higher or lower aspects of human nature, and the ability of the human mind to hold opposing ideals sacrosanct. Aspects of human instinct considered 'lower' are often feared and misunderstood as evil qualities when determining meaning, so the symbolism and connotation within Satanism naturally defines a sort of 'carnal adversarial' human instinct that is not 'god' centered.
I intuit the concept of betterment through conflict. I accept and understand the duplicity of inherent human nature, enough to intuit strength and weakness in the self. Perhaps this is a byproduct of being nurtured in an environment of lawlessness and counterculture, enough so to recognize the polar separation of ideas that manifest 'satanic' conflict.
Insidious imposition of religion rarely fazes me. I root out the deceit and turn it against an individual concept, each and every time. Imposition means that one does not respect my freedom. The limitations of faith-based belief, the esoteric codes and double standards (hidden under 'occult practice'), reveal a fundamental shackle of self-deceit: One is too weak to live with doubt and conflict. One is too weak to own responsibility. Many cannot see how this kind of faith bolsters these weaknesses.
To the pragmatist, and the satanist, it's quite simple to reduce this weak-willed nonsense to a childlike false sense of entitlement. It boggles my mind that some socially inept adults can be as weak minded as children when reacting to doubt and conflict. A thin mask of self-divinity (believing you are your own god) can hardly be construed as a carnal/satanic attribute when there is no substance. To be enamored of the concept does not liberate one from the reality of external influence and praxis. As a seeker of knowledge (in the carnal and adversarial sense), to resonate with form is easy. To resonate with substance, not so easy.
by sonofject
Member Left-hand path ideology is full of them. Religion bases much of its tenets on them. People with the angst of youth, or a weak grasp of philosophy fall into gravely misunderstanding spiritual/occult trappings because of it.
Pre-conceived notions. It's a stigma of sorts--for people that embrace struggle--that people wear like some sort of badge of oppression. They are sacrosanct to religious persecution complexes seen in most Right-hand path ideology. I would chance a guess that people on the satanic path are acutely aware of what these notions mean, and intuit the conflict and self-betterment derived from destroying some of these notions.
"Will traditional satanism ever be fully mainstream?" is a question tossed about and debated amongst the satanic schools of thought. Perhaps it already is, but to what purpose? Even those that seek occult paths for learning and enriching see farther along the path. The occult adept that recognizes how to reach between worlds and move in the shadows--to do the do if you will it--does not embrace a 'mainstream' philosophy. It's a selfish, epicurean life path, after all. Not solipsism salad with nihilistic wine dressing.
by sonofject
Pre-conceived notions. It's a stigma of sorts--for people that embrace struggle--that people wear like some sort of badge of oppression. They are sacrosanct to religious persecution complexes seen in most Right-hand path ideology. I would chance a guess that people on the satanic path are acutely aware of what these notions mean, and intuit the conflict and self-betterment derived from destroying some of these notions.
"Will traditional satanism ever be fully mainstream?" is a question tossed about and debated amongst the satanic schools of thought. Perhaps it already is, but to what purpose? Even those that seek occult paths for learning and enriching see farther along the path. The occult adept that recognizes how to reach between worlds and move in the shadows--to do the do if you will it--does not embrace a 'mainstream' philosophy. It's a selfish, epicurean life path, after all. Not solipsism salad with nihilistic wine dressing.
by sonofject
Member For people with theistic tendencies that delve into the occult, the path of satanism can be a walk in the moonlight or a jump down a rabbit hole. The pragmatic learner can have a journey of self-discovery, illuminated, whilst the not-so-learned fall into the holes of self-deceit and self-imposed misapprehension of ideas.
There's a certain something, I always call it an "oh shit" moment, that, for me anyway, clarifies my perceptions and realizations about concepts of learning and studying to retain information. To be able to practically apply what I've learned to the world around me in order to better myself is--in a nutshell--one of many ideologies that I 'worship' (learning is my religion). To me, any other kind of worship places the self secondary. Period.
So many folks that walk this path, I notice, like to throw around this hoary old chestnut said by Anton LaVey: "Satan demands study, not worship." I personally heard this in my youth, when a mentor let me borrow an LP of Nat Freedland's interview of Anton LaVey on the 'Occult Explosion' album, circa 1973. Although the crux of the interview was mostly insight into LaVey's church activities, I basically had an oh shit-type moment when he explained that the theistic bent of his brand of satanism wasn't the be all end all of his 'religion'. I suspect, after seeing the evolution of left-hand-path ideology, that this statement planted the seeds of dissent that caused a major schism in LaVey's loosely organized religion.
It kinda dawned on me that you didn't necessarily have to be a hard-core-reverse-christian-devil-worshiper to be a satanist. It also dawned on me that some aspects of the satanic philosophy promote ideas of selfishness, indulgence, ego, and human carnal/adversarial nature--which ran contrary to many tenets of theistic worship: subjugation, total submission, and self-imposed psychodrama. This simple principle of separation in ideology inherently veers a pragmatic learner onto a more enriching path of study as opposed to ritual-by-rote occultism. Those concepts shouldn't be mutually exclusive, though, and any person worth their salt has an intuitive nature that thrives on conflict.
Satanism as a theosophy doesn't put much emphasis on practical study per se, but rather the embracement of traditional occult archetypes and their 'schools of thought'. It is a highly personalized form of study, I like to see it as selfishness not self-help (philosophically). For the not-so-learned, the path is obdurate without experience and study, while the pragmatic learner seeks occult knowledge as a stepping stone on the path they walk, distinguishing one's ideology all along the way.
by sonofject
There's a certain something, I always call it an "oh shit" moment, that, for me anyway, clarifies my perceptions and realizations about concepts of learning and studying to retain information. To be able to practically apply what I've learned to the world around me in order to better myself is--in a nutshell--one of many ideologies that I 'worship' (learning is my religion). To me, any other kind of worship places the self secondary. Period.
So many folks that walk this path, I notice, like to throw around this hoary old chestnut said by Anton LaVey: "Satan demands study, not worship." I personally heard this in my youth, when a mentor let me borrow an LP of Nat Freedland's interview of Anton LaVey on the 'Occult Explosion' album, circa 1973. Although the crux of the interview was mostly insight into LaVey's church activities, I basically had an oh shit-type moment when he explained that the theistic bent of his brand of satanism wasn't the be all end all of his 'religion'. I suspect, after seeing the evolution of left-hand-path ideology, that this statement planted the seeds of dissent that caused a major schism in LaVey's loosely organized religion.
It kinda dawned on me that you didn't necessarily have to be a hard-core-reverse-christian-devil-worshiper to be a satanist. It also dawned on me that some aspects of the satanic philosophy promote ideas of selfishness, indulgence, ego, and human carnal/adversarial nature--which ran contrary to many tenets of theistic worship: subjugation, total submission, and self-imposed psychodrama. This simple principle of separation in ideology inherently veers a pragmatic learner onto a more enriching path of study as opposed to ritual-by-rote occultism. Those concepts shouldn't be mutually exclusive, though, and any person worth their salt has an intuitive nature that thrives on conflict.
Satanism as a theosophy doesn't put much emphasis on practical study per se, but rather the embracement of traditional occult archetypes and their 'schools of thought'. It is a highly personalized form of study, I like to see it as selfishness not self-help (philosophically). For the not-so-learned, the path is obdurate without experience and study, while the pragmatic learner seeks occult knowledge as a stepping stone on the path they walk, distinguishing one's ideology all along the way.
by sonofject
