What's in a Name? | Forum

1- You bring up an important distinction: the difference between what one does in mixed company and what ones does in more learned occult circles. I tried to touch on that some in the article. I agree that it's rarely worth it to even bother with most people. But I find this same issue in more specialized groups as well. And that's really what the blog was aiming at, encouraging people to stand their ground for their identities within their own subcultures. There's only so much I can even care about what my grandmother thinks a "Satanist" is or isn't. She's never going to get it; there's no point. 

2- Regarding your programming analogy, I think I get what you're saying, but I don't see how any other term would escape the same problem. 

3- If you (or anyone else) thinks this new thing should end up called something else, they are more than welcome to argue that position. That's kind of the whole call to action of that piece.

4- Regarding the "Magic Circle" -- that's rather a perfect example of what I was saying about the proper name for a thing changing over time. I think you're probably right about the vibe of the group this thing originated out of. But at some point it became something else, something enumerated in published texts and sent out of the circle and into the larger world. At that point "Magic Circle" no longer fit, and it needed a new name. And I am arguing, as LaVey did before me, that "Satanism" is a great name for that thing in the context of contemporary Western culture.

"Definition of satanism noun from the Oxford Advanced American Dictionary

 satanism noun

/ˈseɪtnˌɪzəm/ 

[uncountable]

the worship of Satan"

I see absolutely nothing about that which contradicts either LaVey's usage or my own. Of course then one has to get into the meanings of the words "Satan" and "worship," but again this is a problem inherent in all words.

And yes, it's a religion of apotheosis. That doesn't contradict the concept of worship in any way. 

"The objection to using the same terminology Crowley was comfortable with ultimately rests on “but Aiwaz is NOT ‘EVIL’ and NOT A FALLEN ANGEL” hence “not the Devil.” It seems that not many are content to follow Crowley’s lead and simply “let names stand as they are” when it comes to someone’s worship of what they acknowledge to be “the Devil.” Many insist that “Devil Worship” has to bear the meaning of “childish worship of nastiness for nastiness’ sake,” a nihilistic manifestation of frustration towards Life itself. But this is an absurd and misguided distinction to insist on making because it assumes the only way to define “Devil Worship” is by using a slanderous and negative definition of “the Devil.”"

https://satanicwitchcraft93.blogspot.com/p/aleister-crowleys-satanism.html?fbclid=IwAR1Uidw5-1tP0vERxR8WxCsN5CQDOpDP3htS_SecCr8YEEp7RSFhbDkb5aQ

"God can do all the things man is forbidden to do -- such as kill people, perform miracles to gratify his will, control without any apparent responsibility, etc. IF man needs such as god and recognizes that god, then he is worshiping an entity that a human being invented. Therefore, HE IS WORSHIPING BY PROXY THE MAN THAT INVENTED GOD. Is it not more sensible to worship a god that he, himself, has created, in accordance with his own emotional needs -- one that best represents the very carnal and physical being that has the idea-power to invent a god in the first place. 

...
If he accepts himself, but recognizes that ritual and ceremony are the important devices that his invented religions have utilized to sustain his faith in a lie, then it is the SAME FORM OF RITUAL that will sustain his faith in the truth -- the primitive pageantry that will give his awareness of his own majestic being added substance." ("The God You Save May Be Yourself" - TSB 44-45)

I read that as saying a Satanist is free to worship himself in the form of the Devil if that works for him, and perhaps even to be encouraging such behavior. Call that a fetish if you like. 

"Worship

verb

show reverence and adoration for (a deity); honor with religious rites."

I have and show reverence and adoration for the divine sinister in the form of Satan. I call that Satanism, and I don't think it contradicts LaVey's Satanism in any way. But I'm enjoying this debate and open to hearing more arguments to the contrary

Quote from PlasmoticJezebel 
Perchance, those things he didn't get right wouldn't just so happened to be the things you don't agree with, would they?

Well yeah. Not much point in defending what someone else does or does not agree with, now is there?

And I don't think pointing out that the words of LaVey are not inerrant gospel, or that he was using a word in a pejorative rather than academic sense, that he was making a distinction of ethos, not metaphysics, is in any way the same as simply dismissing everything I don't agree with as "the stuff he got wrong."

As for "why bother," perhaps I simply enjoy writing thirty pages of text to justify a pedantic point to the three people who actually read my blog. Or perhaps I enjoy the very performative and subjective aspect of the title which you seem to view as a flaw. Perhaps, as TV said, I'm simply a fool. Regardless, I'm enjoying myself immensely. 

A few points:

1- Is the frame of thinking represented in this particular article more focused on form than function? Absolutely. I would argue that is not the same as being flash over substance, however. If you listen to the great interview with Steven Johnson Leyba, Louis Fleischauer, Hannah Haddix and Jeanelle Mastema on "Art War" that we linked to on our blog, I think they do a much better job of defending the value of form and artistic expression in regard to Satanic magic than I have the energy to do here. But certainly this one article is not the end all, be all of what we have to say or hope to accomplish.

2- I didn't quibble with the dictionary definition, I said the way LaVey was using the term in that particular quote was not the primary dictionary definition, nor did he intend it to be.

3- Saying LaVey isn't gospel doesn't mean he's meaningless. Yes we refer back to him heavily, and very intentionally. No philosopher is speaking the inerrant word of god; they all have flaws. That doesn't mean we throw out the baby with the bathwater.

4- "What, pray tell, does Satanism mean to you?"  I mean, I feel like the blog, taken as a whole, is in part an effort at answer that question, which is honestly rather complicated. As I would imagine anyone's description of their true beliefs might end up being. But if you insist on distilling it down to a sound bite:

Satanism, to me, means the feeling and expression of awe and reverence for the divine sinister "balancing factor" in nature, known by the names "Satan," "Lucifer," "Dionysus," and "Pan," among others, through the observation and practice of dogmatic teachings, religious rights and magical rituals in accordance with the writings of Anton LaVey and other Satanic scholars. 

"GOD ON MY SIDE" BELONGS IN FUCKING IRAN.

To undermine or subvert that type of thinking I choose to make my ideology so absolutely unimportant (outside relevant environments) it is to be the very antithesis of that Sam Owens "self appointed protector of the universe" shit.  

To accomplish this: the LAST place my Satanism or any label designating myself of as much is important is outside said designated areas of relevance.

Jesus talk stays in Church. God's righteous whatever there too. 
Satan talk stays on websites, at cocaine filled key parties, or a shack in the wilderness.

In the United States, apart from the right to terminate a mass of dividing cells, there ARE NO RIGHTS LEFT to be bitched about not having.... unless you really care that much for Transgender military personnel.

Now I have turned a simple, "I really do not use the label much" into that....

Or to quote that one bald dude who makes wine.

@Discordia,

A well-written  and interesting blog. Call yourself whatever you want. Keep explaining your views if that's what you enjoy. Calling yourself anything won't save you troubles. Lots of people here and on other forums kept asking me "What a Christian is doing here?" No amount of explanation sufficed. All labels are superficial and don't really reflect you in all of its complexity. However, using a specific label while you write, will draw a specific audience.

 Contrary to PJ, I don't regard dictionaries as an ultimate authority on the meaning of words. From my time spent studying English language, I know that some dictionaries are just better and more pedantic than others. Not every dictionary contains the history, evolution and all the nuances of the word. Moreover, some can be misleading. If you are a foreigner abroad and trust your dictionary too much, you might end up asking some guy to have sex with you  instead of asking him for the directions to the nearest subway!

Oh and don't mind T.Volt. He hates all girls.

As for nature, what exactly does anyone *do* with nature? We fear and revere it, attempt to survive its whims, hope occasionally to harness its power for our own gains? I suppose I don't understand the question.

Well I am my own god, so I do in fact try to be on my side as much as possible. But I agree with the idea that certain labels should be restricted only to areas of relevance. I referenced as much in my article and then restated it more specifically in another comment on this thread. 

As for rights, I'm not bitching about ones I don't have, but I am very concerned with keeping some of the ones currently under attack, such as freedoms of speech, religion, assembly and association.

Also I love that I knew exactly which bald dude who makes wine you were referring to before I clicked the link.