Warning: long ass post - I thought this might be helpful. I continue to assume
that Tom’s Satanism and his view of magical ritual are still underpinned by ‘The
Satanic Bible’ by Anton LaVey.
Just to address the question of method acting and ritual performance.
If I decide to complete a Destruction Ritual, then I am doing it because I am
filled with anger and hatred for someone, and I have decided that creating a
ritual to destroy my enemy is warranted.
I don’t actually have to psyche myself up, or pretend I am an actor getting
ready to play a part. The destruction ritual takes place, as a direct result,
of my already existing anger and hatred. I’m not playing a part. I am angry to
start with, so I do a destruction ritual.
This is the same approach, whether I’m performing a lust ritual or a
compassion ritual, or any other type of operative ritual, where I am seeking a
certain outcome. Those feelings are already there. The ritual is just designed
to express those genuine, pre-existing feelings, in the most meaningful form
possible.
Just in regards to theism and its place in satanic ritual, as per LaVey’s
Satanic Bible. I have included a quote from the approved introduction to TSB,
written by Wolfe.
‘The intent of some of these secret orders was to blaspheme, lampoon
the Christian
church, and address themselves to the Devil as an anthropomorphic deity
that represented the
reverse of God. In LaVey's view, the Devil was not that, but rather a
dark, hidden force in nature
responsible for the workings of earthly affairs, a force for which
neither science nor religion had
any explanation.’
There is a lot of content in this quote, but please note this part of
the quote: ‘…a force for which neither science NOR RELIGION had any
explanation.’
Religion has no explanation for this force in nature, which is the
devil. That is an important point.
In my view, it is the habit of religion, particularly the
Judeo-Christian tradition, to believe that prayer and magical ritual is an
appeal to a higher conscious power i.e., a deity, such as God, or Satan, or
angels, or demons, etc., for assistance or for the granting of wishes.
But TSB states that the devil is not an anthropomorphic deity. It is
something else, but religion cannot account for it, religion cannot describe it.
But if that is the case and religion (and science) cannot describe it
or properly account for it, then what is it? And moreover, why would you ever employ
ritual language and processes, which suggests that the devil is an
anthropomorphic deity?
The answer, as I read TSB: we are dealing with a force in nature, and
that further, it is dark and hidden i.e., it is an occult force. Either it is
virtually indescribable i.e., it is mystical in nature, or you can employ
language to describe it and influence it in some way i.e., it is esoteric. I think
it is a bit of both.
The sorts of language, or aesthetics, or forms of representation used
to frame the ritual, are all we human beings have, as far as using a set of
tools to access and direct this occult force. It is what we have come up with
historically, to either name and influence this devil, as an anthropomorphic deity,
or as an occult force in nature.
You have to use what you think is the most appropriate tools for
communing with this force and using or directing it. There is always a problem
with the connection between the semiotic sign and the referent when you are
doing magic – it is a big problem of esotericism. But if you subscribe to LaVey’s
view then surely the form of representation and terminology used must account
for the inadequacy of traditional religious terminology and aesthetics in
naming and describing and manipulating this force. I think LaVey acknowledged
this, or that is the way it seems to me, when you study the history of his
rituals and aesthetics.
Anyway, how do you tell if the ritual has worked and you have connected
with this dark force and used it well? You have to perform the ritual and judge
it pragmatically – what are its effects, if any? Did you achieve the outcome?
Did it not work?
