Author Topic: The Sethian Dilemma – Mogg Morgan  (Read 98 times)

Xepera-maSet

  • Guest
The Sethian Dilemma – Mogg Morgan
« on: December 13, 2019, 01:04:02 am »
https://www.academia.edu/28237313/The_Sethian_Dilemma_-_two_ways_of_viewing_an_ancient_Seth

I haven't finished this but am enjoying it. It's a look at both Griffiths' and Te Velde's interpretations of Set, both Aquino and Grants, and how everyone influenced each other in this area

Fun fact the Typhonian Trilogies and ToS happened in 3 years of each other. Something was reaching out!


Xepera-maSet

  • Guest
Re: The Sethian Dilemma – Mogg Morgan
« Reply #1 on: December 13, 2019, 03:16:02 am »
Like I've thought for a long time, I started at Set with Grant/Levenda and it always comes back to it. This actually clarified a lot:

Michael Aquino, head of the reconstructed Temple of Set is scornful of Grant’s attempts to connect “Set with Crowley’s philosophy in general and Aiwass in particular.”11 Aquino cites Grant’s introduction to The Magical Record of the Beast 666,12 published in 1972 and his Aleister Crowley and the Hidden God, published in 1973.13 Not that Aquino disliked the equation Shaitan/Satan equals Seth; merely that he is felt this is an unwarranted imposition on what he sees as the essential “Osirian” mythology of “Liber AL vel Legis”.14

“Crowley practically ignored Set, except for an occasional mention of the god in an Osirian mythic context. In his principal discussion of the Devil on page 296 of Magick, for instance, he does not even include Set.”15

Nevertheless it is possible that Kenneth Grant’s published theories concerning Seth and Shaitan did indeed have an influence in the years between their publication circa 1972 and the foundation of the Temple of Set in 1975. But there are other important publications to be discussed below that was equally if not more significant. Whatever the source, the Temple of Seth has since its foundation, played a major role in the subsequent popularisation of Seth amongst neo-pagan groups. So much so that the uniformed habitually assume any expression of interest in Seth is an admission of connection with Temple of Seth. In fact, since the 1970s there have been other styles of Sethian, most of whom do not have very much in common with TOS.16

In other words these two book encapsulate two rival theories about the origins and indeed nature of the God Seth. The temple of Seth, and to be fair many other readers, have tended to follow TeVelde’s interpretation from that time onwards. In my opinion they have neglected an important and valid ancient voice of Seth, the so-called Nagada Hypothesis. Since their publication a whole new wave of academic studies on Seth have appeared, crucial amongst them being Eugene blah, which if anything have swung the pendulum more in favour of Gwyn-Griffiths view – Seth was always “God of Power and Might” and remained so largely throughout his history.

These kinds of arguments also divide modern neo-pagans trying to revive the cult of Seth: it might be that the post-modern Temple of Set favours myths where Seth is a predatory, malign personification of evil rather like their view of Satan. But there is also a sizable levee of other “Sethians” who lean toward the idea of an archaic Seth, who can represent the passionate, sexual, shadow side of our personalities without being in any way bad. Some form of the “Nagada hypothesis” is favoured by more liberal devotees of Seth.44