See picture. Only the text and its placement are my own creativity.
One reason I felt the need to write such text is because I asked myself, "Why isn't every criminal a Satanist?" I realized that lately I'd been focusing too much on amorality. There's more to Satanism than just that. In fact amorality is just a side effect.
I asked myself, "Why isn't every criminal a Satanist?"
This line passes by everyone without the wiring because they are too focused on photo caption.
What does "Through Satan" mean? Every Satanist who is also a thinker will ponder a question along those lines. Anton LaVey obviously did. That's why he wrote the Nine Satanic Statements. He needed to articulate what Satan represents. That wasn't a rhetorical device. It's the beginning of the Satanic journey, not just for Anton, but for everyone.
Here's my own articulation, which I offer as an example, not as any sort of final answer for everyone:
1. Satan represents never lying to yourself.
2. Satan represents the very good chance that everyone else may be lying.
3. Satan represents the art of reading people.
4. Satan represents the utility of knowing what buttons to push.
5. Satan represents accepting that anyone can become an enemy.
6. Satan represents expecting the universe not to care.
7. Satan represents the absurdity of justice or mercy after death.
8. Satan represents the wisdom of jealously guarding your freedom.
9. Satan represents the love of strength.
10. Satan represents delight as the North Star.
11. Satan represents putting yourself and what you hold dear above all else.
12. Satan represents never underestimating human stupidity.
13. Satan represents smartening yourself up.
14. Satan represents indifference to other people's opinions.
Meditating on statements like the ones above can refashion the psyche in Satan's image.
Meditating on statements like the ones above can refashion the psyche in Satan's image.
Wherever you do it, leave the cell phone somewhere else, or turn it off.
Don't meditate while driving.
Do you see how amorality is merely a side effect? None of the statements mention amorality or describe moral transgressions. Sure, #4 talks about pushing people's buttons, which a certain type of person might condemn, but "saints" and "heroes" have been pushing people's buttons for thousands of years, and many of them would have argued that what they were doing was very moral indeed. And sure, #11 talks about putting yourself and what you hold dear above all else, but "what you hold dear" is left open-ended. There are people who hold dear such things as the law, or their own integrity.
It's when you take the list as a whole, and think and feel your way into it holistically, that you realize amorality just bubbles up out of it organically. This list, fully internalized, leaves moral codes with nothing to grab hold of. They slide off like rain off a duck. Yet amorality (or the quest for it or the desire to justify it) was never the driving purpose or the underlying passion. This list is born out of two principles: realism and self-love, the two horns on Satan's head.
Because Satan is the name that has been given to this outlook, Tom. Other names were (and are) possible. Michael Aquino called it Set, after he left the CoS. Despite the fact that I view Satan as a symbol, and Michael Aquino views him as an independent entity, I nevertheless agree with him that "Satan" and "Set" are two names for the same reality, the Prince of Darkness, the One Who Stands Apart from the Rest. Whom do I mean? The Satanist!
I remember Michael Aquino talking about this at the 600 Club on many occasions – he said that he had stepped out of one universe and into a much larger universe, when he dropped the Judeo-Christian context underpinning the Prince of Darkness as Satan and adopted the ancient Egyptian universe of the Neteru, within which Set appears.
There is quite a large difference between the Temple of Set’s Set and the Satan of the Church of Satan.
Set is a Neter/Platonic form/universal of consciousness and every individual’s self-consciousness is a particularization of this Neter/Platonic form/universal of consciousness.
I actually asked Michael Aquino once about an upcoming conclave of the Temple of Set and he mentioned that there would be a lot of mathematicians there at the conclave. Aquino never gave too much away as the Temple is a more or less a secret initiatory group. However, I got the distinct impression that Set in its essence was rational and ideal through and through. It appeared that you could apprehend and define Set with the aid of mathematical tools. Interesting stuff.
I felt that Aquino was very much a type of Neo-Platonist and I read the Word Xeper as a sort of process where a human essence or “soul” transcended towards “The One” or towards Set, more precisely.
Satan, according to Anton LaVey is a dark force of nature. It is no surprise that Friedrich Nietzsche is one of the original inspirations and appears on the old Dedications Page in TSB. That Dedications Page contains a listing of the essential names of LaVey’s Satanism.
My opinion: will to power is the "muscles" and "unconsciousness" of Satan, or rather will to power - as will to life - as will to power.
It’s interesting: the Setian religion and the Satanic religion have a number of significant onto-theological differences, but both cherish personal alchemical transmutation.
It’s interesting: the Setian religion and the Satanic religion have a number of significant onto-theological differences, but both cherish personal alchemical transmutation.
Yes, one thing I want to underline and I think the language I used above sort of obscures that. Set, as I understand it, is distinct and fundamentally different from those Neteru which underpin the objective universe. Set is metaphysically distinctive and occupies an entirely different non-natural universe. Satan is certainly the Other in Judeo-Christian tradition, and Set is as well, in the ancient Egyptian tradition, I think.
Probably stating that the revealed and refined self seeks to transcend and merge with “The One” is highly misleading and inconsistent with LHP principles. Figuring out how Set works with the other Neteru metaphysically, and how the individual self relates to Set is a bit tricky to figure out. I think a person would need to be properly initiated to figure out those mysteries.
Yes, I think all of those groups or approaches mentioned here are LHP to some extent.
Also, I have this weird problem: I'm innately nice. I often wish I weren't, but I can't help my basic nature, so I had to learn to work with it. Being nice can get in the way, so I learned to use it strategically, like a tool, in fact you might even say, like a skeleton key. Being nice can open doors. But even so, because my niceness is innate, I need to discipline my psyche against it, lest it go too far. My new text, used ritualistically, is a tool that facilitates this discipline. See pic.
What this talks about is what I think of as the burning torch that sprouts from Baphomet's head, or the bottommost point of the inverted pentagram.
It paints the correct approach to Satanism as the "Adversary of Abstraction", in a way open to alternative answers, but still discarding faithful apprehension.
The line between The Abortionist and Roofus in Dogma sums that up IMO, "I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier."
The only thing not said is what qualifies an idea that's rigorous enough for the adversary of abstraction.
Across the board with THE IDENTIFIABLE Satanists I have observed it's almost ubiquitously Strait Outta Rational Compton.
Yes, the spirituality of inevidible car accident.
I think it's called Freemasonry, or one of those esoteric non-dual Judeo-christian desim hybrids.
