Author Topic: Shouldn't Satanism be pro-cosmic?  (Read 766 times)

pi_rameses

Re: Shouldn't Satanism be pro-cosmic?
« Reply #15 on: November 26, 2017, 03:10:31 pm »
Nothing material. It seems to follow that only the consciousness (mind, or psyche) would remain provided it was cultivated. Otherwise, it would seem very dire that nothing of the self is left. So how is consciousness defined here?
Well, me, and also @Kapalika I think, consider mind and consciousness to be two separate things. Mind (or at least its content, i.e. thoughts, sensations and feelings) is caused by or a manifestation of physical processes.
Consciousness exists, too, but is nothing but awareness itself.
Therefore, I consider the mind and will to be so interrelated with the cosmos that without cosmos no will.

Others here, and also anticosmic satanists, seem to have a different view on that, considering at least parts of the mind to be not caused by the cosmos.

Right. I could see how that would lead to some differences.I'm still not sure which way I align more with. This distinction doesn't really get across when talking with materialists because they will see it as though the brain preceded consciousness and not the other way around. It is more abstract in that there will still be numbers without counting the collection of material objects. It can even be done with empty sets.

I use mind and consciousness synonymously whereas I talk of of brains, neurons or synapses when referring to physical processes. I'm not actually convinced of the ownership of my thoughts. I rarely try very hard to come up with them so I say that it came to mind or something kind of just hit me or occurred to me.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2017, 03:19:12 pm by pi_ramesses »
Pro omnis dominos viae sinistra, sic itur ad astra
Nylfmedli14

Setamontet

Re: Shouldn't Satanism be pro-cosmic?
« Reply #16 on: November 26, 2017, 04:16:24 pm »
I find the term Acosmic Satanist to be quite appropriate.  We are not anti-nature, I love nature and admire its beauty and complexity.  However, I realize that as a human being I am a creature of duality.  Physically I am of the natural order, but I am also a metaphysical entity, separate and distinct.  That is to say, on a Magical level, I am independent of and stand apart from the laws that govern the natural order.  I can choose to move with or against the current.  To take the path of least or most resistance in accordance with my own understanding and as my Will desires, to carry out and make manifest within this Universe the designs of my non-natural intellect, that is my Will to Magic.

"Arise in your glory, behold the genius of your creation, and be prideful of being,
for I am the same - I who am the Highest of Life." - The Word of Set

King Mob

Re: Shouldn't Satanism be pro-cosmic?
« Reply #17 on: November 26, 2017, 05:08:25 pm »
@pi_ramesses That conflation of mind and brain is a mistake many made and something I had to shake while taking philosophy class. Conciousness precedes the brain. Existence precedes essence.

@Liu To me, conciousness is the wode self, the black flame, true self, and don't mean this in the HGA way. It's simply the obersver. It's your conciousness that's left when you peel away all your false selfs. If you've meditated quite a bit you should have an idea of what its like, I found Yoga personally helps me to get in touch with that more but increased magickal practice will do it as well as crossing the abyss and returning from it.

In terms of Sartre, if Existence precedes Essence than your false selves are you essence where conciousness is your existence.

How do you still exist to shape the world from your void? Well, do what you're supposed to be doing as a satanic occultist. Modify your conciousness to be so strong that it can exist in the void as well as create your will.
"Be goodly therefore: dress ye all in fine apparel; eat rich foods and drink sweet wines and wines that foam! Also, take your fill and will of love as ye will, when, where and with whom ye will! But always unto me."- Nuit, Book of the Law.

Xepera maSet

Re: Shouldn't Satanism be pro-cosmic?
« Reply #18 on: November 26, 2017, 05:55:52 pm »
Setamorphosis wrote an interesting piece on Acosmic Satanism for the upcoming volume of The Imperishable Star. To me, it seems to match up with the ideology seen in works like The Diabolicon.

"But those who were of the new mind now followed me, and I turned to outermost chaos, which none of us had before presumed to dare. We were beset with doubt, for we feared that apart from God we would all perish in chaotic oblivion. But as we were, we remained, and I called to my fellowship, See! We exist and are essence in our own right. In truth we are beings independent of God, empowered to shape our own destinies as we may elect. Between the two great poles of the Universe, order and chaos, we shall stand to effect our several desires. Let us counsel how best to employ our art, for our experiment is a perilous one, forgiving error neither of intent nor of accident.

Many works did we then pursue, and the cosmic mechanism was altered by evolution of the original and unique, whose design was our decision. All that we wrought did not prove beneficent, for we did not control the futures of our creations. We left untouched the great system of mathematical behavior that gave to us a Universal reference and language, but it was our ambition that no two things should be of single identity, and that no entity should lack conceptual essence independent of its substantial form. "
AKA: Three Scarabs, 1137

"The Degradation of the Great Bear, Draco, and other types of eternity,
 proved to be the creation of Hell."
- Kenneth Grant

Mindmaster

Re: Shouldn't Satanism be pro-cosmic?
« Reply #19 on: November 27, 2017, 05:51:41 am »
You have to understand that no one holds a monopoly over Satanism. There many sects and interpretations of Satanism. You can always do research on a particular sect, see what they are about, try to understand their point of view, and never think about them again if it's not your cup of tea.

I think you are too emotional and taking everything too close to heart for your own good tbh.

Satanic identity politics are apparently a thing, for me it's "has Satan" or "doesn't have Satan". I still find it pretty silly after I think about it all these years that LaVey followers call themselves Satanists when they borrow most of their ideas from modern philosophers. We'd could just call them followers of "this or that", rather than Satanists. I still think the appropriate nomenclature is "LaVeyist" rather than Satanist, since they really have nothing to claim in that regard other than being a Devil fan club, maybe. I mean, to some extent, anyone can use that term to define themselves but it's sort of like failing to differentiate gender dysphoria from biological gender. (no offense to @Kapalika meant, this is just an example) These are obviously completely different things, and just because someone _says_ something doesn't mean it's right, represents the colloquial understanding or conventional understanding of the terminology, or even adequately reflects the underlying tenets of the philosophy.

I find anti-cosmic Satanism to be susceptible to creating paranoia, militant neo-nihilism, and other human vices that once infecting your soul make one Play-Doh in terms of being manipulated into committing heinous acts. Even the old Christian gnostics (and, I feel anti-cosmics have more in common with them) were viewed as bat shit crazy by the thinkers of their time, and probably for good reason. Detached of your bonds to the world around you, you become psychotic... Basically...

In essence, this is why I feel the anti-cosmics aren't really Satanists at all - they see only one path, wanton destruction as salvation. They basically took the Jehovah paradigm, and just tipped it on its head a little - you know Jehovah becomes Satan, Satan is the Chaos fountain, and Satan wants everything crazy so let's kill it all for him. It's absolutist and any thinking person is going to have issues with this sort of extremism of any sort, me included. It's not only irrational, but wasted energy... What good is it to fill your head with all of this garbage? :D 


Onyx

Re: Shouldn't Satanism be pro-cosmic?
« Reply #20 on: November 27, 2017, 06:02:10 am »
I know LHP's can be very opinionated, but let's tone things down a notch and be more respectful. Thanks.
Never again will I follow, I will choose my own path.

Mindmaster

Re: Shouldn't Satanism be pro-cosmic?
« Reply #21 on: November 27, 2017, 06:12:28 am »
I know LHP's can be very opinionated, but let's tone things down a notch and be more respectful. Thanks.

I have no intent to be disrespectful, but I also will not shy away from making valid points even if they sting. I paint my halls with the blood of fallen Internet warriors, er... :D I rarely seek agreement on subject matters for the express purpose of creating provocative posts. It's hard to learn anything if everyone is busy sucking each other off. Left to human nature, the sycophants take over and a forum or two is murdered silently in the night.

King Mob

Re: Shouldn't Satanism be pro-cosmic?
« Reply #22 on: November 27, 2017, 07:01:34 am »
@Mindmaster

There's a lot of logical fallacies there. First of all, Anticosmic groups are known for extremism. But that's the same as saying all Islamists are terrorists and all christians are fundamentalist and all atheists are dogmatic. It's a nice appeal to emotion for people who seek validation for their dislike of religion dislike of religion is just another dogma to be imprisoned by.

Honestly, you're using Judeocrhistian morals to deride people inversing a judeochristian philosophy which is hypocrissy. Lavey had a thing about criticizing people who play the devil's game without taking the devil's name because it sometimes it can be indicative of a fear to really root into ones upbringinging and undo brain washing(providing they were raised christian.

If you look at the Thursatru religion, which is anticosmic, they communicate with ice giants. Why wouldn't they? They are their ancestors. Odin himself seeked knolwedge from the ice-giants.

If you look into Qlipoth at all, there are arguments that this Universe B/Dark Universe/Evils are only so fucked up because we approach them with fear. If you try to access Universe B through a Kabbalistic system, of course that's gonna make things really fucked up and scary because the whole system opposes it. Maybe Universe B is just a natural part of our universe(I mean dark matter does make up a majority of it) and learn to accept the complete material world as is, you have to learn to accept Universe B, the void, and chaos as well. :)

Also, why would ANY LHP or satanist care about being in a state considered deemed insane? I thought to be an individual, you have to not give a fuck about what society thinks unless you can use their opinon to further you will.

While I don't like LaVey, Laveyans have every right to claim to be a satanist since they worship the symbol. Archetypes is quite bluntly, so fucking common it's in literally everything, and most people will know this even if they haven't read Jung or Joseph Campbell. They worship the archetpye of symbol.

I don't know why people get so wrapped up in what Satanism is or isn't. It's baffling to see so many people who believe in individualism and strengthening one's self to get so wrapped up in what others believe.

There's great advice I read on magick. Whenever you get magickal visions or whatever, ask your self "so what?" If it's not practical, it has no use. If you can't think of a reason to care, no one else will either. Do any of us really have a good anser to "So what if someone has a different philosophy on satan?" whether it be cosmic or anticosmic.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2017, 07:13:42 am by pi_ramesses »
"Be goodly therefore: dress ye all in fine apparel; eat rich foods and drink sweet wines and wines that foam! Also, take your fill and will of love as ye will, when, where and with whom ye will! But always unto me."- Nuit, Book of the Law.

King Mob

Re: Shouldn't Satanism be pro-cosmic?
« Reply #23 on: November 27, 2017, 07:25:06 am »
Honestly, I'm saying this as respectfully as possible. I saw no issue with your original comment but your last reply, if even in jest, examplifies an antagonistic attitude that entirely reframes your previous comment.

I take great issue in the way you describe open, mature, civilized debate and saying one can't learn from it. Internet keyboard warriors as you put it don't achieve anything positive in conversation for various reasons. It's fine to disagree but there's a way to voice your opinion and disagree that partakes in and moves discussion forward instead of attempting to shut down conversation and be right.

I don't think your comment actually stings anyone. I think the few Acosmicists and Anticosmicists here would agree with you, actually. And I think they'd be a lot more open to discussion if you read the original thread where these common opinion were stated and addressed and reframed in the very beginning and gave thoughts, even if negative, on the current point of conversation.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2017, 07:28:54 am by King Mob »
"Be goodly therefore: dress ye all in fine apparel; eat rich foods and drink sweet wines and wines that foam! Also, take your fill and will of love as ye will, when, where and with whom ye will! But always unto me."- Nuit, Book of the Law.

Liu

Re: Shouldn't Satanism be pro-cosmic?
« Reply #24 on: November 27, 2017, 10:38:28 am »
To me, conciousness is the wode self, the black flame, true self, and don't mean this in the HGA way. It's simply the obersver. It's your conciousness that's left when you peel away all your false selfs. If you've meditated quite a bit you should have an idea of what its like, I found Yoga personally helps me to get in touch with that more but increased magickal practice will do it as well as crossing the abyss and returning from it.
I'm not new to meditation, and I think we then mean the same thing by consciousness.
Some descriptions of the black flame etc. rather seem to be refering to one's core personality (and therefore parts of one's mind and subconscious) than to one's awareness, though.

Quote
In terms of Sartre, if Existence precedes Essence than your false selves are you essence where conciousness is your existence.

How do you still exist to shape the world from your void? Well, do what you're supposed to be doing as a satanic occultist. Modify your conciousness to be so strong that it can exist in the void as well as create your will.
Imo consciousness is really nothing but the observer. How to modify something that is basically without any characteristics (except for its scope)? Will is part of the mind, that's why I said no will in the void. I suspect what people here refer to as the void is quite far from the actual void.
Well, one could perhaps try and bind parts of one's mind+subconscious (best those that form one's core personality) more permanently to one's consciousness so they cling to it even after death. Whether that's possible (or even just a good idea), I don't know.

Also, not saying that that's the be-all-end-all instruction manual that would have to followed to the iota, but as you know I've also started with Aophis/Ægishjalmur. And currently I'm quite a bit stuck at the first head since I got to delay what feels like 90% of it for now, mostly due to health reasons.

In essence, this is why I feel the anti-cosmics aren't really Satanists at all - they see only one path, wanton destruction as salvation. They basically took the Jehovah paradigm, and just tipped it on its head a little - you know Jehovah becomes Satan, Satan is the Chaos fountain, and Satan wants everything crazy so let's kill it all for him. It's absolutist and any thinking person is going to have issues with this sort of extremism of any sort, me included. It's not only irrational, but wasted energy... What good is it to fill your head with all of this garbage? :D
While this might be true for some, you can't really look into their heads. What I've read in regards to anticosmic literature (e.g. the books of Vexior) seems pretty non-dogmatic to me, at times bordering on chaos-magick in terms of how much the myths are mere tools.
Sure, once you get into their myth and ritual sections they give off the impression of dogmatism because once you are in a paradigm it makes often no sense to change to another one before you are done using it.
And at least in determination, anticosmicists seem, on average, to be taking the lead, so it can't be that bad an idea.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2017, 12:35:03 pm by pi_ramesses »

Kapalika

Re: Shouldn't Satanism be pro-cosmic?
« Reply #25 on: November 27, 2017, 11:32:25 am »
Quote
So I don't see how "opposition", or Satan, whatever you want to call it... how it can be anything but cosmic.

Pardon me if I am wrong on your words on this, but are you saying that you view Satan to be cosmic? Meaning existing outside of the Physical Universe? Or not? I am just curious.

I am not the kind of person to invent my own definitions. Though for the sake of clarity the definitions below are the sense I use them in. To what extent I see "cosmos" or "cosmic" as harmonic is related directly to my belief that it's a harmony of opposing forces. It's chaos in harmony and harmony in chaos. I don't think one can be had or defined without it's relation to the other and so they are interdependent and expressions of opposition (Satan).

However the term "cosmos" does connotate the Universe as well as things pictured as operating without locality that govern it (which some might mentally picture as "outside" thus where the concept of harmony comes into play. Although I don't think it's "outside" as that just increase the size of the Universe to include it)

Merriam Webster "Cosmic":

a : of or relating to the cosmos, the extraterrestrial vastness, or the universe in contrast to the earth alone. ie cosmic radiation

Merriam Webster Cosmos:

1 a : universe 1
b (1) : an orderly harmonious systematic universe — compare chaos (2) : order, harmony
2 : a complex orderly self-inclusive system


Merriam Webster "Universe::

1. : the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated : cosmos: such as
a : a systematic whole held to arise by and persist through the direct intervention of divine power


Oxford "Universe":

1 the universe; All existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. The universe is believed to be at least 10[my own note below] billion light years in diameter and contains a vast number of galaxies; it has been expanding since its creation in the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago.

[Side note, not sure where they got the figure 10 billion since we can see at last 11+ billion LY away (when the light was sent) so it's possible they meant radius. However due to inflation some calculations put that figure more at around 45+ billion LY given what we are seeing 11+ billion LY was how it as 11 billion years ago, relativistic effects non-withstanding.]

Oxford "Cosmos":

1The universe seen as a well-ordered whole.
‘he sat staring deep into the void, reminding himself of man's place in the cosmos’


So if conciousness is eternal why would we want to destroy the universe? To create a new one where the desires we have are manifested are real!  :mrgreen: One could argue that we already do that each time we do an act of magick but the Draconians like to take it to the next level. In that system, crossing the abyss is not a permanent thing like Buddhist Nirvana but something you can then use to increase your magick with symbolism or use to not give a fuck when the world as it is displeases you.

Well, thank you for a clarification.

I think though that what you are saying isn't total destruction but actually recreation and so more so in my view it's not anticosmic, but part of the regular process of the Cosmos. For someone to tell me they want to destroy the Universe or Cosmos, it seems to imply they want to destroy all of existence but I'm aware that's usually not meant.

However... back to what I said about the gnostics and Christians... you want to basically remake the world. How is that different from the Christian beliefs about Revelations where there will be a "new Heaven and a new earth"? Since there are many people aiming for that goal I don't see how that would be reconciled among all the different wills. In Christianity it's said that people will take on a new nature and so be in agreement with their god who recreates the world. Does your view have any analog to that type of reconciliation?

I have to agree with @Setamorphosis on this one. There's no one dictionary of any system. It's useless to debate definitions and semantics all the time when we can be doing the work.  :D Not to say we don't all get distracted by arguments sometime.

On one hand, there is freedom of interpretation of/with aesthetics, but my contention isn't that but more along the lines of this analogy;

We are both reading one book, one of us is basically an expert in it who's studied their entire life the history, culture and context in reference to other sects and practices that that book was written in along with the historical interpretations and developments of it throughout the ages to present day. They may have their own interpretation of the information or have their own development from that "lineage of thought" but it's rooted in all of that previous understanding, not just modern. So they have the most accurate complete picture.

Then another has a moderate understanding some or most of that, but mostly is concerned with the modern interpretation either as the "correct" interpretation revealed to them or as thinking it was the original interpretation. Their picture is less accurate and/or complete but their understanding is part of a tradition (although not as old) and is to varying degrees "valid" within the context of more recent developments.

Then the third and last is concerned mostly with modern interpretations, and dabbles in many interpretations and contexts throughout history cherry picking what they like. Since they are concerned with aesthetics many of them don't bother with a fuller understanding, preferring to see it in only the context of their own time and culture, no matter how young. They may have very bizarre ideas more close to Media depictions (often by those with no understanding, only to be used as stereotypes or tropes) or pop culture than any real understanding. This understanding may confuse, mischaracterize or obscure the above two understandings but more so the first which is the most authentic and valid.

So, the first I find to be the most valid interpretations. Even within there one could have very different views but it also is acknowledging that there is some "noise" and what some in that group might accept as important texts might vary. The second group is typically following views espoused by the current orthodoxy and in their own way is valid by sheer history and amount of adherents and accumulated literature even if they may sometimes espouse a revisionist history. The third however is much more revisionist, inherently destructive of knowledge (in my view). They often just make up stuff, more or less and confuse the topic more by adding another layer to the complex system already in the previous two, which wouldn't be bad if it wasn't just appropriating stuff from everywhere without respect for an authentic understanding or taking it totally out of context.

I find every belief system and practice has its own benefits that you can discover by either a scholarly study or immersion in their belief. But that is my personal opinion and will not work for everyone, it is rather liberating for me though and I like to advocate for personal liberation in general.

I find it very hard to imagine Mormonism or ISIL's version of Islam to be of much liberation or value.

You can also understand a lot of your own beliefs you might not have noticed otherwise by pretending something else. For example, we all know those evangelical athiests. Imagine if they made themself believe in evangelical christianity for a month before returning to their common belief, I'd imagine they'd act quite differently after seeing how much they act like what they despise.

Anyone can be an asshole, but I don't think you need to pretend to be a different kind of asshole to realize that you're being one.
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: Shouldn't Satanism be pro-cosmic?
« Reply #26 on: November 27, 2017, 11:57:16 am »
So, the first I find to be the most valid interpretations. Even within there one could have very different views but it also is acknowledging that there is some "noise" and what some in that group might accept as important texts might vary. The second group is typically following views espoused by the current orthodoxy and in their own way is valid by sheer history and amount of adherents and accumulated literature even if they may sometimes espouse a revisionist history. The third however is much more revisionist, inherently destructive of knowledge (in my view). They often just make up stuff, more or less and confuse the topic more by adding another layer to the complex system already in the previous two, which wouldn't be bad if it wasn't just appropriating stuff from everywhere without respect for an authentic understanding or taking it totally out of context.
While I see your point, there is one issue I have with this ranking - how to know that the tradition that the first is an expert in is actually valid and not just itself dogma conserved only due to being traditional? Not saying that this is necessarily the case in the tradition you are probably hinting at, but how would one even be able to know, let alone as an outsider to it?
One important point of Satanism is the questioning of inherited traditions, so I'm not surprised when this is actually done.

Kapalika

Re: Shouldn't Satanism be pro-cosmic?
« Reply #27 on: November 27, 2017, 12:09:08 pm »
Nothing material. It seems to follow that only the consciousness (mind, or psyche) would remain provided it was cultivated. Otherwise, it would seem very dire that nothing of the self is left. So how is consciousness defined here?
Well, me, and also @Kapalika I think, consider mind and consciousness to be two separate things. Mind (or at least its content, i.e. thoughts, sensations and feelings) is caused by or a manifestation of physical processes.
Consciousness exists, too, but is nothing but awareness itself.
Therefore, I consider the mind and will to be so interrelated with the cosmos that without cosmos no will.

Others here, and also anticosmic satanists, seem to have a different view on that, considering at least parts of the mind to be not caused by the cosmos.

Ya, I would agree with the mind/consciousness thing. The Ashuddha citta is tied to our physical brains but has some relation to the intuition and energy of the soul but it itself isn't the same as Shuddha consciousness.

Traditionally speaking Shiva Tattva is pure consciousness and shakti tattva is awareness of it and these are the "highest" totality of the Cosmos. To exert one's will to be able to even recreate the physical Universe (Shakti expression not tattva) would mean that they are recreating their own expression. That isn't anti-cosmic because you are the Cosmos at that point. Being anti-cosmic on that level would mean being against your very inherent nature as a Cosmic being.
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

Kapalika

Re: Shouldn't Satanism be pro-cosmic?
« Reply #28 on: November 27, 2017, 12:24:06 pm »
I've been here for like 2 hours replying to these posts o.0 Didn't realize it would generate this much discussion.


Right. I could see how that would lead to some differences.I'm still not sure which way I align more with. This distinction doesn't really get across when talking with materialists because they will see it as though the brain preceded consciousness and not the other way around. It is more abstract in that there will still be numbers without counting the collection of material objects. It can even be done with empty sets

Not all consciousness is necessarily of the same nature. I think that "limited" conciousness generates from matter. So it kind of goes "Universal conciousness" -> physical reality -> organic life with brains -> limited conciousness

The spiritual path is seeking out that universal consciousness and recreating the microcosm to become the macrocosm.

I find the term Acosmic Satanist to be quite appropriate.  We are not anti-nature, I love nature and admire its beauty and complexity.

Well that does clear up some of my confusion but I'd think then that can't fully be acosmic then for reasons I put in my previous two posts.

However, I realize that as a human being I am a creature of duality.

How so? Do you consider it possible that this is only one part of the equation and that perhaps we are not fully dualistic? (My view on the mind-body dualism is partly explained in my response to @pi_ramesses in this same post)

Physically I am of the natural order, but I am also a metaphysical entity, separate and distinct.  That is to say, on a Magical level, I am independent of and stand apart from the laws that govern the natural order.  I can choose to move with or against the current.  To take the path of least or most resistance in accordance with my own understanding and as my Will desires, to carry out and make manifest within this Universe the designs of my non-natural intellect, that is my Will to Magic.

I don't see how that lies outside of nature, since your desire to manifest your will is your nature which has an interdependence with the nature of your environment. To me you more described the microcosm's distinction from the macrocosm, but called the microcosm non-natural and the macrocosm natural. I don't see/understand why that distinction is being made.

@pi_ramesses That conflation of mind and brain is a mistake many made and something I had to shake while taking philosophy class. Conciousness precedes the brain. Existence precedes essence.

I'm not sure if I necessarily agree with that existential view; there's a multi-layered of reality in my view and everything on that scale "exists" even if it's fictional. However as I understand it I would half agree with it and half agree with the more ancient view that essence is more important and fundamental.

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

Kapalika

Re: Shouldn't Satanism be pro-cosmic?
« Reply #29 on: November 27, 2017, 12:41:59 pm »
Fuck. I've almost gotten lost on what I've replied to cause' I tried to reply to something non-linearly.

To me, conciousness is the wode self, the black flame, true self, and don't mean this in the HGA way. It's simply the obersver. It's your conciousness that's left when you peel away all your false selfs. If you've meditated quite a bit you should have an idea of what its like, I found Yoga personally helps me to get in touch with that more but increased magickal practice will do it as well as crossing the abyss and returning from it.
I'm not new to meditation, and I think we then mean the same thing by consciousness.
Some descriptions of the black flame etc. rather seem to be refering to one's core personality (and therefore parts of one's mind and subconscious) than to one's awareness, though.

I'd agree with Liu on this and it's basically my understanding too.

How do you still exist to shape the world from your void? Well, do what you're supposed to be doing as a satanic occultist. Modify your conciousness to be so strong that it can exist in the void as well as create your will.

The void has to exist for someone to go there, and if it exists it fits under "all of existence" and thus is part of the Universe/Cosmos.

Perhaps anti-cosmics and acosmics need to explain what this void is and it's nature/essence and their justification for their belief in it's existence. As you said yourself, existence precedes essence.

In essence, this is why I feel the anti-cosmics aren't really Satanists at all - they see only one path, wanton destruction as salvation. They basically took the Jehovah paradigm, and just tipped it on its head a little

From where I was standing at the creation of this topic, this is how it appears to me as an outsider to the idea.

- you know Jehovah becomes Satan, Satan is the Chaos fountain, and Satan wants everything crazy so let's kill it all for him.

I don't think that is quite what they believe (at least it seems some see it very differently), but that is the aesthetic it would seem to me.

Setamorphosis wrote an interesting piece on Acosmic Satanism for the upcoming volume of The Imperishable Star. To me, it seems to match up with the ideology seen in works like The Diabolicon.

Alright, I should give it a read once it comes out.

"But those who were of the new mind now followed me, and I turned to outermost chaos, which none of us had before presumed to dare. We were beset with doubt, for we feared that apart from God we would all perish in chaotic oblivion. But as we were, we remained, and I called to my fellowship, See! We exist and are essence in our own right. In truth we are beings independent of God, empowered to shape our own destinies as we may elect. Between the two great poles of the Universe, order and chaos, we shall stand to effect our several desires. Let us counsel how best to employ our art, for our experiment is a perilous one, forgiving error neither of intent nor of accident.

While I can appreciate the symbolism of this story I just don't see there being a "God" in the sense that is meant here. I can see it being anticosmic or acosmic in relation and/or rebellion to Abrahamic mythology, if that is what it is going for, but I'd find that putting the Abrahamic view too "close to center" if that makes sense.

Many works did we then pursue, and the cosmic mechanism was altered by evolution of the original and unique, whose design was our decision. All that we wrought did not prove beneficent, for we did not control the futures of our creations. We left untouched the great system of mathematical behavior that gave to us a Universal reference and language, but it was our ambition that no two things should be of single identity, and that no entity should lack conceptual essence independent of its substantial form. "

This I have to give more thought but as is, that altering would be a function of the Cosmos/Universe not inherently opposed to it, probably due to what I said above about the symbolism and "God".
« Last Edit: November 27, 2017, 01:04:33 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