Author Topic: Is Michael Aquino's Argument for Set the same one as the one that was posted on  (Read 633 times)

Ave Lucifugus

  • Guest
Is Dr. Michael Aquino's argument for Set the same as "Comprehensive Argument for Set" by Xepera MaSet? Or are there any differences? If so, what are they?

(I don't have Mind Star, and I can't get it at the moment).
« Last Edit: January 28, 2018, 12:07:53 am by pi_ramesses »

Xepera maSet

  • O.S. Co-Founder
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 1722
  • Total likes: 1896
  • Eternally Grateful to Our Forum Members; HAIL YOU!
    • View Profile
    • My Book on Setianism
I don't remember Dr. Aquino making an official argument for Set, not in actual logical form. The Comprehensive Argument for Set is absolutely my own, and needs an update sometime soon.

"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!":

Frater V.I.M.

I wouldn't expect to find Aquino trying to give a fully "logical" argument for the existence of Set. Here's a bit of excerpts from a 600 Club thread where Aquino is stressing how logical, empirical arguments are simply neither here nor there in regards to metaphysical realities:

"Each isolate self-consciousness is a particularization of the 'neter not of the neters,' whom Setians identify as Set. This is why you and I as selves are not subject to Natural Law except where our bodily devices are concerned. It is not accurate to say that 'Set creates individuals', because that implies OU-time. Each of us is more precisely 'a particularization or manifestation of a generality'. . . . 'epistemology' and 'validity' . . . are referentially within the OU: applications of logic and the scientific method. In metaphysics you are in the realm of enlightened intuition and noesis."

So to Aquino, as far as I've ever been able to really gather, the "logical" part of the argument is that we have consciousness, and therefore there must be a source of it. And that source must be like the type of consciousness we have, which is abstract and unbound by "natural" law. As far as the identification of that source as Set, and the apprehension of Him, that part is beyond any sort of logical test or objective proof, and is something that one either apprehends mystically and spiritually or one simply doesn't.
"The old gods did not die, they fell into Hell and became devils.”
- Anton LaVey

Frater Sisyphus

  • Guest
Tell me if I'm wrong (I want to understand more), I'm drawing a few potential connections here:

Set is the subconscious, the 5th dimension (according to Aquino). Consciousness is what makes time possible?
The Mauve Zone is the place/state between conscious and subconscious.
Nuit, Hadit and Ra-hoor-kuit are metaphorical personifications/deifications of both space/manifestation, duality, the aeons (and more.)

So Set is the missing piece of the magical puzzle, in several ways and the aspect that our Will is realized and to which rituals and workings derive their personally transformative power?