THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
	a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects.

To: alt.satanism
From: crueltreat@aol.com (CruelTreat)
Subject: Re: Re; Satanic Morals
Date: 9 Jan 1999 21:13:12 GMT

jane7 wrote:

>Sure, but it can still be said to contain an inherent philosophical weakness
>because it relies on the existence of that which it opposes. It relies
>tacitly on values developed by Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

I think Satanism is connected to J/C only in the emergent phase, and that is
simply because people use it as a vehicle to help shake off the Christian
baggage.  Many people never seem to make it past this phase, or using it as an
identity-crutch to add some spice to their otherwise lackluster lives.  However
this is less a matter of weakness in the philosophy than it is the fact that
anything remotely potent or marketable is snatched up by personality-starved
hordes who then proceed to pollute the perception of it with their inane
ramblings (see: alt.satanism).  The philosophical underpinnings of Satanism of
course go back centuries, although they weren't recognized by that name.  If
the totality of the perception of Satanism is a way of smacking around J/C
morality then your assumption is quite correct.  However I think any sincere
explorer will in fact grasp the forward-thinking model and reject the blasphemy
or clubhouse mentality in favor of something more personal and productive. 
However this number is small.  I for one have no use for, or interest in,
Christian values, as I think a review of my other posts will show, and likewise
I have no interest in being a Satanic Fraternity, preferring to move on my own,
and working with those I feel a natural kinship with.

 >That's not a
>"problem," per se; it just means Satanism isn't (as of yet) a full-fledged
>philosophical system in the way those other religions are.
>
Well, given the fluid nature of the "morals" embraced by those other systems, I
certainly consider Satanism to be a more realistic view.  As far as it being a
"full-fledged philosophical system" I agree that it isn't yet, as it is in a
state of continual development.  However people who are serious about exploring
its history certainly have an ever-growing body of work to draw from as more
and more people begin to explore the by-ways of diabolica.  Of course those
explorations don't take place on this forum.  But yes, we have more work to do
in order to make Satanism a more refined view.  However that work is always in
progress.


>> This does not take into account that societal training is not the only for
>of
>> emotional stimuli people react to.  One of the things Anton LaVey set
>forward
>> with Satanism was that people have genuinely natural inclinations which
>needed
>> to be reconnected with through the use of ritual mixed with rationale.  In
>> this, the CoS has been quite successful, and its members seem to have a
>clear
>> grasp of this.
>
>Oh, I agree. I'm not out to 'bash' satanism at all; I find many of its ideas
>very fruitful. I've just been spending a fair amount of time lately thinking
>about the utility of dichotomies such as good vs. evil. LaVey's exaltation of
>the "natural" is interesting, but he really didn't develop it enough. That's
>to be expected, since he was an artist/guru rather than a philosopher.

Dr. LaVey's exaltation of the carnal as something to be as cherished (if not
more so) as what is commonly referred to as "spirituality" is, in my opinion,
central to advancing as a magician, if only because too much so-called magick
is dependent on spacey, detached bullshit.  However it is my understanding and
belief that the glorification of the carnal and the ego is the beginning of the
Satanic "experience" not the end.  Although where one goes once those needs are
fully embraced and reconciled (and we must remember that it is man's
unnaturally divided nature which Satanism seek to bring together, the crippling
dualism that is the core of the Western poison) is a matter of personal choice
and interest.



>> Your statement is working on the assumption that Satanist don't consider
>love,
>> empathy and altruism natural, which in fact we do.
>
>I don't remember TSB containing anything more than cursory mention of these
>values. Did I miss something?

I wouldn't call them "values" I would call them instincts.  "Values" are social
constructs use to guide instincts into patterns, sometimes for the good of the
larger social order, more often for bad.  Any Satanist who rejects out of hand
the innate tendencies towards love, empathy or giving is not going to be a very
helpful to their loved ones, and are most likely maladjusted misfits.
  
>> I don't think too many
>> people on this newsgroup would consider child-rearing to be unnatural, and
>in
>> fact believe that child-rearing, loving, and giving are innate instincts
>which
>> are part of our genetic makeup.
>
>I'm sure that's true. But I think their understanding of such values comes
>largely from sources other than LaVey.

Again, yes.  Instinct.  I don't need the Satanic Bible to tell me that my
children (whenever I get around to having any) will need to be cared for.  

I think you are proceeding on the assumption that Satanists derive their entire
worldview from *The Satanic Bible* as you constantly refer back to it.  If that
were the case, we would simply have to carry it around and in every social
situation, whip it out and read page such and such in order to know "how to
behave."  We are real world creatures, and react and adapt to our surrounding
with varying methods and with varying degrees of success.  Satanism is our
vehicle for connecting with the shadowy areas which are for the most part left
out of the noise of day to day life; a belief system and set of standards and
practices which, like any religion should, provide the framework for our
survival and advancement.  I may be misinterpreting you here, so feel free to
clarify.


>> Why do we have to "justify" doing the "right thing?"  Where do you derive
>this
>> from?
>
>If doing the 'right thing' were natural, humans wouldn't have engaged in
>centuries of philosophical debates over how and why to do it. You don't need
>rules to tell you to do what comes naturally.

I would say that the majority of "philisophical debates" over the centuries
have succeeded in clouding issues in what Neitzsche referred to as "muddying
the waters in order to make them appear deep."  When you say "You don't need
rules to tell you to do what comes naturally" you are hitting a core truth. 
Social rules and norms, which are codified into "morals" and "ethics" are
supposed to make large social collectives managable in order to insure the
survival and prosperity of the social order.  When said values begin to have
the opposite effect, the undercurrent begins pulling against them, and the Few
seek out new ways.  I think this is the sort of resistance Satanists and
Satanaically-aligned types gravitate towards naturally.  Not for the sake of
being "contrary" but out of a sincere perception that something somewhere is
horribly awry.


>>Animals are extremely honorable and loyal, though in a much less
>> contrived way than humans are.  The difference is that animals don't try
>and
>> second guess or repress their instincts the way humans do.  Predatory
>animals,
>> particularly the big cats and wolves are very loyal, loving creatures who
>take
>> care of their own not out of some specious moral reasoning, but because it
>is
>> natural for them to do so.  Humans could learn a lot from that.
>
>I don't see how the species you cite can be said to have honor. Big cats and
>wolves may hang together for the sake of safety and convenience (ease of
>obtaining food, etc), but they don't make or keep promises,

I'm not a zoologist, so I can't speak with any sort of authority, and perhaps
used a poor example since I can't support it without doing research.  I will
say that I find the honesty of animals more honorable, from a human
perspective, than I do the social systems and religions that I see around me on
a daily basis.  For whatever it's worth.
 
 help their
>pack-mates in times of crisis or adhere to any higher ideals whatsoever.

What are "higher ideals?"  It seems to me that said animals are far more
committed to taking care of their young and insuring their collective survival
than the parasitical filth huddled together under the banner of "humanity."  I
concede that "honor" is not an appropriate term, but I don't think
"convenience" explains why such animals work as a unit.  Rather it is a natural
heirachy with social controls and such, which is why for instance prides of
lions or packs of wolves only grow to a certain size, and don't team up with
other ones.  When you compare that to the clog of "brotherhood" which is used
to shepherd the human herd together, I think you can see when many Satanists
find the systems of Beasts more admirable.  Indeed we all have these forgotten
tendencies towards tribalism and separatism in us, they are simply frowned upon
and discouraged in favor of "higher ideals" of socially acceptable behavior.  I
know using the word "separatism" is going to immediately make everyone think
I'm talking about race, but I'll trust that the few smart people on the ng
understand my usage of it.

>Mothers may share food with their young, but only for a short time. After a
>certain point, it's every pup for himself.

This is a problem because?  Seriously, The purpose of being a good parent is to
raise your child to be self-sufficient and to carry on the bloodline, not
because there is some Great Moral Order to it, but because survival
necessitates it.  

More later, I must go worship Satan, in the form of pizza.  I shall perform a
pepparoni working.


HAIL SATAN AND STRENGTH THROUGH ICE CREAM!  

The Emperor of Ice Cream
Member, Church of Satan

"Give any one species too much rope and you'll fuck it up."  Roger Waters

"The tears of strangers are but water..." Unknown

"If the divine Master Plan is perfection, maybe next I'll give Judas a
try/Trusting my soul to the ice cream assassin in here...here...here....say you
don't want it, this circus we're in, but you don't, don't really mean it." 
Tori Amos