Author Topic: Why Set Would Not Be "God"  (Read 542 times)

Setamontet

Why Set Would Not Be "God"
« on: August 30, 2017, 02:59:18 pm »
In my understanding, the Prince of Darkness, known to Setians as the Egyptian god/Neter Set, is the Ageless Intelligence of this Universe, the Highest of Life who with the force of His/Its own mind and will could recreate the Cosmos in his own image and become in essence the new "God"/Order of the Cosmos.

Set, however, is the First Principle of Isolate Intelligence, the supreme manifestation of the Prince "First" of Darkness, the spiritual essence of singular identity and independent conscious existence.

If Set were to become "God", if Set were to him Self displace the Cosmic Inertia, He/It should be forced to become a new measure of consistency. Set would cease to be One, singular, for He/It should become All.  He would lose all that makes him a unique consciousness as he would be responsible for the new All, the new Cosmic Inertia, Set would lose his very identity.

It is a theory that when Set understood this paradox he created others of the Black Flame, i.e., Gifting that which would become mankind, in order to cancel this imbalance.  Leaving a Void in which true creation could take form not just as Set but also as the individual minds and wills of the kindred of the creative fire.  Spawning other beings to collaborate with him in the re-creation of the Universe in new, unique, and unpredictable forms.  The coming into being of individuality in metaphysical existence.

Hence, Set would remain One, singular, and not the All responsible for the re-creation of the Cosmos, i.e. the new "God", the new Cosmic Order of things. Set does not seek to be the omnipresent manifestation of all things; but rather exalts and nurtures the singular presence of his own unique mind and will, and that of his own kind, us.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2017, 12:59:40 pm by Setamontet »

"O learn the Law, my brothers of the night - the Great Law and the Lesser Law.
The Great Law brings the balance and doth persist without mercy.
The Lesser Law abideth as the key, and the Shining Trapezoid is the door!" - Anton LaVey

Xepera maSet

  • O.S. Co-Founder
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 1660
  • Total likes: 1819
  • Eternally Grateful to Our Forum Members; HAIL YOU!
    • View Profile
    • My Book on Setianism
Re: Why Set Would Not Be "God"
« Reply #1 on: September 21, 2018, 04:16:04 pm »
Bump

"The Dragon became as a many-headed Serpent,
It's fiery tongues bearing forth speech
Into all the kingoms of the Earth."


My book, "Behold: the Prince of Darkness!": https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1726037460/ref=dbs_a_w_dp_1726037460

Kapalika

Re: Why Set Would Not Be "God"
« Reply #2 on: September 22, 2018, 05:41:06 am »
Why is consciousness associated with darkness instead of light?


It's reversed in my system where darkness is destruction and physical and light is creation and abstract,
the latter including consciousness (although dark and light manifest in consciousness as well ad does destruction and creation).

Also I can understand that if an intelligence were to become only the physical reality itself it would cease it's mental attributes, even the ones that individualize it. I tend to think of this as an ultimate, total death. I kind of feel like @Setamonet was describing pandeism where in Set would die to create a new physical reality in it's own vision.

To contrast In my system this is reconciled by making the physical the expression of, rather than the whole, of the realized deity. This is what is meant by the "Shiva-Shakti" which is also the subjective and objective respectively, but also Shiva is consciousness and light and Shakti is the awareness of that light (thus also the actualizing aspect of the individualization). Shakti being the expression, and the physical, is also that which allows Shiva to individualize as distinct intelligences.

In that respect one might consider Shakti a first of darkness and the catalyst for the individual to rise, even though the individual itself will exist as a form of light that also contains light and darkness, is identified with god, but also is free to express Shakti as their will (ie black magick).

To back up some, I do think a "death" of sorts may of happened to a deity to create this physical universe, a pandeism of sorts, but perhaps not totally dead. However I believe this is not necessarily our destiny as well.

Is there any comparison to this? Anyone have any thoughts?
« Last Edit: September 22, 2018, 05:46:16 am by Kapalika »
https://kapalika.com

My religion is Satanism & Trika via Vāmācāra

"God and the individual are one. To realize this is the essence of Shaivism." - Swami Lakshmanjoo

Xepera maSet

  • O.S. Co-Founder
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 1660
  • Total likes: 1819
  • Eternally Grateful to Our Forum Members; HAIL YOU!
    • View Profile
    • My Book on Setianism
Re: Why Set Would Not Be "God"
« Reply #3 on: September 22, 2018, 06:15:22 am »
For me it refers to the Stellar Tradition, where the north stars were recognized for their separation from the cycles of nature. Technically stars are still "light", but in Setian esotericism light is equated with the Solar Tradition.

"The Dragon became as a many-headed Serpent,
It's fiery tongues bearing forth speech
Into all the kingoms of the Earth."


My book, "Behold: the Prince of Darkness!": https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1726037460/ref=dbs_a_w_dp_1726037460

Onyx

Re: Why Set Would Not Be "God"
« Reply #4 on: September 22, 2018, 04:21:15 pm »
Quote
Why is consciousness associated with darkness instead of light?

I hope to do a more academic survey of my thoughts on the matter eventually, but this is what I have for now (going on memory here for the most part).

Darkness (and Set as a representative) are good symbols for consciousness and self-awareness because those things are hidden and not directly measurable. Set disturbs the cycles of birth and death, for example:

Quote
You whom the pregnant goddess [Nuit] brought forth when you clove the night in twain - you are invested with the form of Set, who broke out in violence.

This notion that Set is a "bornless one" lends to his depiction in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs and artwork. No Earthly animal could serve as an icon for Set, as he is an initiator of unnatural, chaotic, or otherwordly things.

There were many different illustrations but with some common similarities (see Seth God of Confusion). A geometric representation has also been used which means "to separate" (the symbol used for administrators on this forum). And indeed that is what he does in the story of Set vs. Apep:

Quote
As for me, I am Set, the strongest of the Divine Company. Every day I slay the enemy of Ra [Apep] when I stand at the helm of the Barque [boat] of Millions of Years, which no other god dare do.

He defends the separation between the stellar and solar. Despite Apep being stellar himself, he uses a magical "evil eye" to hypnotize Ra. Set is not the only deity who defends Ra, but since he is stellar in nature himself, Apep's gaze is ineffectual.

Why might Set defend Ra? While both Set and Apep are chaotic in nature, Set makes intelligent decisions instead of engaging in pure mindless destruction. By slaying Apep he maintains the separation required for isolate intelligent self-awareness to continue. So as @Xepera maSet has said, he is indeed the "Hero of Consciousness".

Liu

Re: Why Set Would Not Be "God"
« Reply #5 on: September 22, 2018, 04:38:51 pm »
Quote
Why is consciousness associated with darkness instead of light?
Darkness (and Set as a representative) are good symbols for consciousness and self-awareness because those things are hidden and not directly measurable.
I associate consciousness with darkness due to it being the featureless nothing by which everything is perceived. Light is not what sees but what is seen when it fills darkness.
Due to the combination of both, self-awareness can come to be.

Setamontet

Re: Why Set Would Not Be "God"
« Reply #6 on: September 22, 2018, 05:05:25 pm »
It is from out of Darkness that all creation, enlightenment, understanding Comes Into Being.  Darkness is the First Principle.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2018, 05:07:55 pm by Setamontet »

"O learn the Law, my brothers of the night - the Great Law and the Lesser Law.
The Great Law brings the balance and doth persist without mercy.
The Lesser Law abideth as the key, and the Shining Trapezoid is the door!" - Anton LaVey

Kapalika

Re: Why Set Would Not Be "God"
« Reply #7 on: September 23, 2018, 03:46:00 am »
Quote
Why is consciousness associated with darkness instead of light?
Darkness (and Set as a representative) are good symbols for consciousness and self-awareness because those things are hidden and not directly measurable.


I associate consciousness with darkness due to it being the featureless nothing by which everything is perceived. Light is not what sees but what is seen when it fills darkness.
Due to the combination of both, self-awareness can come to be.


Both of these posts have clarified it for me. I see it as that being the dark aspect of consciousness, however. I see the LHP as embracing that part.


It is from out of Darkness that all creation, enlightenment, understanding Comes Into Being.  Darkness is the First Principle.


I agree, and that lines up with how I'd see Kali / Satan. Shiva, associated with light, is only one half of the shiva-shakti (light-darkness). [edit: of consciousness that is]


I've always thought of the Black Flame as a light-darkness symbol [edit: of ourselves that is, with a focus on darkness]. Would this be accurate? Or is it only darkness?
« Last Edit: September 23, 2018, 05:21:40 pm by Kapalika »
https://kapalika.com

My religion is Satanism & Trika via Vāmācāra

"God and the individual are one. To realize this is the essence of Shaivism." - Swami Lakshmanjoo

Liu

Re: Why Set Would Not Be "God"
« Reply #8 on: September 23, 2018, 10:55:36 am »
I agree, and that lines up with how I'd see Kali / Satan. Shiva, associated with light, is only one half of the shiva-shakti (light-darkness).
Heh, both ways to put those two dualisms together make sense.
Shiva is consciousness and therefore darkness as I explained above.
So Kali as that what consciousness is aware of (existence, the world, the material, the psyche,...) would then be light. But at the same time it also includes those parts of existence that consciousness can not perceive, e.g. the subconscious, which could therefore also be likened to darkness.
And since one can only perceive those things that are within one's consciousness, associating that with light isn't completely off either.
If we assume that consciousness is in everything, then there would be no part of existence completely hidden, though, so in that theory, consciousness/Shiva as darkness and existence/Kali as light would fit better.
Ultimately, it's only metaphors anyway, but quite powerful ones.

I tend to rather equate/associate Satan with the Shiva aspect, but it certainly is both in a way.

Quote
I've always thought of the Black Flame as a light-darkness symbol. Would this be accurate? Or is it only darkness?
Very much depends on what you mean by the black flame as it has been used to refer to a variety of things (one's true will, self-awareness, consciousness, the subconscious, the core of one's personality...). But following what I just wrote above, I'd rave around that it's the combination of and balance between one's darkness and light aspects in the definitions above.

Etu Malku

Re: Why Set Would Not Be "God"
« Reply #9 on: September 23, 2018, 08:17:29 pm »
The OP was a stellar explanation for Set as the Prince of Darkness . . . kudos!