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

To: alt.satanism
From: xeper@aol.com (Xeper)
Subject: Re: Authority, Satanism and Setian Philosophy
Date: 25 Jan 1999 02:36:41 GMT

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article <78cmbs$93u@bolt.sonic.net>,
tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com  (nocTifer) wrote:

>I have often wondered why Setians bother with the Satanist
>community at all, given the predominant focusses (usually
>Judeochristian or folkloric) which would seem a waste of 
>your time.  perhaps you can address this from your 
>perspective?

Briefly: (1) The Temple of Set is the evolutionary
continuation of the original Church of Satan, hence
respects that heritage. (2) Western religious culture
is predominantly Judaeo/Christian, and many
potential Setians find their way to the Left-Hand
Path by first becoming curious about the significance
of "Satan". (3) Because of its historic ties with modern
Satanism _per se_, the Temple is largely identified in
the public eye as a "Satanic" religion. Although to us
this is "putting the cart before the horse",  we nonetheless
must explain, then correct that stereotype in public forums.

>why couldn't you consider
>the Temple of Set to be rooted in the authority of the
>Prince of Darkness with the admission that other organizations
>MIGHT be so ordained by this same deity?  what gives you the
>impression that the priesthood surrounding this god ought to be
>managed by a central authority, should be, in this day and age,
>subjected to rivalrous disputes, and can only be mediated by 
>your organization?

The founders of the Temple of Set understood its mandate
as expressed in the _Book of Coming Forth by Night_ to
be an exclusive one, which would be validated by the
sincerity and successes of the Temple in the years to come.

Yes, it is possible that there could be other such vehicles.
They too would require a similar sincerity and sense of
purpose, and likewise would be tested over a period of
time.

We have indeed seen over the years that metaphysical
schools of thought directed towards the principles of
the Prince of Darkness can use non-Egyptian iconography:
for instance that of ancient north Europe and the persona
of Odin. As the Temple has matured, we have become
more sensitive to such cultural differences, and
respectful of the key similarities they illuminate all
the better.

>I'm open to hearing what you think Set likes.

Existence and reflection. Existence in the sense
that it is innate in the _neter_ or Form of isolate
consciousness to affirm itself constantly and
continuously. Reflection in the sense that this
[general] Form has remanifested itself in the
[particular] self consciousnesses of intelligent
beings, who by *their* affirmation of identity
recognize the _neter_ behind the entire
phenomenon.

To borrow Nietzschean terminology, this
is "beyond good and evil" insofar as Set is
beyond all moral conventions and issues.
Such matters are for individual conscious
beings to address for themselves, that they
may survive and even cooperate in one
another's presence.

>do you think that Setians all agree with your
>assertion about the unchallenged authority of
>the Temple?

As I have expressed it above, I think they do.
But they are not required to, and I daresay
many simply don't feel the need for a stand
on it one way or another, assuming that the
Temple will deal rationally and fairly with
any LHP phenomena it encounters, whether
internal or external.

>aren't there Setians who are not part of the ToS?
>or do you refuse to acknowledge that they have
>any kind of similar relationship with the Prince
>of Darkness?

We customarily use the term "Setian" to refer to
a current Initiate of the Temple, and the initiatory
degree titles also refer to formal Recognition within
the Temple _per se_.

Of course many persons who have left the Temple,
usually quite graciously, have taken whatever they
have awakened and strengthened within themselves
into their further adventures. We would certainly
respect Setian *qualities* within such individuals,
but I don't think we would formalize them as
"Setians", nor by the titles of the Temple degree
system.

>in fact, I would go so far as to say that religion and
>Satanism are truly incompatible in the sense of religion as
>organized spirituality. the Satanist is self-derived, 
>individualistic, and will tend to be abrasive of the 
>organizations of which she is part (as well as potentially 
>make the best member, since the org which can encompass hir 
>will have demonstrated its merit and warrant hir fierce 
>loyalty).

I tend to regard "religion" as an ideological term used
to simplify metaphysics for persons incapable of
_Dianoia_ or _Noesis_ (i.e. pure philosophical
reason and suprarational apprehension of the
_neteru_). Such an ideological term is also used
to "translate" an initiatory vehicle like the
Temple of Set into something more simplified
that can be comprehended by profane society.

At the level of such profane ideology, "Satan"
can be used in many ways - from the literal to
the symbolic, from the good to the bad, from
the artistic/creative to the wantonly destructive.

Within this spectrum are the "antisocial
individualists" you identify above, who,
probably because of the rock-music
glamorization of "Satan" in the 80s, chose
to fixate on that icon and to prop poor old
Anton up again to give them a sort of
quasi-intellectual legitimacy. That in turn
fed his hunger for self-glamorization, hence
the bizarre situation of anarchic confusion we
see in "Satanism" as such today.

Michael A. Aquino, Ph.D.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2

iQA/AwUBNqvYMmRWyNykJwrDEQJghgCdG/oNpY8PfKY9X4qj/SjVCDa7YXAAoOI+
5a+gn6ntzGRlq2ypnjltpaH3
=5+rX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----