Satanism and Love
Alrah
ultimately selfish.
For example, Vexen Crabtree writes:
"Love is perhaps the strongest emotion we possess. But it is
ultimately selfish; the satisfaction and feel-good that it brings is
an ultimate reward. Our instincts and needs underlie any altruistic
behaviour, especially when it comes to love. That is part of the
beauty of love... that you know your loved one loves you because it
makes them feel good. You know that they know your love is selfish,
and they are happy that you love them because it makes you feel good.
Without this hidden, deeper selfishness, Human love would have less
depth. Love is best and most beautiful when it comes from the depths
of one person and extends to another, and both know that the other
loves them for selfish reasons. We love someone because they make us
feel good and they love us because we make them feel good. This
combination is a supreme gift to our ego and helps explain why love
is
easily the most potent emotion." - http://www.dpjs.co.uk/love.html
However - I have not found any information as to how Satanism regards
Love that exists without the usual concurrent attachment. Does
Satanism even acknowledge that love without attachment (Agape) even
exists? How does Satanism reconcile the fact that, in the absense of
attachment and in the wake of proper understanding of the doctrine of
emptiness, a greater capacity and manifestation of Love is witnessed
without any of the disastrous consequences happening that Satanism
warns against for Love that is not selfish, or even 'earned'.
Ato_Zee
On 23-Nov-2009, Alrah <alrah-...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> However - I have not found any information as to how Satanism regards
> Love that exists without the usual concurrent attachment.
Maybe "Love" is the basic animal instinct to procreate.
In that sense "Satan" if such an entity exists, would seek
to further its ends, by attempting to create more followers.
Much as the Catholic Church does by banning contraception.
That contraception "might" be used in Satanism does not
detract from the underlying principle.
IMHO sex, with or without love, can distract from connecting
with the purpose of the ritual, and a ritual without purpose
tends to be more of the nature of habit, going through the
motions without understanding them, or connecting with
them, or their intent.
Bit like some of todays Xtian traditions, and they wonder
why the churches are empty and decaying.
Alrah
> On 23-Nov-2009, Alrah <alrah-pub...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > However - I have not found any information as to how Satanism regards
> > Love that exists without the usual concurrent attachment.
>
> Maybe "Love" is the basic animal instinct to procreate.
As Love can exist without any desire to procreate or engage in sex
then I don't follow you.
> In that sense "Satan" if such an entity exists, would seek
> to further its ends, by attempting to create more followers.
> Much as the Catholic Church does by banning contraception.
> That contraception "might" be used in Satanism does not
> detract from the underlying principle.
> IMHO sex, with or without love, can distract from connecting
> with the purpose of the ritual, and a ritual without purpose
> tends to be more of the nature of habit, going through the
> motions without understanding them, or connecting with
> them, or their intent.
> Bit like some of todays Xtian traditions, and they wonder
> why the churches are empty and decaying.
Engaging in sex without attachment and with love but without
attachment might be the answer. :-)
Tehiru
> However - I have not found any information as to how Satanism regards
> Love that exists without the usual concurrent attachment. Does
> Satanism even acknowledge that love without attachment (Agape) even
> exists? How does Satanism reconcile the fact that, in the absense of
> attachment and in the wake of proper understanding of the doctrine of
> emptiness, a greater capacity and manifestation of Love is witnessed
> without any of the disastrous consequences happening that Satanism
> warns against for Love that is not selfish, or even 'earned'.
While I do not claim to be a Satanic spokesman, I have read a variety
of their literature as well as knowing several socially. I concur with
your assessment that from the Satanic viewpoint all love is ultimately
a selfish act. However, I don't see how it necessarily follows that
agape (love without attachments) is necessarily outside of their
perspective. Even a purely platonic love (or in this case agape) can
still bring pleasure to the person who loves, even if that love does
not happen to be reciprocated. I would suggest that the Satanic
perspective would maintain that even in love without attachments, this
pleasure received by the person whom loves would still be understood
as selfish, and consequently valid.
Alrah
> On Nov 23, 12:27 pm, Alrah <alrah-pub...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > However - I have not found any information as to how Satanism regards
> > Love that exists without the usual concurrent attachment. Does
> > Satanism even acknowledge that love without attachment (Agape) even
> > exists? How does Satanism reconcile the fact that, in the absense of
> > attachment and in the wake of proper understanding of the doctrine of
> > emptiness, a greater capacity and manifestation of Love is witnessed
> > without any of the disastrous consequences happening that Satanism
> > warns against for Love that is not selfish, or even 'earned'.
>
> While I do not claim to be a Satanic spokesman, I have read a variety
> of their literature as well as knowing several socially. I concur with
> your assessment that from the Satanic viewpoint all love is ultimately
> a selfish act. However, I don't see how it necessarily follows that
> agape (love without attachments) is necessarily outside of their
> perspective. Even a purely platonic love (or in this case agape) can
> still bring pleasure to the person who loves, even if that love does
> not happen to be reciprocated.
Someone would have to be attached to a sense of self to be able to
feel selfish pleasure. No attachment to a sense of self = no selfish
pleasure. Love is simply manifest without an attachment towards self
or anything else.
> I would suggest that the Satanic
> perspective would maintain that even in love without attachments, this
> pleasure received by the person whom loves would still be understood
> as selfish, and consequently valid.
The Satanic perspective is somewhat ignorent then.
mika
>
> No attachment to a sense of self = no selfish pleasure.
No, that's wrong. Not having attachment to a sense of self does not
mean you no longer have a sense of self. Your sense of self still
exists, you're simply not attached to it. That's all. You still
experience "selfish pleasure", as you still experience every single
emotion, thought, feeling, sensation, whatever, that you experienced
while attached to your sense of self. The difference is in how you
interpret those experiences.
Successfully practicing non-attachment does not mean the thing you are
no longer attached to disappears. You obviously wish it did, since
that would make practicing non-attachment so much easier, but that's
not the way it works.
Alrah
> On Nov 23, 4:02 pm, Alrah wrote:
>
>
>
> > No attachment to a sense of self = no selfish pleasure.
>
> No, that's wrong. Not having attachment to a sense of self does not
> mean you no longer have a sense of self. Your sense of self still
> exists, you're simply not attached to it. That's all. You still
> experience "selfish pleasure", as you still experience every single
> emotion, thought, feeling, sensation, whatever, that you experienced
> while attached to your sense of self. The difference is in how you
> interpret those experiences.
If the sense of self is interpreting those experiences then it is
attached to those experiences.
mika
> On 24 Nov, 00:16, mika wrote:
> > On Nov 23, 4:02 pm, Alrah wrote:
>
> > > No attachment to a sense of self = no selfish pleasure.
>
> > No, that's wrong. Not having attachment to a sense of self does not
> > mean you no longer have a sense of self. Your sense of self still
> > exists, you're simply not attached to it. That's all. You still
> > experience "selfish pleasure", as you still experience every single
> > emotion, thought, feeling, sensation, whatever, that you experienced
> > while attached to your sense of self. The difference is in how you
> > interpret those experiences.
>
> If the sense of self is interpreting those experiences then it is
> attached to those experiences.
The "sense of self" doesn't interpret experiences. It's an imaginary
construct, it doesn't *do* anything. Are you really trying to claim
here that there's an autonomous being in your head that's interpreting
your experiences for you?
*You* are the one doing the interpreting. You either interpret your
experiences through a mental construct in which you believe you are
your sense of self, or you interpret your experiences independently
from that belief. The attachment lies in whether or not you are able
to do the latter.
Alrah
You're overcomplicating matters at usual.
Just stop interpreting those experiences as belonging to you.
You/Sense of self/Ego/Ordinary awareness/conventional..etc. Just
semantics.
Interptretation = any story whether accurate or not told by the above.
Tehiru
> Someone would have to be attached to a sense of self to be able to
> feel selfish pleasure. No attachment to a sense of self = no selfish
> pleasure. Love is simply manifest without an attachment towards self
> or anything else.
Are you sure? I think that it is possible for even someone who has
largely freed themselves from attachment to a sense of personal self
to feel love for someone. Feeling love makes you feel good, and you
feel pleasure in their accomplishments. So even agape could bring
pleasure and qualify as selfish, if I understand the satanic paradigm.
> > I would suggest that the Satanic
> > perspective would maintain that even in love without attachments, this
> > pleasure received by the person whom loves would still be understood
> > as selfish, and consequently valid.
>
> The Satanic perspective is somewhat ignorent then.
Perhaps, but it is also entirely possible that we don't understand
their perspective adequately. If you like, I can run it by some
Satanic associates and see if they can provide some clarity?
Tehiru
> No, that's wrong. Not having attachment to a sense of self does not
> mean you no longer have a sense of self. Your sense of self still
> exists, you're simply not attached to it. That's all. You still
> experience "selfish pleasure", as you still experience every single
> emotion, thought, feeling, sensation, whatever, that you experienced
> while attached to your sense of self. The difference is in how you
> interpret those experiences.
Perhaps identification is a better word. People identify with their
fears, their ego, their work and so forth as anchors of their
identity. With the ego as example, one can move on and stop
identifying exclusively with the ego, but the ego remains.
mika
>
> You're overcomplicating matters at usual.
heh. These matters are, indeed, complicated. They only seem
*over*complicated to you, because you are either unwilling or unable
to even try to understand them. As usual, you attempt to simplify
matters to the point of meaninglessness. This way, you don't have to
actually address any errors in your models.
Tehiru
> If the sense of self is interpreting those experiences then it is
> attached to those experiences.
Why? Just as the sense of self can move beyond the ego as it
previously went beyond identification with the mother, your sense of
self can still have these experiences without feeling exclusive
identification with them.
"I have emotions, but I am not my emotions."
Miguel Alberto
And, he wants you to do what he did as he said, "I shall exalt my throne
above the stars of God"- Isa. 14:13. He would have you even ignore the
laws of nature and science, to your absolute devastation. Satan is never
anyone's friend. He is everyone's worst enemy.
Ato_Zee
On 24-Nov-2009, gell...@webtv.net (Miguel Alberto) wrote:
> Satan is never
> anyone's friend. He is everyone's worst enemy.
If Satanic workings get results, then it matters not
whether Satan exists or not. If you feel that
Satanic workings are getting results, then that is
valid for you.
To get results that are valid for you, you obviously
have to form a link to the concept of Satan, and
in that sense he could become a friend.
Tom
>
> I think that it is possible for even someone who has
> largely freed themselves from attachment to a sense of personal self
> to feel love for someone.
Saying "I have largely freed myself of attachment" is saying "I'm
still attached to something but I want to congratulate myself on being
unattached anyway." The way of non-attachment is not a tactical
retreat but an unconditional surrender.
> Feeling love makes you feel good, and you
> feel pleasure in their accomplishments. So even agape could bring
> pleasure and qualify as selfish, if I understand the satanic paradigm.
Feeling pleasure is not selfish. Seeking pleasure is selfish. If I
want love, that's selfish. If I love, that's not selfish.
Seeking/wanting is a problem of a basic sense of inadequacy. I seek
what I do not have. If I seek pleasure, it's because I don't feel
pleasure from within, so I have to find it somewhere "out there". If
I must keep feeding myself constantly in order to stave off that
feeling of emptiness and poverty that keeps creeping up on me whenever
I am not feeding, that sort of emotional poverty/gluttony cycle is not
love. It's predation. That's not "I love my children" but "I love a
nice, juicy steak." Let's not confuse those two feelings just because
their labels are spelled the same.
Loving does not mean feeling pleasure all the time. Love is
acceptance of what is, taking the good with the bad, the pleasure with
the sorrow. It is unconditional, undemanding. There is nothing
selfish about that because there is no expectation of payment for
services rendered. If one's gestures of love are not reciprocated,
even if one's gestures of love are rejected with belligerence, that
doesn't make any difference. Love is not dependent on the reception
of gratification. One does not love because one wants pleasure. One
loves because one accepts what is.
Tehiru
> Saying "I have largely freed myself of attachment" is saying "I'm
> still attached to something but I want to congratulate myself on being
> unattached anyway." The way of non-attachment is not a tactical
> retreat but an unconditional surrender.
Barring the rare handful of people who have (as you say) surrendered
attachment, the overwhelming majority of people have varying degrees
of attachment, and in fact my statement above made no mention of
complete non-attachment. So what was your point?
> > Feeling love makes you feel good, and you
> > feel pleasure in their accomplishments. So even agape could bring
> > pleasure and qualify as selfish, if I understand the satanic paradigm.
>
> Feeling pleasure is not selfish. Seeking pleasure is selfish. If I
> want love, that's selfish. If I love, that's not selfish.
You seem to be on a somewhat parallel thread here. If love brings
pleasure (as you agree), it can still be understood within the satanic
paradigm as it has been presented. It brings you pleasure, so it is
selfish. The issue of seeking love for the pleasure it brings it an
entirely different issue.
mika
>
> It brings you pleasure, so it is selfish.
No. Experiencing pleasure is not inherently selfish. It's an
experience, that's all. Didn't you just write above that "your sense
of self can still have these experiences without feeling exclusive
identification with them"? Do you understand the words you're writing
or are you just parroting something you read somewhere, hoping that it
applies? Maybe you're so wrapped up in your issues with Tom that you
don't even realize you're contradicting yourself.
Tehiru
[Various]
We were discussing this from the satanic perspective, regarding which
Vixen Crabtree wrote "Love is perhaps the strongest emotion we
possess. But it is ultimately selfish; the satisfaction and feel-good
that it brings is an ultimate reward. Our instincts and needs underlie
any altruistic behaviour, especially when it comes to love."
Now, I equated "the satisfaction and feel-good" as the pleasure
principle. Tom made the statement that experiencing pleasure is not
selfish, but seeking it is. I regarded this as a parallel from the
topic as given, because Vixen Crabtree specifies that the satisfaction
and feel-good is the reward.
So it appears to me that the real issue is whether the satisfaction
and feel-good that comes from love is selfish, even if it is without
attachments. Again, as I previously replied to Tom the number of
people who are free from attachments is very small, which is why I
used the term "mostly free" of attachments. However, with the
definition given by Vixen even agape would be considered selfish, as
you are receiving the cookie even if you didn't ask for it.
> Didn't you just write above that "your sense
> of self can still have these experiences without feeling exclusive
> identification with them"?
Yes I did, Mika. However, the definition given above of love as a
selfish act would seem to include agape for the reasons I just
specified. And how does that statement you were kind enough to repost
in any way invalidate that?
> Do you understand the words you're writing
> or are you just parroting something you read somewhere, hoping that it
> applies? Maybe you're so wrapped up in your issues with Tom that you
> don't even realize you're contradicting yourself.
And here I thought I had made a point, Tom had replied with a point of
his own... and then you threw yourself in there. So, are you up for
joining the conversation or not?
mika
>
> So it appears to me that the real issue is whether the satisfaction
> and feel-good that comes from love is selfish, even if it is without
> attachments.
No, it's not.
"Satisfaction" and "feel-good" are emotions, and just like any other
emotion, thought or feeling, they are simply things that are
experienced. Experiences aren't inherently selfish, and having an
experience isn't selfish, as Tom explained it's the seeking of the
experience that is selfish.
There's your answer to your question about "the real issue".
> Again, as I previously replied to Tom the number of
> people who are free from attachments is very small, which is why I
> used the term "mostly free" of attachments.
What difference does it make how many people have achieved freedom
from attachments? If only a handful of people climbed a mountain, do
you no longer speak of climbing that mountain and only consider what
is involved in making it half way up?
In this context, being "mostly free from attachments" is just as
meaningful as being "not at all free from attachments". One is either
practicing non-attachment, or is not practicing non-attachment.
Defining some level of achievement of non-attachment ("mostly",
"largely", partially, whatever) is an indication that you are, in
fact, still attached, also as Tom explained in his post above.
Tom
> On Nov 24, 9:06 am, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Saying "I have largely freed myself of attachment" is saying "I'm
> > still attached to something but I want to congratulate myself on being
> > unattached anyway." The way of non-attachment is not a tactical
> > retreat but an unconditional surrender.
>
> Barring the rare handful of people who have (as you say) surrendered
> attachment, the overwhelming majority of people have varying degrees
> of attachment, and in fact my statement above made no mention of
> complete non-attachment. So what was your point?
Oh, I don't think it's as rare as all that. It's really not all that
big a deal.
Indeed you didn't mention complete non-attachment. You made it seem
as if there were some sort of qualitative difference connected to a
quantitative difference, such that spirituality is rank-ordered. In
which case, a monomaniacal obsession, such as Ahab's obsession with
the white whale, is somehow spiritually superior to having varied
interests and desires. I don't see it that way.
> > > Feeling love makes you feel good, and you
> > > feel pleasure in their accomplishments. So even agape could bring
> > > pleasure and qualify as selfish, if I understand the satanic paradigm.
>
> > Feeling pleasure is not selfish. Seeking pleasure is selfish. If I
> > want love, that's selfish. If I love, that's not selfish.
>
> You seem to be on a somewhat parallel thread here. If love brings
> pleasure (as you agree), it can still be understood within the satanic
> paradigm as it has been presented. It brings you pleasure, so it is
> selfish. The issue of seeking love for the pleasure it brings it an
> entirely different issue.
I just took the position that feeling pleasure is *not* selfish and
here you are repeating yourself again instead of responding
intelligently by explaining why you believe that feeling pleasure is
selfish.
Here is my argument why feeling pleasure is not selfish. We do not
feel voluntarily. We feel whether we want to or not. It's not a
matter of desire or indulgence of whim. Life is replete with feelings
of all sorts that arise spontaneously, automatically, regardless of
our wishes in the matter. Selfishness is a voluntary choice to put
one's own interests above those of others. Since feeling pleasure is
not a voluntary choice (whereas seeking pleasure is), feeling pleasure
is not selfish (and seeking pleasure is).
Tehiru
> "Satisfaction" and "feel-good" are emotions, and just like any other
> emotion, thought or feeling, they are simply things that are
> experienced. Experiences aren't inherently selfish, and having an
> experience isn't selfish, as Tom explained it's the seeking of the
> experience that is selfish.
>
> There's your answer to your question about "the real issue".
Unfortunately it wasn't the question. We were discussing the Satanic
context, and you are discussing your own value system.
> > Again, as I previously replied to Tom the number of
> > people who are free from attachments is very small, which is why I
> > used the term "mostly free" of attachments.
>
> What difference does it make how many people have achieved freedom
> from attachments? If only a handful of people climbed a mountain, do
> you no longer speak of climbing that mountain and only consider what
> is involved in making it half way up?
>
> In this context, being "mostly free from attachments" is just as
> meaningful as being "not at all free from attachments". One is either
> practicing non-attachment, or is not practicing non-attachment.
> Defining some level of achievement of non-attachment ("mostly",
> "largely", partially, whatever) is an indication that you are, in
> fact, still attached, also as Tom explained in his post above.
The question which has evolved (correct me here Alrah, since you
originated the thread) is whether agape, or selfless love, can be
interpreted in the Satanic context. I have suggested yes. Now, if you
have thoughts on this question, I would love to hear them. If you
don't have any thoughts on the context of this thread and prefer to
instead go where you are heading now, just let me know and I will take
a little side trip for you.
Tehiru
> On Nov 24, 1:05 pm, Tehiru <tehiru.cha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 24, 9:06 am, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Barring the rare handful of people who have (as you say) surrendered
> > attachment, the overwhelming majority of people have varying degrees
> > of attachment, and in fact my statement above made no mention of
> > complete non-attachment. So what was your point?
>
> Oh, I don't think it's as rare as all that. It's really not all that
> big a deal.
Tom, you strike me as an intelligent individual, and from your
duration on alt.magick have presumably an extensive understanding of
magick and meditation. If we consider you as an example of a
intelligent human being who has presumably spent years acquiring a
practical and theoretical knowledge of these general subjects, would
you agree? If so, do you consider yourself free from attachment?
Truly free?
> You made it seem
> as if there were some sort of qualitative difference connected to a
> quantitative difference, such that spirituality is rank-ordered. In
> which case, a monomaniacal obsession, such as Ahab's obsession with
> the white whale, is somehow spiritually superior to having varied
> interests and desires.
And what did I say that caused you to make those two judgements?
> I just took the position that feeling pleasure is *not* selfish and
> here you are repeating yourself again instead of responding
> intelligently by explaining why you believe that feeling pleasure is
> selfish.
Because as I explained to Mika, the definition given above by Vexen
Crabtree informs us that "the satisfaction and feel-good that it
brings is
an ultimate reward". Since her text is given as the core statement
that this thread is discussing. Now, if you disagree with her
statement as it was written that is one thing; however, I don't see
how I can be taken to task for actually attempting to interpret agape
within the Satanic framework when you are interpreting a statement
according to another value system entirely. Why are you interpreting
the statement according to another value system anyway?
> Here is my argument why feeling pleasure is not selfish. We do not
> feel voluntarily.
Outside certain forms of magickal practice.
> We feel whether we want to or not. It's not a
> matter of desire or indulgence of whim. Life is replete with feelings
> of all sorts that arise spontaneously, automatically, regardless of
> our wishes in the matter. Selfishness is a voluntary choice to put
> one's own interests above those of others. Since feeling pleasure is
> not a voluntary choice (whereas seeking pleasure is), feeling pleasure
> is not selfish (and seeking pleasure is).
That is a pretty fine line Tom. However, if you get a cookie as a
reward you are still getting a reward even if you didn't ask for it.
But let's look at the word "automatically" as you put above. If you
visit a friend socially and get that first hormone rush of infatuation
(which is pleasurable), are you so in tune with your feelings that
even on an unconscious level that you are not seeking pleasure?
mika
> On Nov 24, 4:42 pm, mika <mika...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Satisfaction" and "feel-good" are emotions, and just like any other
> > emotion, thought or feeling, they are simply things that are
> > experienced. Experiences aren't inherently selfish, and having an
> > experience isn't selfish, as Tom explained it's the seeking of the
> > experience that is selfish.
>
> > There's your answer to your question about "the real issue".
>
> Unfortunately it wasn't the question. We were discussing the Satanic
> context, and you are discussing your own value system.
What I'm describing is actual reality, not a "value system". Emotions
are experienced, that is reality. How one interprets or judges that
experience is the value system. As I said, twice already, experiences
aren't inherently selfish. That, again, is not my personal value
system, that is the reality of what it means to be human. Humans have
experiences. Now, the claim that a certain kind of experience is
selfish, *that* is a value system-based judgment.
>
> > > Again, as I previously replied to Tom the number of
> > > people who are free from attachments is very small, which is why I
> > > used the term "mostly free" of attachments.
>
> > What difference does it make how many people have achieved freedom
> > from attachments? If only a handful of people climbed a mountain, do
> > you no longer speak of climbing that mountain and only consider what
> > is involved in making it half way up?
>
> > In this context, being "mostly free from attachments" is just as
> > meaningful as being "not at all free from attachments". One is either
> > practicing non-attachment, or is not practicing non-attachment.
> > Defining some level of achievement of non-attachment ("mostly",
> > "largely", partially, whatever) is an indication that you are, in
> > fact, still attached, also as Tom explained in his post above.
>
> The question which has evolved (correct me here Alrah, since you
> originated the thread) is whether agape, or selfless love, can be
> interpreted in the Satanic context. I have suggested yes. Now, if you
> have thoughts on this question, I would love to hear them.
You already have. Repeatedly.
mika
>
>
> Tom, you strike me as an intelligent individual, and from your
> duration on alt.magick have presumably an extensive understanding of
> magick and meditation. If we consider you as an example of a
> intelligent human being who has presumably spent years acquiring a
> practical and theoretical knowledge of these general subjects, would
> you agree? If so, do you consider yourself free from attachment?
> Truly free?
Here you are, yet again, treating non-attachment as some kind of
achievement that a person acquires, keeps, is done with once and for
all and never needs to deal with again. Non-attachment is practiced,
it's a discipline, it's an ongoing process that you intentionally
engage in. Over time it may become easier, it may become more
unconscious, but it's still an ongoing practice. Even so-called
"Masters" may be truly free from attachment one moment, and then
experience attachment the next. That doesn't mean they're no longer a
"Master". What makes a Master is the discipline to continually
practice non-attachment. There is no such thing as a permanent state
of being "truly free" from attachments, unless, of course, you're
dead.
Tehiru
> > Unfortunately it wasn't the question. We were discussing the Satanic
> > context, and you are discussing your own value system.
>
> What I'm describing is actual reality, not a "value system". Emotions
> are experienced, that is reality. How one interprets or judges that
> experience is the value system. As I said, twice already, experiences
> aren't inherently selfish. That, again, is not my personal value
> system, that is the reality of what it means to be human. Humans have
> experiences. Now, the claim that a certain kind of experience is
> selfish, *that* is a value system-based judgment.
Gotcha. I understand you aren't going to discuss from the Satanic
context. So, what shall we discuss now?
Erwin Hessle
> But let's look at the word "automatically" as you put above. If you
> visit a friend socially and get that first hormone rush of infatuation
> (which is pleasurable), are you so in tune with your feelings that
> even on an unconscious level that you are not seeking pleasure?
Why would you seek pleasure if you're already getting pleasure? You
have your head so far up your own ass that you're repeatedly failing
to check your silly ideas against reality. As for this "we're
discussing the Satanic approach, so it's not my fault if what I'm
saying is gibberish" nonsense, you're indulging in wishful thinking on
an intergalactic scale if you think anyone's going to fall for that
old chestnut.
You've been saying an awful lot of boneheadedly stupid things, lately.
Then again, that's probably to be expected from the kind of rank
newbie who, after a whole two weeks on this newsgroup, apparently sees
himself fit to volunteer to rewrite the FAQ. In collaboration with
most consistently fucktarded and pig-ignorant person who posts here,
no less. You'd know stuff like this if you'd taken the time to figure
out what goes on here instead of being in such a big rush to run your
mouth off, and then you wouldn't look quite so much of a fool.
Seriously, now, you're in way too much of a hurry to hear the sound of
your own voice, and you're acting like a twat because of it. As should
be slowly becoming apparent to you by now, you're not going to impress
anyone here with the kind of pseudo-knowledge and hackneyed old
platitudes that you might be used to impressing yourself or some
Wiccan Facebook group with, so you may as well save yourself some
grief and quit trying.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Tehiru
> Here you are, yet again, treating non-attachment as some kind of
> achievement that a person acquires, keeps, is done with once and for
> all and never needs to deal with again. Non-attachment is practiced,
> it's a discipline, it's an ongoing process that you intentionally
> engage in. Over time it may become easier, it may become more
> unconscious, but it's still an ongoing practice. Even so-called
> "Masters" may be truly free from attachment one moment, and then
> experience attachment the next. That doesn't mean they're no longer a
> "Master". What makes a Master is the discipline to continually
> practice non-attachment.
Again with the accusation of stating it was some kind of achievement.
I never said that, did I. However, if I recall non-attachment was
previously described by Tom not as a discipline, but as a surrender.
Much of the literature I have read also describes it in various ways
as surrender as well, just as it does for what you refer to as Binah
consciousness. You are positing nonattachment as an ongoing process, a
method, a mental habit if you will. How do you reconcile this?
Incidentally, is what you have written above truly your definition of
a Master? If not, please clarify.
There is no such thing as a permanent state
> of being "truly free" from attachments, unless, of course, you're
> dead.
Some students of Buddhism might disagree with you.
Erwin Hessle
Apparently not the ill-chosen words that you seem to be now wishing
you didn't have to eat.
Why don't we discuss it from the Boot Fairy context? Love is a
function of the quality of hobnails. Apparently, according to your
logic, criticising this idea is invalid as a matter of dictat, since
if you do it, you're obviously "not discussing from the Boot Fairy
context". What you're saying here is that you either agree with the
"Satanic context", or you aren't discussing it from that context and
therefore have nothing relevant to say on the matter. That being the
case, what exactly are *you* proposing to "discuss"? You just want
everyone to post, "yeah, that's the Satanic context! Yay for the
Satanic context!" or what? Criticising that context *is* discussing
it, you fruitcake.
You're being a complete tool. All this because you spouted a load of
crap and now you don't like being called on it. What an absolutely
pitiful display of weaseling.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
mika
Jesus fucking Christ. OK, I'll spell it out for you:
If Satanists believe that love is ultimately selfish, then they
believe that love is selfish whether you experience attachment
associated with the emotion or not. That's what the word "ultimately"
means.
Besides, talk about mixing value systems! Alrah's original question
asked how Satanism reconciles their values with her own beliefs, do
you really think that makes sense? She may as well ask how
Christianity reconciles their belief that Jesus was the messiah with
the Jewish belief that the messiah hasn't yet arrived.
Alrah's original post was a bunch of meaningless babble hobbled
together in an attempt to sound thoughtful and profound. Would you
really prefer to discuss meaningless babble than have a meaningful
conversation? Or are you, yet again, trying to divert the
conversation to avoid dealing with the points I have been raising?
Erwin Hessle
> However, if I recall non-attachment was
> previously described by Tom not as a discipline, but as a surrender.
> Much of the literature I have read also describes it in various ways
> as surrender as well, just as it does for what you refer to as Binah
> consciousness.
The core of your problem here is that you read "literature" and
mistake it for reality. This isn't astrophysics, where people can
discuss research in a sensible way even if they haven't conducted the
experiments themselves. At least 99% of everything written on the
subject of the occult is absolute, pure, and unadulterated bullshit.
To attempt to engage in "academic discussion" of the occult, to
discuss ideas that you've read about as if they were real accounts of
real things that deserve serious consideration, is nothing but wanking
over a biscuit.
If you're incapable of talking about actual real things that you're
actually familiar with then you have nothing to contribute here but
yet another stream of inane and empty chatter.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Tehiru
> Why would you seek pleasure if you're already getting pleasure? You
> have your head so far up your own ass that you're repeatedly failing
> to check your silly ideas against reality. As for this "we're
> discussing the Satanic approach, so it's not my fault if what I'm
> saying is gibberish" nonsense, you're indulging in wishful thinking on
> an intergalactic scale if you think anyone's going to fall for that
> old chestnut.
the pleasure in love as selfishness and went on from there.
> You've been saying an awful lot of boneheadedly stupid things, lately.
> Then again, that's probably to be expected from the kind of rank
> newbie who, after a whole two weeks on this newsgroup, apparently sees
> himself fit to volunteer to rewrite the FAQ. In collaboration with
> most consistently fucktarded and pig-ignorant person who posts here,
> no less. You'd know stuff like this if you'd taken the time to figure
> out what goes on here instead of being in such a big rush to run your
> mouth off, and then you wouldn't look quite so much of a fool.
"You'll soon find out some wizarding families are better than others,
Potter. You don't want to go making friends with the wrong sort. I can
help you there. ..."
The idea came up to fix various issues with the old FAQs and I offered
to collate the updates. All in all, probably a few 30-minutes MS Word
sessions over a week or two. And the idea died due to lack of
interest. Why is an offer to collate revisions or additions somehow so
threatening to you?
> Seriously, now, you're in way too much of a hurry to hear the sound of
> your own voice, and you're acting like a twat because of it. As should
> be slowly becoming apparent to you by now, you're not going to impress
> anyone here with the kind of pseudo-knowledge and hackneyed old
> platitudes that you might be used to impressing yourself or some
> Wiccan Facebook group with, so you may as well save yourself some
> grief and quit trying.
8=3 says it all
mika
> On Nov 24, 6:21 pm, mika wrote:
>
> > Here you are, yet again, treating non-attachment as some kind of
> > achievement that a person acquires, keeps, is done with once and for
> > all and never needs to deal with again. Non-attachment is practiced,
> > it's a discipline, it's an ongoing process that you intentionally
> > engage in. Over time it may become easier, it may become more
> > unconscious, but it's still an ongoing practice. Even so-called
> > "Masters" may be truly free from attachment one moment, and then
> > experience attachment the next. That doesn't mean they're no longer a
> > "Master". What makes a Master is the discipline to continually
> > practice non-attachment.
>
> Again with the accusation of stating it was some kind of achievement.
> I never said that, did I.
Yes, you did. You asked Tom if he "considered himself free from
attachment", if he was "truly free". Don't play dumb here, you
clearly are treating freedom from attachment as some kind of
achievement.
> However, if I recall non-attachment was
> previously described by Tom not as a discipline, but as a surrender.
> Much of the literature I have read also describes it in various ways
> as surrender as well, just as it does for what you refer to as Binah
> consciousness. You are positing nonattachment as an ongoing process, a
> method, a mental habit if you will. How do you reconcile this?
Reconcile what? You don't surrender once and then are done with it.
Surrendering is an ongoing practice, a discipline. It doesn't matter
what word you use to describe non-attachment, my statements are still
accurate. There is nothing to reconcile.
Tehiru
> Why don't we discuss it from the Boot Fairy context?
Sure Erwin. Start that Boot Fairy thread right up and I'll do my best
to follow your thread in whatever you happen to define Boot Fairy
context to be. However, you'll have to explain in detail that paradigm
since I am not familiar with it.
Tehiru
> If Satanists believe that love is ultimately selfish, then they
> believe that love is selfish whether you experience attachment
> associated with the emotion or not. That's what the word "ultimately"
> means.
Thank you Mika for clearing that up. I had a similar thought, being
"However, with the definition given by Vixen even agape would be
considered selfish, as
you are receiving the cookie even if you didn't ask for it.".
> Alrah's original post was a bunch of meaningless babble hobbled
> together in an attempt to sound thoughtful and profound. Would you
> really prefer to discuss meaningless babble than have a meaningful
> conversation? Or are you, yet again, trying to divert the
> conversation to avoid dealing with the points I have been raising?
Why do you always go after Alrah that way? Just curious. And for the
record, I wasn't diverting the conversation from the points you were
raising. Quite the opposite, I didn't want to be diverted from the
conversation by the points you were raising.
Erwin Hessle
> On Nov 24, 6:38 pm, Erwin Hessle <er...@erwinhessle.com> wrote:> Why would you seek pleasure if you're already getting pleasure? You
> > have your head so far up your own ass that you're repeatedly failing
> > to check your silly ideas against reality. As for this "we're
> > discussing the Satanic approach, so it's not my fault if what I'm
> > saying is gibberish" nonsense, you're indulging in wishful thinking on
> > an intergalactic scale if you think anyone's going to fall for that
> > old chestnut.
>
> It's a short thread Erwin, start from the beginning. The text defines
> the pleasure in love as selfishness and went on from there.
Did you have a point? Or are you just seeking my attention?
> > You've been saying an awful lot of boneheadedly stupid things, lately.
> > Then again, that's probably to be expected from the kind of rank
> > newbie who, after a whole two weeks on this newsgroup, apparently sees
> > himself fit to volunteer to rewrite the FAQ. In collaboration with
> > most consistently fucktarded and pig-ignorant person who posts here,
> > no less. You'd know stuff like this if you'd taken the time to figure
> > out what goes on here instead of being in such a big rush to run your
> > mouth off, and then you wouldn't look quite so much of a fool.
>
> "You'll soon find out some wizarding families are better than others,
> Potter. You don't want to go making friends with the wrong sort. I can
> help you there. ..."
> The idea came up to fix various issues with the old FAQs and I offered
> to collate the updates. All in all, probably a few 30-minutes MS Word
> sessions over a week or two. And the idea died due to lack of
> interest.
The "idea died due to a lack of interest" because it was raised by
alt.magick's resident flaky bint who nobody takes even remotely
seriously for a minute. As I said, if you'd been here for more than a
couple of minutes you'd have known that before you made your ill-
considered offer. FAQs are written collaboratively by newsgroup
regulars - FAQs are never written because some bigtimer shows up and a
couple of weeks later wants to do his good deed for bob-a-job week.
The fact you're surprised there was a "lack of interest" just goes to
show how little knowledge you have about how these groups work.
> Why is an offer to collate revisions or additions somehow so
> threatening to you?
You *are* just seeking attention, then. Nobody brought up anyone being
"threatening" to anyone until you just did, which, funnily enough,
says a lot more about you than it does about anyone else.
If you seriously can't see why a rank newbie volunteering to rewrite
the FAQ when he has absolutely no idea at all about what gets
discussed here or what the general consensus of the group, and if you
seriously can't see why such an attempt is nothing but a painfully
transparent attempt at bigging yourself up to the group, then there
really is no point me trying to explain it to you.
> > Seriously, now, you're in way too much of a hurry to hear the sound of
> > your own voice, and you're acting like a twat because of it. As should
> > be slowly becoming apparent to you by now, you're not going to impress
> > anyone here with the kind of pseudo-knowledge and hackneyed old
> > platitudes that you might be used to impressing yourself or some
> > Wiccan Facebook group with, so you may as well save yourself some
> > grief and quit trying.
>
> 8=3 says it all
It does. Predictably, though, not in the way you think it does.
You're just the latest in a long line of clueless blowhards who can't
even blow very hard. Tedious trolls like you are ten-a-penny around
here. You won't last for much longer once you figure out you're not
going to be able to bluff your way to the respect you apparently think
you deserve from people who actually do know something of what they're
talking about.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Tehiru
> At least 99% of everything written on the
> subject of the occult is absolute, pure, and unadulterated bullshit.
Agreed. Even blogs.
> To attempt to engage in "academic discussion" of the occult, to
> discuss ideas that you've read about as if they were real accounts of
> real things that deserve serious consideration, is nothing but wanking
> over a biscuit.
What a wonderful turn of phrase! I gotta share that with my co-
workers. With full credit of course!
> If you're incapable of talking about actual real things that you're
> actually familiar with then you have nothing to contribute here but
> yet another stream of inane and empty chatter.
Sure Erwin. Above, Mika puts forth that "If Satanists believe that
love is ultimately selfish, then they believe that love is selfish
whether you experience attachment
associated with the emotion or not.". I had put forth something
similar myself based on the text given at the top of the thread. If
you are capable of talking about actual real things that you are
actually familiar with, what are your thoughts?
Erwin Hessle
> On Nov 24, 6:50 pm, Erwin Hessle <er...@erwinhessle.com> wrote:
>
> > Why don't we discuss it from the Boot Fairy context?
>
> Sure Erwin. Start that Boot Fairy thread right up and I'll do my best
> to follow your thread in whatever you happen to define Boot Fairy
> context to be.
I just did. If you were even the slightest bit observant, you'd know
this already, since I did it in the very post you just replied to.
However, I'm a reasonable guy, and I'm happy to forgive your
shortcomings for the purposes of argument. So, since you offered, go
right on ahead and discuss what I defined the Boot Fairy context to
be, being careful to discuss only within the context of that context.
Knock yourself out. Let's see what your "best" is really like, shall
we?
> However, you'll have to explain in detail that paradigm
> since I am not familiar with it.
There appear to be an awful lot of things discussed on this newsgroup
that you aren't familiar with, so that won't come as any surprise to
anyone except you.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Tehiru
> Yes, you did. You asked Tom if he "considered himself free from
> attachment", if he was "truly free". Don't play dumb here, you
> clearly are treating freedom from attachment as some kind of
> achievement.
That is fair statement so far as it goes. Attachments are something
people grow into (I am pretty sure infants in utero do not), and grow
out of all on their own during life to some degree. However, to sever
all attachments doesn't happen by chance. You have to want to do it,
and spend a lot of time getting there. I agree with Tom that the
actual letting to is a surrender. However, the process of getting
there is one of willed deliberation.
Or are you positing that aside from some extraordinary circumstance
one can just "slip into" a stage of mind characterized lack of certain
boundaries?
mika
>
>
> Why do you always go after Alrah that way? Just curious.
I don't "go after Alrah". And contrary to what you might believe, I
don't "go after" you either.
You really need to learn to distinguish between the tearing apart of
words and ideas and personal attacks. It will be near impossible for
you to accomplish this as long as your ego is so entirely wrapped up
in the words you write. Alrah too. There's a lot of talk here about
attachment, but it's apparent that neither of you understand how it
actually manifests. 'Why do I always go after Alrah?'... that
question is hilarious.
Tehiru
> FAQs are written collaboratively by newsgroup
> regulars - FAQs are never written because some bigtimer shows up and a
> couple of weeks later wants to do his good deed for bob-a-job week.
> The fact you're surprised there was a "lack of interest" just goes to
> show how little knowledge you have about how these groups work.
Gotcha. So my offer to collate revisions died due to lack of interest
because if I were only here for longer I could somehow collate better?
> If you seriously can't see why a rank newbie volunteering to rewrite
> the FAQ when he has absolutely no idea at all about what gets
> discussed here or
[snip]
Collate, Erwin. Collate.
Frankly I don't see why an offer to collate an update blew your skirts
up so hard Erwin. It's simple word processing.
Erwin Hessle
> On Nov 24, 6:56 pm, Erwin Hessle <er...@erwinhessle.com> wrote:
> > To attempt to engage in "academic discussion" of the occult, to
> > discuss ideas that you've read about as if they were real accounts of
> > real things that deserve serious consideration, is nothing but wanking
> > over a biscuit.
>
> What a wonderful turn of phrase! I gotta share that with my co-
> workers. With full credit of course!
Your sycophancy is a disgrace.
> > If you're incapable of talking about actual real things that you're
> > actually familiar with then you have nothing to contribute here but
> > yet another stream of inane and empty chatter.
>
> Sure Erwin. Above, Mika puts forth that "If Satanists believe that
> love is ultimately selfish, then they believe that love is selfish
> whether you experience attachment
> associated with the emotion or not.". I had put forth something
> similar myself based on the text given at the top of the thread. If
> you are capable of talking about actual real things that you are
> actually familiar with, what are your thoughts?
I just did, you nutbar. You aren't seeking pleasure if you're already
getting it. Therefore experiencing pleasure isn't selfish. Therefore
the "Satanists" - who, by the way, you apparently seem to believe are
an actual group of people who actually hold consistent views, which
they clearly aren't - are obviously talking crap, on multiple levels,
just like you've been repeatedly told.
Did you have to practice to get this obtuse, or were you born that
way? The lengths to which you'll go to avoid having to actually back
up what you say are staggering. You're going to actually turn into a
weasel if you keep doing this.
Naturally, being a pointless discussion about made-up silly shit, this
thread hasn't even begun to approach the question of why "selfishness"
is considered to be a problem in the first place. You seriously think
you're going to be free from attachment if you're so attached to not
wanting to be selfish? Wants, needs, desires, and attachments are all
utterly different concepts, as anyone who actually paid attention to
them instead of reading about them would know. Anyone who actually was
free of attachment would, upon feeling a want, just go ahead and
satisfy it without giving it a second thought, because they wouldn't
be attached to this perverse desire to frustrate their wants. If
you're still at the stage of the occult equivalent of a fawning
adolescent who looks up to some guru pretending to be "selfless" as
your role model then you clearly have yet to develop even the first
idea of what "attachment" actually means, and you never will until you
give up these moralistic ideals you have about your aversion to self.
The self does what it does; if you're not attached to it, then you'll
just let it quietly get on with what it does without putting your two
left feet in all the time. Non-attachment is trivial once you get rid
of all this silly bullshit and pay attention to what you're actually
trying to do.
As I said, your books won't teach you stuff like this. You're never
going to understand it until you start learning to actually pay
attention to the real world out there and cease expecting it to
conform to your weird ideals. All you're doing is regurgitating
platitudes you've picked up in some crappy book and expecting to be
taken seriously. That might work in the kind of circle jerks that pass
for occult discussion forums most elsewhere on the internet, but
you're not going to impress many people here doing that. You're
certainly not going to impress me.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Tehiru
> > Sure Erwin. Start that Boot Fairy thread right up and I'll do my best
> > to follow your thread in whatever you happen to define Boot Fairy
> > context to be.
>
> I just did. If you were even the slightest bit observant, you'd know
> this already, since I did it in the very post you just replied to.
Still haven't seen it.
mika
> On Nov 24, 7:01 pm, mika wrote:
>
> > Yes, you did. You asked Tom if he "considered himself free from
> > attachment", if he was "truly free". Don't play dumb here, you
> > clearly are treating freedom from attachment as some kind of
> > achievement.
>
> That is fair statement so far as it goes. Attachments are something
> people grow into (I am pretty sure infants in utero do not), and grow
> out of all on their own during life to some degree. However, to sever
> all attachments doesn't happen by chance. You have to want to do it,
> and spend a lot of time getting there. I agree with Tom that the
> actual letting to is a surrender. However, the process of getting
> there is one of willed deliberation.
>
> Or are you positing that aside from some extraordinary circumstance
> one can just "slip into" a stage of mind characterized lack of certain
> boundaries?
>
Holy fucking shit! Are you really this dense? Whoever said anything
about chance, or slipping into a state of non-attachment? I certainly
didn't, as I have been repeating over and over and over to you that
non-attachment is an ongoing practice.
This is just a straw man, an attempt at diverting the conversation to
an entirely different subject to avoid addressing your previous
ridiculous statements. Either that or you really are that dense.
Tehiru
> thread hasn't even begun to approach the question of why "selfishness"
> is considered to be a problem in the first place.
It isn't, from the Satanic context.
> You seriously think
> you're going to be free from attachment if you're so attached to not
> wanting to be selfish?
Who said anything about not wanting to be selfish?
Erwin Hessle
> On Nov 24, 7:09 pm, Erwin Hessle <er...@erwinhessle.com> wrote:
>
> > FAQs are written collaboratively by newsgroup
> > regulars - FAQs are never written because some bigtimer shows up and a
> > couple of weeks later wants to do his good deed for bob-a-job week.
> > The fact you're surprised there was a "lack of interest" just goes to
> > show how little knowledge you have about how these groups work.
>
> Gotcha. So my offer to collate revisions died due to lack of interest
> because if I were only here for longer I could somehow collate better?
No. It didn't "die" because it never got off the ground in the first
place. Some flaky tart with as close to no knowledge of the subject
matter discussed here as makes any difference mentioned it because
she's as dim as you are, and being the clueless new kid that you are,
you were predictably the only person to respond. We've already been
through this. Pay attention.
That being said, of course, you could indeed "collate" better if you
had even a vague understanding of the subject matter that is discussed
here, yes. If you disagree, go try to collate the latest thoughts of,
say, molecular biologists, and let us know how you get on with that
one.
> > If you seriously can't see why a rank newbie volunteering to rewrite
> > the FAQ when he has absolutely no idea at all about what gets
> > discussed here or
>
> [snip]
> Collate, Erwin. Collate.
>
> Frankly I don't see why an offer to collate an update blew your skirts
> up so hard Erwin. It's simple word processing.
It's simple, alright. But, just as I predicted, there appears to be no
point trying to explain it to you.
I'd certainly agree that word processing is probably all you can ever
hope to contribute here, though, and you couldn't even do that
properly, yet.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Erwin Hessle
As I said, "if you were even the slightest bit observant."
You do have a page-up button, you know - you don't have to waste your
time asking me to repeat myself with every reply. You could even read
the stuff you quote in your own replies, if hitting one key is too
much effort for you.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Erwin Hessle
> On Nov 24, 7:33 pm, Erwin Hessle <er...@erwinhessle.com> wrote:
>
> > thread hasn't even begun to approach the question of why "selfishness"
> > is considered to be a problem in the first place.
>
> It isn't, from the Satanic context.
As I said, nobody is going to buy your "I didn't do it" routine.
> > You seriously think
> > you're going to be free from attachment if you're so attached to not
> > wanting to be selfish?
>
> Who said anything about not wanting to be selfish?
You, cockfag. You just don't realise you did, because you're so
inobservant.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Tehiru
No Mika. I thought I was clear. If the process of becoming (and
continuing to be) unattached is an ongoing process as you claim it to
be, then it is a deliberately willed course of action brought to
fruition over time. Correct? If it is a deliberately willed and
embarked on course of action, then success would be an achievement of
sorts, wouldn't it? Let's set aside for the moment the Buddhist
response of achieving Nothing.
Tom
> On Nov 24, 5:02 pm, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 24, 1:05 pm, Tehiru <tehiru.cha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 24, 9:06 am, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > Barring the rare handful of people who have (as you say) surrendered
> > > attachment, the overwhelming majority of people have varying degrees
> > > of attachment, and in fact my statement above made no mention of
> > > complete non-attachment. So what was your point?
>
> > Oh, I don't think it's as rare as all that. It's really not all that
> > big a deal.
>
> Tom, you strike me as an intelligent individual, and from your
> duration on alt.magick have presumably an extensive understanding of
> magick and meditation. If we consider you as an example of a
> intelligent human being who has presumably spent years acquiring a
> practical and theoretical knowledge of these general subjects, would
> you agree? If so, do you consider yourself free from attachment?
> Truly free?
There is no point in answering that. It is irrelevant to the
discussion.
> > You made it seem
> > as if there were some sort of qualitative difference connected to a
> > quantitative difference, such that spirituality is rank-ordered. In
> > which case, a monomaniacal obsession, such as Ahab's obsession with
> > the white whale, is somehow spiritually superior to having varied
> > interests and desires.
>
> And what did I say that caused you to make those two judgements?
Which two judgments? I see only one. My second sentence is nothing
more than an inevitable consequence of that judgment.
> > I just took the position that feeling pleasure is *not* selfish and
> > here you are repeating yourself again instead of responding
> > intelligently by explaining why you believe that feeling pleasure is
> > selfish.
>
> Because as I explained to Mika, the definition given above by Vexen
> Crabtree informs us that "the satisfaction and feel-good that it
> brings is an ultimate reward".
That's not an argument in support of the proposition. That's a
repetition of the proposition.
> > Here is my argument why feeling pleasure is not selfish. We do not
> > feel voluntarily.
>
> Outside certain forms of magickal practice.
No, we feel whether we perform any "magickal practice" or not.
mika
>
> If the process of becoming (and
> continuing to be) unattached is an ongoing process as you claim it to
> be, then it is a deliberately willed course of action brought to
> fruition over time. Correct?
Incorrect. It is a deliberately willed course of action brought to
fruition every single time the course of action is deliberately
willed. That's what "ongoing practice" means. (Note that I wrote
"practice" and you changed that word to "process".) You're still hung
up on the idea that non-attachment is something that is achieved
("brought to fruition"), like a prize.
Tehiru
> Incorrect. It is a deliberately willed course of action brought to
> fruition every single time the course of action is deliberately
> willed. That's what "ongoing practice" means. (Note that I wrote
> "practice" and you changed that word to "process".) You're still hung
> up on the idea that non-attachment is something that is achieved
> ("brought to fruition"), like a prize.
If it is a deliberately willed course of action brought to fruition
every single time the course of action is deliberately willed as you
say, wouldn't that be an accomplishment? In other words, did you
successfully accomplish that course of action?
mika
It doesn't matter if you shift the time period from 20 years to 20
seconds if you are still thinking in terms of "accomplishment". The
very moment you think to yourself "aha, I have achieved my goal, I
have brought it to fruition", etc, you are no longer engaging in the
ongoing practice, and thus, you are no longer "successfully
accomplishing that course of action".
You're trying to twist around words such that you can continue viewing
this practice as something that is achieved and then done with. It's
not going to work. Practicing non-attachment, like most advanced
magical techniques, is directly related to living in the present
moment. It is impossible for you to experience living in the moment
when you are fixated on achieving a goal.
Alrah
> On Nov 23, 6:12 pm, Alrah wrote:
>
>
>
> > You're overcomplicating matters at usual.
>
> heh. These matters are, indeed, complicated. They only seem
> *over*complicated to you, because you are either unwilling or unable
> to even try to understand them. As usual, you attempt to simplify
> matters to the point of meaninglessness. This way, you don't have to
> actually address any errors in your models.
Isn't reality simplicity itself? :-)
Alrah
> On Nov 23, 4:28 pm, Alrah <alrah-pub...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If the sense of self is interpreting those experiences then it is
> > attached to those experiences.
>
> Why? Just as the sense of self can move beyond the ego as it
> previously went beyond identification with the mother, your sense of
> self can still have these experiences without feeling exclusive
> identification with them.
>
> "I have emotions, but I am not my emotions."
But the sense of self was never identified with the mother to begin
with. Without boundaries there is no identification. The sense of
self at it's most primal is an awareness of time/space position
tracking.
Alrah
> On Nov 23, 6:31 pm, Tehiru <tehiru.cha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I think that it is possible for even someone who has
> > largely freed themselves from attachment to a sense of personal self
> > to feel love for someone.
>
> Saying "I have largely freed myself of attachment" is saying "I'm
> still attached to something but I want to congratulate myself on being
> unattached anyway." The way of non-attachment is not a tactical
> retreat but an unconditional surrender.
>
> > Feeling love makes you feel good, and you
> > feel pleasure in their accomplishments. So even agape could bring
> > pleasure and qualify as selfish, if I understand the satanic paradigm.
>
> Feeling pleasure is not selfish. Seeking pleasure is selfish. If I
> want love, that's selfish. If I love, that's not selfish.
>
> Seeking/wanting is a problem of a basic sense of inadequacy. I seek
> what I do not have. If I seek pleasure, it's because I don't feel
> pleasure from within, so I have to find it somewhere "out there". If
> I must keep feeding myself constantly in order to stave off that
> feeling of emptiness and poverty that keeps creeping up on me whenever
> I am not feeding, that sort of emotional poverty/gluttony cycle is not
> love. It's predation. That's not "I love my children" but "I love a
> nice, juicy steak." Let's not confuse those two feelings just because
> their labels are spelled the same.
>
> Loving does not mean feeling pleasure all the time. Love is
> acceptance of what is, taking the good with the bad, the pleasure with
> the sorrow. It is unconditional, undemanding. There is nothing
> selfish about that because there is no expectation of payment for
> services rendered. If one's gestures of love are not reciprocated,
> even if one's gestures of love are rejected with belligerence, that
> doesn't make any difference. Love is not dependent on the reception
> of gratification. One does not love because one wants pleasure. One
> loves because one accepts what is.
Great post. :-)
TJ
feeling of love, TO love "it feels like the sun is in you and you
shine it out" - and it requires NO recriprocation. Dark Doctrines
writes of this. So yes, SOME forms of "darkness theology" (which SOME
people call satanism) absolutely understands and even explains this.
It's not lust. It's not kin-bonding. It's not romantic. It's
something else. One either feels it, or has felt it - or they never
felt it. And if they never felt it - heh heh, surely they can't
define it. "I am the sun, and I am shining." That's how it feels.
I have felt love, I feel it a lot. It feels good. Oddly, it's really
little things, simple things, that make me feel it. It doesn't even
have to be for a person, animal, or thing that KNOWS I feel this.
They don't have to know I even exist. I feel it. That is enough.
Why does something make me feel that? I don't know. If I feel it, I
feel it. Period.
I think what is stated below is only one small definition of love -
romantic love. What's this bullshit about "the loved one loves you?"
That's romance. If you really analyze this, you'd have to admit that
it feels like NOTHING to "BE loved" by someone - what, the person
treats you nice? or is generous? or has sex? Shares a lot in
common? Hell, a fucking SPY could do that - a SPY could go through
all those motions and definitely not love you OR your country. A
person could love you and you don't even know that person exists.
Ergo, it's not something you can feel if someone you don't even know,
a stranger, FEELS love for you. A total stranger that you never ever
meet (but who obviously sees you coming and going and etc) could feel
romantic love toward you (you would not know it) - or lust for you
(you would not know it) or feel like the sun shining (and you might
not know it - or maybe you would!)
Love is like the sun, an inner sun - and it just SHINES OUT. It
requires nothing back. I will tell you that this newsgroup is NOT a
place that is condusive to that feeling, which is why I came to loathe
"modern so-called satanists." They throw water on that feeling, they
DESTROY it, or try hard to do that, and they definitely hate people
that feel it - that's more than obvious to me.
And truly - it feels like SHIT to loath them. Best to ignore them,
keep away.
As to the bilge about altrueism (LaVeyans have a "thing" about
altrueism").... Well, I don't trust altrueism because - say you are
altrueistic toward a crippled person, and you help that person and all
that. You feel good about doing this, good about yourself (ego).
Would you feel good if the person became uncrippled and told you to
bug off? Therein is the problem with altrueism. MOST Of it has to do
with evolutionary biology - and that is ALL it is. Primates feel
altrueism, all primates feel it - they either feel it or they perish.
It's survival strategy of social animals that are usually born very
helpless and have to be cared for. THAT is "altrueism." Nothing but
instinct. When it's adaptive, it benefits your own gene pool.
That instinct can be maladaptive, however. When you feel this kind of
feeling for people that would destroy you - then altrueism is
maladaptive.
The problem is that in English, a LOT of different things are called
"love." "Make love" means to have sex, eg. That's not love. It's
lust. Love is felt in the heart area, in the chest. Lust is felt in
the groin. The two do not have to go together - and healthy people
know the difference between the two.
Now, I have never heard ANYONE ever quite define it that clearly -
except our crowd in the Dark Doctrines. We defined it very
specifically - in English - by explaining how it FEELS, what part of
the body you feel each of these things in. EG: lust in the groin
area. Romantic Love in the heart area. Love for a baby is produced
by the chemical oxytosin. If the mother lacks it, she is NOT going to
"love" her baby. See?
But what produces the "inner sun shining out"? I'd say it's a
kundalini state - NOT a biochemical state. Imo, it's something very
different.
On Nov 23, 3:27 pm, Alrah <alrah-pub...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> One predominant theme of Satanism is that it presumes all Love to be
> ultimately selfish.
>
> For example, Vexen Crabtree writes:
>
> "Love is perhaps the strongest emotion we possess. But it is
> ultimately selfish; the satisfaction and feel-good that it brings is
> an ultimate reward. Our instincts and needs underlie any altruistic
> behaviour, especially when it comes to love. That is part of the
> beauty of love... that you know your loved one loves you because it
> makes them feel good. You know that they know your love is selfish,
> and they are happy that you love them because it makes you feel good.
> Without this hidden, deeper selfishness, Human love would have less
> depth. Love is best and most beautiful when it comes from the depths
> of one person and extends to another, and both know that the other
> loves them for selfish reasons. We love someone because they make us
> feel good and they love us because we make them feel good. This
> combination is a supreme gift to our ego and helps explain why love
> is
> easily the most potent emotion." - http://www.dpjs.co.uk/love.html
>
> However - I have not found any information as to how Satanism regards
> Love that exists without the usual concurrent attachment. Does
> Satanism even acknowledge that love without attachment (Agape) even
> exists? How does Satanism reconcile the fact that, in the absense of
> attachment and in the wake of proper understanding of the doctrine of
> emptiness, a greater capacity and manifestation of Love is witnessed
> without any of the disastrous consequences happening that Satanism
> warns against for Love that is not selfish, or even 'earned'.
TJ
> On 23 Nov, 22:47, Tehiru <tehiru.cha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Someone would have to be attached to a sense of self to be able to
> feel selfish pleasure. No attachment to a sense of self = no selfish
> pleasure. Love is simply manifest without an attachment towards self
> or anything else.
AH! EXACTLY! You read the Dark Doctrines, I see. There is NO sense
of "I" "ME" when you are "the sun shining out." Remember, I'm
speaking this in English.
You are Vajrayogini, the bright Light shining in Voidness. But that's
not all that easy to understand. English, what I said before, is
better.
TJ
> On 24 Nov, 00:16, mika <mika...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 23, 4:02 pm, Alrah wrote:
>
> > > No attachment to a sense of self = no selfish pleasure.
>
> > mean you no longer have a sense of self. Your sense of self still
> > exists, you're simply not attached to it. That's all. You still
> > experience "selfish pleasure", as you still experience every single
> > emotion, thought, feeling, sensation, whatever, that you experienced
> > while attached to your sense of self. The difference is in how you
> > interpret those experiences.
>
> If the sense of self is interpreting those experiences then it is
> attached to those experiences.
>
Ooo, incorrect. Lemme use neurological terms then. "Organic I."
There is no SENSE of self there. The fingers touch - that is felt.
The taste buds taste, an explosion of taste (eating), that is tasted.
And so forth. There is no "SENSE OF" involved. It is what it is.
TJ
> On Nov 23, 4:28 pm, Alrah wrote:
>
> > On 24 Nov, 00:16, mika wrote:
> > > On Nov 23, 4:02 pm, Alrah wrote:
>
> > > > No attachment to a sense of self = no selfish pleasure.
>
> > > No, that's wrong. Not having attachment to a sense of self does not
> > > mean you no longer have a sense of self. Your sense of self still
> > > exists, you're simply not attached to it. That's all. You still
> > > experience "selfish pleasure", as you still experience every single
> > > emotion, thought, feeling, sensation, whatever, that you experienced
> > > while attached to your sense of self. The difference is in how you
> > > interpret those experiences.
>
> > If the sense of self is interpreting those experiences then it is
> > attached to those experiences.
>
> construct, it doesn't *do* anything. Are you really trying to claim
> here that there's an autonomous being in your head that's interpreting
> your experiences for you?
>
> *You* are the one doing the interpreting. You either interpret your
> experiences through a mental construct in which you believe you are
> your sense of self, or you interpret your experiences independently
> from that belief. The attachment lies in whether or not you are able
> to do the latter.
True - a person can be lobotomized - and still taste, smell, feel,
hear, etc. There is REALLY no self there anymore, and not even an
"organic I."
TJ
> On Nov 23, 4:16 pm, mika <mika...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > No, that's wrong. Not having attachment to a sense of self does not
> > mean you no longer have a sense of self. Your sense of self still
> > exists, you're simply not attached to it. That's all. You still
> > experience "selfish pleasure", as you still experience every single
> > emotion, thought, feeling, sensation, whatever, that you experienced
> > while attached to your sense of self. The difference is in how you
> > interpret those experiences.
>
> fears, their ego, their work and so forth as anchors of their
> identity. With the ego as example, one can move on and stop
> identifying exclusively with the ego, but the ego remains.
That would be a false ego, a construct, a delusion. YOU (the whole)
are not your job, fears or etc. The ego (in the eastern sense I mean
this) is something nobody is born with. The development of something
as you describe is NOT an "Organic I." It's the loss of it. The
person is just a fraction being, a partial. An ego (eastern sense).
This is NOT easy to explain.
Anecdote. A person I mistake for asking an innocent question, asks me
if I like their new car. I don't like it, and so I say that. They
get insulted. WHAT is getting insulted? Why do they care if I like or
dislike it? That's ego. It's delusion.
Now I'll give up explainng more - but you asked if any satanism speaks
of this. Yes - and even explains it with as much concrete detail as
possible to enable a person to understand it (in English).
Alrah
> On Nov 23, 7:02 pm, Alrah <alrah-pub...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 23 Nov, 22:47, Tehiru <tehiru.cha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Someone would have to be attached to a sense of self to be able to
> > feel selfish pleasure. No attachment to a sense of self = no selfish
> > pleasure. Love is simply manifest without an attachment towards self
> > or anything else.
>
> AH! EXACTLY! You read the Dark Doctrines, I see.
I've never read them, no. Infact I'd never heard of the 'Dark
Doctrines' before you mentioned them.
May I prevail upon you to email them to me? :-)
Tom
> Yes, some forms of satanism absolutely understands "agape" or the
> feeling of love, TO love "it feels like the sun is in you and you
> shine it out" - and it requires NO recriprocation. Dark Doctrines
> writes of this.
I find it amusing that you "feel like the sun" and yet adhere to "Dark
Doctrine". Darkness doesn't shine. Agape is not adversarial. Yet
the term Satan itself means "adversary". You seem more than a little
confused here.
> As to the bilge about altrueism (LaVeyans have a "thing" about
> altrueism").... Well, I don't trust altrueism because - say you are
> altrueistic toward a crippled person, and you help that person and all
> that. You feel good about doing this, good about yourself (ego).
> Would you feel good if the person became uncrippled and told you to
> bug off? Therein is the problem with altrueism.
Get the "e" out of it. The term is "altruism". Since altruism is
acting unselfishly, then whether or not you "feel good about yourself"
doesn't enter into it. If your actions are intended to make you feel
good, they are, by the very definition of the term, not altruistic.
The sun shines whether or not you sing praises to it. It doesn't go
off and sulk if you aren't sufficiently appreciative.
> MOST Of it has to do
> with evolutionary biology - and that is ALL it is.
First you say "most of it" and then you say "all of it". Make up your
mind. As I said, you seem more than a little confused.
> Primates feel
> altrueism, all primates feel it - they either feel it or they perish.
If you want to take it that far, you could assert that any animal
without a sense of self is acting altruistically at all times. After
all it is impossible to act selfishly if the animal does not have a
self. The term only has meaning when applied to a being with a highly
complex neurology that allows it to override instinctual behavior with
intentional behavior. The only example of such a being on this planet
is Homo sapiens sapiens. All that evolutionary biology speculation
about altruism is just cloud-castles because no other critter on the
planet has an option to choose to be altruistic or not.
> Now, I have never heard ANYONE ever quite define it that clearly -
> except our crowd in the Dark Doctrines.
Possibly this is because you are abysmally ignorant. Lots of people
have defined lots of different kinds of love and done so very
clearly. Perhaps you should read more widely on the subject before
deciding you know fucking everything.
For instance, have you even heard of, let alone read with
comprehension, "The Art of Loving" by Erich Fromm?
KoriHoughton
> Yes, some forms of satanism absolutely understands "agape" or the
> feeling of love,
Really? And how would you know? For the last few years you've posted
here bashing Satanism and Satanists (calling them 'Satanpoos') and
stating that you are not -- and have never been -- a Satanist. Even
when you were a Magistra in the Church of Satan. So, what's the story
now? Did your handlers rewrite your legend and throw you back into
the fray?
> TO love "it feels like the sun is in you and you
> shine it out" - and it requires NO recriprocation.
How does it feel to have 'the sun in you'? Pretty damned
uncomfortable at best, more likely lethal.
> Dark Doctrines
> writes of this. So yes, SOME forms of "darkness theology" (which SOME
> people call satanism) absolutely understands and even explains this.
> It's not lust. It's not kin-bonding. It's not romantic. It's
> something else. One either feels it, or has felt it - or they never
> felt it. And if they never felt it - heh heh, surely they can't
> define it. "I am the sun, and I am shining." That's how it feels.
This is a load of BS, a typical advert for the DDocs.
>
> I have felt love, I feel it a lot. It feels good. Oddly, it's really
> little things, simple things, that make me feel it. It doesn't even
> have to be for a person, animal, or thing that KNOWS I feel this.
> They don't have to know I even exist. I feel it. That is enough.
> Why does something make me feel that? I don't know. If I feel it, I
> feel it. Period.
>
> I think what is stated below is only one small definition of love -
> romantic love. What's this bullshit about "the loved one loves you?"
> That's romance. If you really analyze this, you'd have to admit that
> it feels like NOTHING to "BE loved" by someone - what, the person
> treats you nice? or is generous? or has sex? Shares a lot in
> common? Hell, a fucking SPY could do that - a SPY could go through
> all those motions and definitely not love you OR your country.
Heh heh heh...the voice of experience!
> A
> person could love you and you don't even know that person exists.
> Ergo, it's not something you can feel if someone you don't even know,
> a stranger, FEELS love for you. A total stranger that you never ever
> meet (but who obviously sees you coming and going and etc) could feel
> romantic love toward you (you would not know it) - or lust for you
> (you would not know it) or feel like the sun shining (and you might
> not know it - or maybe you would!)
>
> Love is like the sun, an inner sun - and it just SHINES OUT. It
> requires nothing back. I will tell you that this newsgroup is NOT a
> place that is condusive to that feeling, which is why I came to loathe
> "modern so-called satanists." They throw water on that feeling, they
> DESTROY it, or try hard to do that, and they definitely hate people
> that feel it - that's more than obvious to me.
If what you describe is real, and you have truly experienced it, then
you would know that a post on a newsgroup cannot destroy it. You
would not be so quick to accuse people you don't know of directing
hate at others. What is obvious about you is that you have delusions
of adeptship and show up here periodically looking for converts -- by
bashing other people. If you had ever experienced even a fragment of
what you blather on about, your post would transmit the love you feel
to people reading it. Too bad what I see in your post is something
like 'look how awesome I am, compared with other people who suck'.
That's not how I spell Agape.
>
> And truly - it feels like SHIT to loath them. Best to ignore them,
> keep away.
Good advice, but will you take it? Or are you addicted to feeling
your SHIT?
>
> As to the bilge about altrueism (LaVeyans have a "thing" about
> altrueism").... Well, I don't trust altrueism because - say you are
> altrueistic toward a crippled person, and you help that person and all
> that. You feel good about doing this, good about yourself (ego).
> Would you feel good if the person became uncrippled and told you to
> bug off? Therein is the problem with altrueism. MOST Of it has to do
> with evolutionary biology - and that is ALL it is. Primates feel
> altrueism, all primates feel it - they either feel it or they perish.
> It's survival strategy of social animals that are usually born very
> helpless and have to be cared for. THAT is "altrueism." Nothing but
> instinct. When it's adaptive, it benefits your own gene pool.
Not just 'LaVeyans', Tanikins. Don't you remember what your idol
Mickey posted here about altruism (no E)?
>
> That instinct can be maladaptive, however. When you feel this kind of
> feeling for people that would destroy you - then altrueism is
> maladaptive.
>
> The problem is that in English, a LOT of different things are called
> "love." "Make love" means to have sex, eg. That's not love. It's
> lust. Love is felt in the heart area, in the chest. Lust is felt in
> the groin. The two do not have to go together - and healthy people
> know the difference between the two.
Yeah? Well, our biology often (although not always) works by
following up those feelings in the groin with feelings in the chest.
That has been beneficial to the gene pool.
>
> Now, I have never heard ANYONE ever quite define it that clearly -
> except our crowd in the Dark Doctrines. We defined it very
> specifically - in English - by explaining how it FEELS, what part of
> the body you feel each of these things in. EG: lust in the groin
> area. Romantic Love in the heart area. Love for a baby is produced
> by the chemical oxytosin. If the mother lacks it, she is NOT going to
> "love" her baby. See?
LOL 'our crowd'!
>
> But what produces the "inner sun shining out"? I'd say it's a
> kundalini state - NOT a biochemical state. Imo, it's something very
> different.
Madame Fraudulis knows her kundalini states, no doubt.
I see you've fully recharged your BS battery over the summer, Tani.
What fun!
Luv,
Kori
> > warns against for Love that is not selfish, or even 'earned'.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Alrah
> I see you've fully recharged your BS battery over the summer, Tani.
> What fun!
Ah - that's Tani? Author of the psychotic rant at
http://apodion.com/vad/article.php?id=20&aid=177
Perhaps I will pass on the 'dark doctrines' after all. lol.
Well, unless anyone sane has something to recommend them... Frothing
at the mouth is a bad sign for both horses and people.
KoriHoughton
> On 27 Nov, 20:19, KoriHoughton <korihough...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I see you've fully recharged your BS battery over the summer, Tani.
> > What fun!
>
>
> Perhaps I will pass on the 'dark doctrines' after all. lol.
>
> Well, unless anyone sane has something to recommend them... Frothing
> at the mouth is a bad sign for both horses and people.
IMO the DDocs are a waste of time to read because of the way source
materials are handled. There are no footnotes, and quotations are
dodgy (like 'so-and-so wrote blah blah blah', rather than citing the
actual text in quotes so the source and the DDocian's words can be
separated. Some of the booklets have bibliographies; maybe I should
just post them if I get a chance..
Whatever you decide, don't pay for them! They really have much more
value as unintentional humor than as comparative religion or
philosophy. They are what were called kook rants back in the 'zine
era. Here's a link to an ebook torrent, sent to me by a buddy of
Tani's ;)
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4950155/The_Dark_Doctrines_of_Sat-Tanism
Luv,
Kori
TJ
> On 27 Nov, 04:57, TJ <t...@post.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 23, 7:02 pm, Alrah <alrah-pub...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 23 Nov, 22:47, Tehiru <tehiru.cha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Someone would have to be attached to a sense of self to be able to
> > > feel selfish pleasure. No attachment to a sense of self = no selfish
> > > pleasure. Love is simply manifest without an attachment towards self
> > > or anything else.
>
> > AH! EXACTLY! You read the Dark Doctrines, I see.
>
> I've never read them, no. Infact I'd never heard of the 'Dark
> Doctrines' before you mentioned them.
>
> May I prevail upon you to email them to me? :-)
Email them? Uh, some of it is sold here:
http://www.satanicreds.org/satanicreds/dd-ad.html
Some of it can be read free here (best bet would be this,imo)
http://www.satanicreds.org/satanicreds/art-dt.html
and here
http://www.guardiansofdarkness.com
>
> > There is NO sense
> > of "I" "ME" when you are "the sun shining out." Remember, I'm
> > speaking this in English.
>
> > You are Vajrayogini, the bright Light shining in Voidness. But that's
> > not all that easy to understand. English, what I said before, is
> > better.- Hide quoted text -
>
TJ
> On Nov 26, 8:53 pm, TJ <t...@post.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, some forms of satanism absolutely understands "agape" or the
> > feeling of love, TO love "it feels like the sun is in you and you
> > shine it out" - and it requires NO recriprocation. Dark Doctrines
> > writes of this.
>
> I find it amusing that you "feel like the sun" and yet adhere to "Dark
> Doctrine". Darkness doesn't shine. Agape is not adversarial. Yet
> the term Satan itself means "adversary". You seem more than a little
> confused here.
Darkness/Voidness - the Light/Vajre shines within that. I'm not
confused - and I'm not a Satanist. The use of the words Sat and Tan
are how the SR come upon that word. It's complicated :) But - it's
also simple.
Here:
http://www.satanicreds.org/satanicreds/faq.html
>
> > As to the bilge about altrueism (LaVeyans have a "thing" about
> > altrueism").... Well, I don't trust altrueism because - say you are
> > altrueistic toward a crippled person, and you help that person and all
> > that. You feel good about doing this, good about yourself (ego).
> > Would you feel good if the person became uncrippled and told you to
> > bug off? Therein is the problem with altrueism.
>
> Get the "e" out of it. The term is "altruism".
Yeah yeah, fast ty ping - typos.
Since altruism is
> acting unselfishly, then whether or not you "feel good about yourself"
> doesn't enter into it. If your actions are intended to make you feel
> good, they are, by the very definition of the term, not altruistic.
> The sun shines whether or not you sing praises to it. It doesn't go
> off and sulk if you aren't sufficiently appreciative.
I did not compare the sun shining to altruism.
>
> > MOST Of it has to do
> > with evolutionary biology - and that is ALL it is.
>
> First you say "most of it" and then you say "all of it". Make up your
> mind. As I said, you seem more than a little confused.
I'm not confused at all. Altruism IS part of evolutionary biology, a
thing primates do. What "satanists" define as altruism is another
matter. I don't abide by their definitions, btw.
>
> > Primates feel
> > altrueism, all primates feel it - they either feel it or they perish.
>
> If you want to take it that far, you could assert that any animal
> without a sense of self is acting altruistically at all times. After
> all it is impossible to act selfishly if the animal does not have a
> self. The term only has meaning when applied to a being with a highly
> complex neurology that allows it to override instinctual behavior with
> intentional behavior. The only example of such a being on this planet
> is Homo sapiens sapiens. All that evolutionary biology speculation
> about altruism is just cloud-castles because no other critter on the
> planet has an option to choose to be altruistic or not.
You are wrong and obviously know nothing about other animals.
>
> > Now, I have never heard ANYONE ever quite define it that clearly -
> > except our crowd in the Dark Doctrines.
>
> Possibly this is because you are abysmally ignorant. Lots of people
> have defined lots of different kinds of love and done so very
> clearly. Perhaps you should read more widely on the subject before
> deciding you know fucking everything.
Have read widely. The way we have defined it is GUT level concrete.
Anyone can understand it.
>
> For instance, have you even heard of, let alone read with
> comprehension, "The Art of Loving" by Erich Fromm?
Frankfurt Schooler, LMAO. Yah.
Clue - heh, I'm not attached to this little flame war you and your
pals have going on here.
Tom
> On Nov 27, 1:00 pm, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 26, 8:53 pm, TJ <t...@post.com> wrote:
>
> > > Yes, some forms of satanism absolutely understands "agape" or the
> > > feeling of love, TO love "it feels like the sun is in you and you
> > > shine it out" - and it requires NO recriprocation. Dark Doctrines
> > > writes of this.
>
> > I find it amusing that you "feel like the sun" and yet adhere to "Dark
> > Doctrine". Darkness doesn't shine. Agape is not adversarial. Yet
> > the term Satan itself means "adversary". You seem more than a little
> > confused here.
>
> Darkness/Voidness - the Light/Vajre shines within that. I'm not
> confused - and I'm not a Satanist.
Then exactly which "Satanism" were you referring to when you said
"some forms of satanism absolutely understands "agape" or the feeling
of love"? And if your "Dark Doctrines" are not Satanism, then why
were you using them as support for your claim about what "some forms
of Satanism" believe?
Like I say, you seem more than a little confused here.
> > > As to the bilge about altrueism (LaVeyans have a "thing" about
> > > altrueism").... Well, I don't trust altrueism because - say you are
> > > altrueistic toward a crippled person, and you help that person and all
> > > that. You feel good about doing this, good about yourself (ego).
> > > Would you feel good if the person became uncrippled and told you to
> > > bug off? Therein is the problem with altrueism.
>
> > Get the "e" out of it. The term is "altruism".
>
> Yeah yeah, fast ty ping - typos.
No, you did it every single time. That's not typos. That's
misspelling. Quit making weak excuses.
> > Since altruism is
> > acting unselfishly, then whether or not you "feel good about yourself"
> > doesn't enter into it. If your actions are intended to make you feel
> > good, they are, by the very definition of the term, not altruistic.
> > The sun shines whether or not you sing praises to it. It doesn't go
> > off and sulk if you aren't sufficiently appreciative.
>
> I did not compare the sun shining to altruism.
But I did. Does it also confuse you that two different ideas might
use the same metaphorical image? Is that why you figured that if I
used it, I must be referring to your use of it? I used it because I
found it ironically amusing to use the same image to illustrate my
point.
> > > MOST Of it has to do
> > > with evolutionary biology - and that is ALL it is.
>
> > First you say "most of it" and then you say "all of it". Make up your
> > mind. As I said, you seem more than a little confused.
>
> I'm not confused at all.
Well, I think you'll have a hard time convincing anyone of that when
you clearly fail to distinguish the difference between "most" and
"all". That's pretty basic confusion.
> Altruism IS part of evolutionary biology, a
> thing primates do.
Evolutionary biologists are like Freudians. They build artificial
mental constructs to explain phenomena and then think that that
because they have an explanation, that must mean their constructs
weren't artificial in the first place. The attribution of "altruism"
to animals is an anthropomorphism.
> > If you want to take it that far, you could assert that any animal
> > without a sense of self is acting altruistically at all times. After
> > all it is impossible to act selfishly if the animal does not have a
> > self. The term only has meaning when applied to a being with a highly
> > complex neurology that allows it to override instinctual behavior with
> > intentional behavior. The only example of such a being on this planet
> > is Homo sapiens sapiens. All that evolutionary biology speculation
> > about altruism is just cloud-castles because no other critter on the
> > planet has an option to choose to be altruistic or not.
>
> You are wrong and obviously know nothing about other animals.
Just saying "you are wrong" is an inept argument. Improve it or
abandon the attempt.
> > > Now, I have never heard ANYONE ever quite define it that clearly -
> > > except our crowd in the Dark Doctrines.
>
> > Possibly this is because you are abysmally ignorant. Lots of people
> > have defined lots of different kinds of love and done so very
> > clearly. Perhaps you should read more widely on the subject before
> > deciding you know fucking everything.
>
> Have read widely.
If true, then apparently without comprehension.
> The way we have defined it is GUT level concrete.
> Anyone can understand it.
Just because some idea is simple doesn't mean it's correct. Lots of
easily understood ideas are wrong.
> > For instance, have you even heard of, let alone read with
> > comprehension, "The Art of Loving" by Erich Fromm?
>
> Frankfurt Schooler, LMAO. Yah.
Then you will retract your false claim that no one has ever defined
love clearly except you. Or you will have demonstrated that you
haven't really read Fromm at all.
> Clue - heh,
The idea of you having a clue...
TJ
>
> > I see you've fully recharged your BS battery over the summer, Tani.
> > What fun!
>
>
> Perhaps I will pass on the 'dark doctrines' after all. lol.
>
> Well, unless anyone sane has something to recommend them... Frothing
> at the mouth is a bad sign for both horses and people.
Interesting. That's a rant? It is supposed to be funny. I see Hr.
Vad put my name to it. His bad. I didn't write it. I did, however,
EDIT it from something written long ago and handed it to um, heh (not
Vad) - where it got all kinds of praise and shit. Yup - and shit,
imo. I didn't write it. I did edit it - and while I was doing it, I
was laughing so damned hard I didn't know if I could finish it. The
author? I'll never tell. Someone whose long dead.
TJ
Nice to see you jumping like a bitch in heat, encouraging people to do
illegal things, my my. Yes, I love things and people - and there is
not a selfish thing about it. It's a feeling. You have no love in
you - that's more than obvious.
And, heh, for anyone interested in honorary titles (yes, I got handed
quite a few), please see:
http://www.satanicreds.org/satanicreds/titles.html for
clarification.
I agree. Don't read the Dark Tradition stuff. Read the Dark
DOCTRINES - which are completely free, as I pointed out in the url.
TJ
> On Nov 29, 8:16 pm, TJ <t...@post.com> wrote:
>
>
> > On Nov 27, 1:00 pm, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 26, 8:53 pm, TJ <t...@post.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Yes, some forms of satanism absolutely understands "agape" or the
> > > > feeling of love, TO love "it feels like the sun is in you and you
> > > > shine it out" - and it requires NO recriprocation. Dark Doctrines
> > > > writes of this.
>
> > > I find it amusing that you "feel like the sun" and yet adhere to "Dark
> > > Doctrine". Darkness doesn't shine. Agape is not adversarial. Yet
> > > the term Satan itself means "adversary". You seem more than a little
> > > confused here.
>
> > Darkness/Voidness - the Light/Vajre shines within that. I'm not
> > confused - and I'm not a Satanist.
>
> Then exactly which "Satanism" were you referring to when you said
> "some forms of satanism absolutely understands "agape" or the feeling
> of love"? And if your "Dark Doctrines" are not Satanism, then why
> were you using them as support for your claim about what "some forms
> of Satanism" believe?
Here is the faq.
http://www.satanicreds.org/satanicreds/faq.html
Here is other info by another view - at least he got it right. I
supplied urls only - of many types of "satanism."
http://www.guardiansofdarkness.com/GoD/god-satanism.html
>
> Like I say, you seem more than a little confused here.
You are, for assuming and not reading. Again
http://www.guardiansofdarkness.com/GoD/god-satanism.html
You read one damned thing from Vexen and WOW, you think you know what
satanism is. That's really laughable. Even a Christian wouldn't fuck
up that badly.
>
> > > > As to the bilge about altrueism (LaVeyans have a "thing" about
> > > > altrueism").... Well, I don't trust altrueism because - say you are
> > > > altrueistic toward a crippled person, and you help that person and all
> > > > that. You feel good about doing this, good about yourself (ego).
> > > > Would you feel good if the person became uncrippled and told you to
> > > > bug off? Therein is the problem with altrueism.
>
> > > Get the "e" out of it. The term is "altruism".
>
> > Yeah yeah, fast ty ping - typos.
>
> No, you did it every single time. That's not typos. That's
> misspelling. Quit making weak excuses.
No, that's typos. I type about 120 wmp. I often consistently make
same error - like typing NOW instead of NOT. strange error,
nonetheless, an error.
>
> > > Since altruism is
> > > acting unselfishly, then whether or not you "feel good about yourself"
> > > doesn't enter into it. If your actions are intended to make you feel
> > > good, they are, by the very definition of the term, not altruistic.
> > > The sun shines whether or not you sing praises to it. It doesn't go
> > > off and sulk if you aren't sufficiently appreciative.
>
> > I did not compare the sun shining to altruism.
>
> But I did. Does it also confuse you that two different ideas might
> use the same metaphorical image? Is that why you figured that if I
> used it, I must be referring to your use of it? I used it because I
> found it ironically amusing to use the same image to illustrate my
> point.
You are an egomaniac that wants to be right, 100% right all the time,
especially in your little shitfest here with that other poster
regarding "attachment." Here is unattachment. I have something. I
see a person I don't even know. That person is in need of that
something. I hand it to that person. I never see that person again
or wonder about it. That is unattached, self-less action. It's like
active non-doing.
I know what it feels like TO LOVE/agape. Period. It's NOT selfish at
all, not even a little bit. It's not like any other kind of "love" -
but in English, people use the same word to define a bunch of differnt
feelings. Yes, there is a form of Satanism - call it "satanism" - but
it is acknowledged as satanism by a few scholarly authors and more
than a few people that like it. Sat and Tan. Darkness Theology.
It's NOT adversarial in the least. It's NOT dualistic in the least,
either. There are other kinds too, as you'll find if you check the
url on it. The one that ends in god-satanism - that url.
>
> > > > MOST Of it has to do
> > > > with evolutionary biology - and that is ALL it is.
>
> > > First you say "most of it" and then you say "all of it". Make up your
> > > mind. As I said, you seem more than a little confused.
>
> > I'm not confused at all.
>
> Well, I think you'll have a hard time convincing anyone of that when
> you clearly fail to distinguish the difference between "most" and
> "all". That's pretty basic confusion.
You are confused then. You people are discussing what satanists mean
repeat, WHAT SATANISTS MEAN - by the word. I know what the LaVeyans
mean, they make it perfectly clear - and that's what you found and
then stopped looking. I am not sure what OTHER of the many orgs mean
by it at all - I never looked into it or cared to. I don't care. I
know, however, what altruism IS. It's just part of our biology. It's
nothing more. Humans tend to make a BIG FUCKING DEAL out of human
shit. Yawn, say the cats and dogs and whales and dolphins. :) I
yawn too because the altruism of western people, like the NW Europeans
- is alien to me and my race. It makes no sense, especially now
that's it's being used against them to harm them, to - exterminate
them! They are participating in their own genocide, due to altruism.
Their time is up.
>
> > Altruism IS part of evolutionary biology, a
> > thing primates do.
>
> Evolutionary biologists are like Freudians.
Not at all. Freud is pseudoscience. Neuroscience is science - and so
is biology and genetics. There is a biochemical measurement for ALL
of the emotions people feel, including excessive altruism. Altruism
has, lately, been very maladaptive in the West. Fact. Altruistic
tendencies that are imbalanced can be used against a whole people, by
another group, so that they do maladaptive things for their own people
- and pour altruism on people that would destroy them. Welcome to the
20th century. Oh, thanks to the Frankfurt School.
They build artificial
> mental constructs to explain phenomena and then think that that
> because they have an explanation, that must mean their constructs
> weren't artificial in the first place. The attribution of "altruism"
> to animals is an anthropomorphism.
No, in fact it is not. There is far more cooperation in all animals,
even microbes, than was thought before. You are ignorant, like a
monk.
>
> > > If you want to take it that far, you could assert that any animal
> > > without a sense of self is acting altruistically at all times. After
> > > all it is impossible to act selfishly if the animal does not have a
> > > self. The term only has meaning when applied to a being with a highly
> > > complex neurology that allows it to override instinctual behavior with
> > > intentional behavior. The only example of such a being on this planet
> > > is Homo sapiens sapiens. All that evolutionary biology speculation
> > > about altruism is just cloud-castles because no other critter on the
> > > planet has an option to choose to be altruistic or not.
>
> > You are wrong and obviously know nothing about other animals.
>
> Just saying "you are wrong" is an inept argument. Improve it or
> abandon the attempt.
ALL animals have a sense of self. Step on a cat's paw and see its
sense of self strike out at you. You can do the research into the
brains of other mammals yourself. And the behaviors of other animals,
especially social animals. The idiotic idea that MAN is somehow
different from other animals came from a really stupid MAN.
>
> > > > Now, I have never heard ANYONE ever quite define it that clearly -
> > > > except our crowd in the Dark Doctrines.
>
> > > Possibly this is because you are abysmally ignorant. Lots of people
> > > have defined lots of different kinds of love and done so very
> > > clearly. Perhaps you should read more widely on the subject before
> > > deciding you know fucking everything.
>
> > Have read widely.
>
> If true, then apparently without comprehension.
You are one of those people, I see. You want to be the Sage on the
Stage - kick out the stage and there is nobody there. I'm not a
religious person. I worked in infectious diseases/epidemiology in the
70s. Even BACTERIA have strategies that are better than anything MAN
ever cooked up. Man is not all that unique - OR that smart.
>
> > The way we have defined it is GUT level concrete.
> > Anyone can understand it.
>
> Just because some idea is simple doesn't mean it's correct. Lots of
> easily understood ideas are wrong.
People know what they feel. They either feel it or not. Many western
people have no idea they are feeling anyting - that is how fucked up
they have become. They have been made to feel guilt for simply BEING
- and for being able to make western civilization when others
obviously could NOT make it. That's nothing to feel guilty about -
yet another group has made them feel this. As such, their much lauded
altruism (that LaVeyan Satanism trashed because at least LaVey SAW the
harm it was doing) is being used against themselves. Maladaptive
altruism.
>
> > > For instance, have you even heard of, let alone read with
> > > comprehension, "The Art of Loving" by Erich Fromm?
>
> > Frankfurt Schooler, LMAO. Yah.
>
> Then you will retract your false claim that no one has ever defined
> love clearly except you.
Excuse me, but I did not say that. You did. I said that in the realm
of SATANISM, our crowd defined types of love very clearly - and people
did understand it more clearly from what we said. I never said I did
this. The Christian Bible defines love clearly, imo. So does
Buddhism. But in the realm of Satanism, that book is not exactly read
with an open mind. You are half citing what I said, oh superior one,
LMAO.
Or you will have demonstrated that you
> haven't really read Fromm at all.
It was Fromm and his gang that started the attack on western
civilization that has caused maladaptive altruism to reign supreme
now. Oh yes, I read them all. And I saw what people DID with what
these people wrote. They attacked western civilization - and probably
destroyed it (only time will tell).
You are an angry person, with a real problem with anyone else having a
say in something.
Go for it, I assume you are a WHITE BOY, so I say, go for it WHITE
BOY. Your world is finished, thanks to that maladaptive altruism :)
I might LIKE western civilization and all the fun things it brings,
but I do not particularly like the PEOPLE that made it. However, I'm
not of it, culturally or racially.
Now you have a nice day, boy.
There really is nothing more to say.
KoriHoughton
>
> Nice to see you jumping like a bitch in heat, encouraging people to do
> illegal things, my my.
Do you mean use the torrent, Tani? I can't imagine why you of all
people would consider torrents illegal, since there are plenty of
examples of you encouraging people on usenet to get torrents of films
and teevee shows.
> Yes, I love things and people - and there is
> not a selfish thing about it. It's a feeling. You have no love in
> you - that's more than obvious.
Your comment makes it more than obvious that you don't know what
you're posting about...nothing new in that.
>
> And, heh, for anyone interested in honorary titles (yes, I got handed
> quite a few), please see:
>
> http://www.satanicreds.org/satanicreds/titles.html for
> clarification.
ITYM trying to explain away the nasty things you were involved in as
long as you thought the COS had your back, followed by you getting
kicked to the curb when your unethical behavior passed the tolerance
level?
>
> I agree. Don't read the Dark Tradition stuff. Read the Dark
> DOCTRINES - which are completely free, as I pointed out in the url.
The URLs are the same quality level as the booklets. Loose quotations
(or paraphrases) of sources. IOW, Tani and Company give their
entertaining opinions on a variety of subjects. And, yes, we all know
that you believe people have been saved/helped by reading this stuff.
That's cool. PT Barnum was not wrong.
Luv,
Kori
TJ
there. I was from 1989 re these people (just 4 of them). And I know
exactly what happened - and so do quite a few other people who were
there and honest about it. Some of them are STILL in the COS, btw.
Oh yes. Contrary to popular opinion that likes to blame me and mine
for things that go wrong - their OWN FUCKING MEMBERS are doing that
shit to them. NONE of us are doing it.
Obviously, these people flaming each other over absolutely nothing
don't know that this
http://apodion.com/vad/section.php?id=28
Is in the fun section :) And while the actual article text some idiot
posted a url to doesn't mention it, the page I just posted DOES.
Scroll and see. And that is one more example of exactly what I
"thought" of the org that asked me to write them up an article - that
is, AFTER I experienced their members online (not before that) :) Oh
yes. JOKE. And they LIKED it. LMAO.
You know of online shit. I know of offline stuff - and there were
only 2 people, sometimes 4, I was ever in contact with - I wrote
articles and they printed them in their official publication - and
they wanted more from me and others here. That's all that went on for
about 8 years. That's all.
The same can be said of any other satanic org out there at the time.
I wrote articles, they published them. Eventually, they all handed
out honorary titles - which were as meaningless to me as was the
honorary title handed to Sammy Davis Jr. and M. Manson. Perhaps less
meaningless, because I never USED those titles. That's a huge clue
that your little muddled hatefilled mind refuses to come to terms
with. I NEVER USED IT. Never had a use for it either, UNTIL, UNTIL
the day that I got online and saw what hateful fuckheads they all were
- and then, Jeff Gerber of the ADL entered the picture and HE had a
use for my little honorary title. Now now, what the fuck did that
organizatino do, to anger a powerful Jewish orgnization like that? I
have no idea. And I don't care. BUT, in real life, Jeff was pals
with us. Pals overrides some org that I'm not even a PAID MEMBER of.
Get it? It's very simple.
See in - of course, you are panting and wanting to see in.
On Nov 30, 8:52 pm, KoriHoughton <korihough...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 30, 8:14 pm, TJ <t...@post.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Nice to see you jumping like a bitch in heat, encouraging people to do
> > illegal things, my my.
>
> Do you mean use the torrent, Tani? I can't imagine why you of all
> people would consider torrents illegal, since there are plenty of
> examples of you encouraging people on usenet to get torrents of films
> and teevee shows.
I have no problems with torrents. I advised them to see the url where
the stuff is FREE - that's mainly what dark DOCTRINE is. I could care
less if they go and look. But fuck that. And fuck them!
They need to really read up on BUDDHISM if they want to understand
what detachment is - and understand how the eastern meaning of self is
nothing like the western meaning. They find one thing from Vexen and
they imagine ALL of satandom means the same thing, or lacks info on
something. Lord Egan even wanted to included the L word (LOVE) in a
book he was going to write. Egan's take was that it was utterly
lacking in LaVeyan satanism.
The problem is simple. Online, I dealt only with the MEMBERS of that
org. OFFLINE, pre-internet, I dealt only with the LEADERSHIP - and it
was very simple. They wanted articles. We gave them articles (not
just me). They ran our add and did quite a few other big favors and
gave us stuff (we never asked for...., like Baphomet medals in
different colors which I sold....).
That's the big difference - and it's the huge piece missing from what
you imagine you'd like to know. Strangers offline with some cordial
or OK thing going - articles, publicatins, etc. Tit for tat. And
then online, meeting the fucking shitheads - and their own fucking
members coming to me, as if I could DO something for them, complaining
about the shitty treatment from their own membership. Why come to
me? I had no authority in that silly organization. You have no
fucking idea what happened. Raptis and Rinker were terrified to even
TALK to me on a phone, lest "THEY" find out. What the fuck? And
exactly what would "THEY" DO if they found out? What the hell kind of
people are these? They behaved as if Gilmore and company were the
fucking Mafia or something. No, they weren't. They were NOTHING.
Yet these people coming to me were SO DAMNED SCARED. Really, Kori,
what the fuck do you THINK I thought of all this - and of them? Hey ?
Or are you an imbecile, too?
Well, with nicks like Mein Kampf and Doktor Mengele in the ranks, on
their own chatrooms, the Auschwitz Dancers and the Cyclon B song and
such things, I can see what might just possibly have happened with a
few Jewish members or something, at least one I know for sure was out
to GET them for something. And so entered MY pal - Jeff - and his
radical nephew Jeff Jr. Jeff Sr. was of the ADL, had the connection -
and the head of it asked for MORE - and oh yeah, I got it. It was
just THAT easy. Jeff Jr posted online, pretending to be Jeff Sr.
Heh. So? He just didn't sound much like Jeff Sr, but who knew.
Nobody that counted.
And you think I didn't want to step on them? What the fuck? WHY JOIN
something like that? They PAID for a red card - and got treated like
shit? So they come to ME? ME? Asking for what? HELP? HUH? So
QUIT and get the money back. Sheesh.
These people imagine they are "big individuals" big "alien elite."
Kori, I have met MORE GUTS in an old freaking crippled people
belonging to fundamentalist christian evangelical outfits. Sheesh.
Coming to ME over this "they're picking on me, blah blah." What the
fuck ever. All I could do it forward their email/complaint to Peggy
or Peter. End of story, or so I thought. It all fit into Jeff's
schemes and whatever else. The rest is pure idgaf for me, except Jeff
PAID WELL. Ha.
I have more respect for the moronic kids in Jesus Camp than I do for
ANY MEMBERS I ran into in that satanic outfit. And phew, that's
saying a lot.
YOU are not in the know, Kori. YOU have no knowledge of almost a
decade OFFLINE and their official publications and such. NOTHING.
You are dealing in the dark - in the world of cyberspace only. And it
would have been OVER, had not a few hangers on obsessed on me like
little sychophantic asskissers.
You DO know that I trashed the shit out of their members - oh, yeah,
on usenet. But what you fail to realize is that you and a few others
are STILL obsessing over me. I find that LAUGHABLY FUNNY. Let's see,
I refused to trash Zeena when you were in a jealous rage over the
pretty woman. HA. Oh yes, I told you the one thing designed to make
you rage for years at me: I said I sent Aquino all your emails :)
Actually, I didn't do anything of the sort. I couldn't be bothered.
But it sure the fuck bothered you :) You are quite welcome! I LIED
to you, you stupid pathetic bitch. You didn't DESERVE anything
else.
I knew you'd never stop losing sleep over it. And my my, you raged
and raged, you raged like a bitch in a panic over Zeena and the TOS
and her priesthood or whatever the fuck that was, you raged and raged
like a jealous little petty bitch. White world, imo. Bullshit. You
are still raging, dear. I show up and BAM, you pounce on it like a
bitch in heat. I'm not gay, you know.
>
> > Yes, I love things and people - and there is
> > not a selfish thing about it. It's a feeling. You have no love in
> > you - that's more than obvious.
>
> Your comment makes it more than obvious that you don't know what
> you're posting about...nothing new in that.
They are speaking of detachment/attachment - and I'm very familiar
with that from my own culture - which is NOT western at all. So, heh,
you mewling little white cunt, shut the fuck up. As usual, you are an
idiot - and again, with your "handlers" bullshit. Heh, you feel
guilty about your FORMER idolization of Aquino.
>
>
> > And, heh, for anyone interested in honorary titles (yes, I got handed
> > quite a few), please see:
>
> >http://www.satanicreds.org/satanicreds/titles.html for
> > clarification.
>
> ITYM trying to explain away the nasty things you were involved in as
> long as you thought the COS had your back,
Stop! Say what? HAD MY BACK? LMAO, LMAO and LOL. Why in the fucking
world would they have my back? Are you insane? I don't need to
explain away or justify any of the NASTY SHIT I did - and bitch, you
have no fucking idea the REALLY NASTY shit that happened OFFLINE -
never disclosed to anyone online. One word: PHEW. Why in the fucking
world would ANY of them have my back? Because they asked for articles
and I and others down here gave them to them? What the fuck? It
doesn't work like that in real life, you stupid stupid mewling
fool.
I never knew their members offline. I dealt with 2 people most of the
time, a few times 4. That's IT. When I got to know just a little
about their members - BLECH. Human fucking scum. Like you. Members
of a tiny tiny little cult - bullying each other around. That's what
I saw. And the victims came to ME. And oh girl - I thought less of
the victims (victims of NOTHING, imo) than I did of the bullies. You
don't know about ANY of this. Ole made the COS files, LMAO. Oh yeah
- it's all there. And Bobo goes to the LaVeyan predominated 666 and
what happens? He's a nice guy. But instead of dialogue, what
happens? OH, the USUAL happens - LMAO .
Did Bobo expect LESS? HAAAAA. Some folks take long to learn. I was
online maybe a few months and I judged them all: SHIT to be trashed
and stepped on and if my pal wants to REALLY fuck them up - fine.
Good pay. People whining to me "they are picking on me blah blah."
Fucking IDIOTS. You know, if you wander into a club in the wrong part
of town and notice that it's dangerous in there, YOU FUCKING LEAVE and
YOU DO NOT RETURN. But - there was nothing dangerous, just petty
bullying - and these people were so scared! And you don't KNOW what I
thought of them? You don't?
followed by you getting
> kicked to the curb when your unethical behavior passed the tolerance
> level?
Kicked to what curb? Again, you have no fucking idea what you are
even talking about, Kori. Really. I didn't need them to run our ads
anymore, for one thing :) You really have a cult mentality, like that
Scratch fellow that was a bonafide MORON all the while he was in your
favorite org, the ToSet. He was a True Believer, but then, later on,
he realized he was cringing. Oh fucking whatever. CULTS. And people
prone to cults. People prone to allowing themselves to be TOLD who to
talk to, what to think, what to do, etc. Idiots.
I do not JOIN organizations where I don't GET something material for
my SMALL fee, like $10 a year or something. Clue: GET something.
You are just too familiar with people who DO shit like Scratch did, or
these people in this stupid little satanic cult. I'm not - oh, except
for online with the LaVeyans and others that paid to JOIN - nothing.
I am a member of a few international clubs, $10 bucks a year - and I
GET A LOT for that $10 bucks. And I go there to a real physical
building, a real club, and enjoy myself with good, friendly people who
are also there to have fun. There is NOTHING like this kind of shit
that goes on in such places. It's alien. They wouldn't believe it if
they were told - except the few familiar with - CULTS. Bonafide
CULTS. I'm not a joiner in such things. YOU ARE and you are
unfortunately familiar with people are also are.
I'm not one of them - and never was. LaVey knew this. Barton knew
this and ADMITTED IT in writing - do you doubt her own letter (you
NEVER identified with the CoS) - do you doubt her own knowledge of
this fact? The other two top people knew it. I didn't "know" anyone
else back then. Online? Imo - online shit is not real life, but the
mbmership I ran into online? I said it - I despised the "victims" more
than the buollies. But in the end, imo, they were ALL SHIT - and they
were just like YOU. Morons.
>
>
> > I agree. Don't read the Dark Tradition stuff. Read the Dark
> > DOCTRINES - which are completely free, as I pointed out in the url.
>
> The URLs are the same quality level as the booklets. Loose quotations
> (or paraphrases) of sources. IOW, Tani and Company give their
> entertaining opinions on a variety of subjects. And, yes, we all know
> that you believe people have been saved/helped by reading this stuff.
> That's cool. PT Barnum was not wrong.
You are dead. Do you actually think I give a shit what you - or
anyone else - thinks of the DDocs? Do you? They could find out the
same information, in a less understandable form albeit with a lot of
non-English words not defined well, from Vedanta or Northern
Buddhism.
No, Kori - I don't care. WHY don't you know this? Are you THAT
fucking stupid?
You are the kind of person that says "that is a pretty dress" if you
like a person. But if you dislike the person for some petty reason,
you change the tune into "she wears shitty dresses" speaking about the
same dress! You see, that is the hallmark of a petty, dead person
that is only alive because they are animated.
Thus, you got pegged. Now, try hard to have a nice day. I heard you
had a death in the family or something, gee, too bad. You sure don't
act like you give a fuck about it. You don't give a fuck about
anything but jumping on TANI TANI TANI wherver I might show up - or
even when I DO NOT show up. Obsessed much?
>
> Luv,
> Kori
Tom
> On Nov 30, 12:48 am, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 29, 8:16 pm, TJ <t...@post.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 27, 1:00 pm, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 26, 8:53 pm, TJ <t...@post.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Yes, some forms of satanism absolutely understands "agape" or the
> > > > > feeling of love, TO love "it feels like the sun is in you and you
> > > > > shine it out" - and it requires NO recriprocation. Dark Doctrines
> > > > > writes of this.
>
> > > > I find it amusing that you "feel like the sun" and yet adhere to "Dark
> > > > Doctrine". Darkness doesn't shine. Agape is not adversarial. Yet
> > > > the term Satan itself means "adversary". You seem more than a little
> > > > confused here.
>
> > > Darkness/Voidness - the Light/Vajre shines within that. I'm not
> > > confused - and I'm not a Satanist.
>
> > Then exactly which "Satanism" were you referring to when you said
> > "some forms of satanism absolutely understands "agape" or the feeling
> > of love"? And if your "Dark Doctrines" are not Satanism, then why
> > were you using them as support for your claim about what "some forms
> > of Satanism" believe?
>
> Here is the faq.http://www.satanicreds.org/satanicreds/faq.html
Where you (You *are* a founder of this "SR" thing, are you not?) admit
you are a satanist but try to differentiate yourself from other
satanists, but that doesn't make any difference because other
satanists also say they are not like other satanists, so instead you
all quibble about what "satanism" means. That just means that none of
you want to be associated with each other. And no wonder, since
virtually nobody else wants to be associated with any of you either.
> > Like I say, you seem more than a little confused here.
>
> You are, for assuming and not reading.
Reading the blabber you just cited bears out my conclusion. You're
badly confused.
I especially like the part where you make up a whole new word "satan"
out of "Sat" and "Tan", and then claim you "stick to standard
words".
> > > > Get the "e" out of it. The term is "altruism".
>
> > > Yeah yeah, fast ty ping - typos.
>
> > No, you did it every single time. That's not typos. That's
> > misspelling. Quit making weak excuses.
>
> No, that's typos. I type about 120 wmp.
And can't spell worth a shit. And can't figure out that trying to
deny this misspelling is only rubbing your nose in it all the more.
Stupid.
> > > > Since altruism is
> > > > acting unselfishly, then whether or not you "feel good about yourself"
> > > > doesn't enter into it. If your actions are intended to make you feel
> > > > good, they are, by the very definition of the term, not altruistic.
> > > > The sun shines whether or not you sing praises to it. It doesn't go
> > > > off and sulk if you aren't sufficiently appreciative.
>
> > > I did not compare the sun shining to altruism.
>
> > But I did. Does it also confuse you that two different ideas might
> > use the same metaphorical image? Is that why you figured that if I
> > used it, I must be referring to your use of it? I used it because I
> > found it ironically amusing to use the same image to illustrate my
> > point.
>
> You are an egomaniac that wants to be right,
Whether or not I'm an "egomaniac", I *am* right, as much as you hate
having to admit it. You also can't admit you misspelled a word
consistently right up to where I corrected you, after which you have
consistently spelled that word correctly, despite how fast you type.
Nor can you admit that you thought you owned a fucking metaphor and
had exclusive rights to its usage, until I corrected you. So when it
comes to wanting to be right but *failing* to be right and then not
wanting to admit it even when it's obvious, you're all alone here.
> Here is unattachment. I have something. I
> see a person I don't even know. That person is in need of that
> something. I hand it to that person. I never see that person again
> or wonder about it. That is unattached, self-less action. It's like
> active non-doing.
Except for the part where you congratulate yourself about it in
public, even though you haven't actually given anything to anybody,
since this is just you being hypothetical.
> I know what it feels like TO LOVE/agape. Period.
As does anybody who isn't a total psychopath. Big deal.
> Yes, there is a form of Satanism - call it "satanism" -
Then it seems even sillier that you tried to deny that it was
satanism.
> but
> it is acknowledged as satanism by a few scholarly authors and more
> than a few people that like it. Sat and Tan. Darkness Theology.
Cite the "scholarly authors" talking about your "Dark Doctrines".
Let's see some verifiable numbers on how many "more than a few" is.
> It's NOT adversarial in the least.
What you're trying to do is ride on the cultural notoriety of certain
words, like "satan" and "red" and "dark", without actually having to
commit to what made them notorious in the first place. You're
indulging in adolescent rebellion against the traditional religions of
your culture for shock value alone, which is essentially adversarial.
> It's NOT dualistic in the least,
> either.
You declare yourself "Left Hard Path", as differentiated from "Right
Hand Path" and you think you're not being dualistic. You idiot.
> > > > First you say "most of it" and then you say "all of it". Make up your
> > > > mind. As I said, you seem more than a little confused.
>
> > > I'm not confused at all.
>
> > Well, I think you'll have a hard time convincing anyone of that when
> > you clearly fail to distinguish the difference between "most" and
> > "all". That's pretty basic confusion.
>
> You are confused then.
I find it hilarious that *your* inability to distinguish the
difference between "most" and "all" somehow means that *I'm* confused.
> You people are discussing what satanists mean
> repeat, WHAT SATANISTS MEAN - by the word.
There you go again, trying to deny that you're a satanist after just
having said you were a satanist.
> I know what the LaVeyans
> mean, they make it perfectly clear - and that's what you found and
> then stopped looking. I am not sure what OTHER of the many orgs mean
> by it at all - I never looked into it or cared to.
So when you were generalizing about satanists, you actually means one
particular bunch of saatanoists and don't know shit about any other
kinds of satanists at all.
> I know, however, what altruism IS. It's just part of our biology.
So you've claimed, but your only argument in support of that claim is
a vague wave at some kind of speculative "evolutionary biology" that
you can't even cite.
> Yawn, say the cats and dogs and whales and dolphins.
What did I tell you about the fallacy of anthropomorphism?
> I yawn too because the altruism of western people, like the NW Europeans
> - is alien to me and my race.
Oh, I just can't wait to find out which "race" you think you are.
> > > Altruism IS part of evolutionary biology, a
> > > thing primates do.
>
> > Evolutionary biologists are like Freudians.
>
> Not at all. Freud is pseudoscience.
So it "evolutionary biology", at least in the sense that *you* are
using the term here.
> Altruism
> has, lately, been very maladaptive in the West. Fact.
You also don't seem to know the difference between a fact and an
opinion.
> > The attribution of "altruism"
> > to animals is an anthropomorphism.
>
> No, in fact it is not.
Again, you display an inability to distinguish between "fact" and
"opinion", just as you cannot distinguish the difference between
"most" and "all". Maybe you can try to claim that this is just a
typographical error, too. Or that I'm an "egomaniac" for being right
yet again.
> There is far more cooperation in all animals,
> even microbes, than was thought before.
Cooperation isn't altruism, you numbskull.
> > > You are wrong and obviously know nothing about other animals.
>
> > Just saying "you are wrong" is an inept argument. Improve it or
> > abandon the attempt.
>
> ALL animals have a sense of self. Step on a cat's paw and see its
> sense of self strike out at you.
You are fundamentally misunderstanding what a "sense of self" is. It
is not simple consciousness. It is the ability to recognize oneself
as an individual, distinct from other individuals. One of the most
widely known tests of animal sense of self is the "mirror test"
developed by Dr. Gordon Gallup, currently with the University of
Albany.
Gallup, G.G., Jr. (1970). Chimpanzees: Self Recognition. Science, 167,
86-87.
This test is used to determine if an animal can recognize its
reflection in a mirror as itself, not as some other animal. Cats and
dogs consistently fail this test, as do most human beings up to almost
three years of age. The sense of self as distinguished from others is
a higher order cognitive process not shared by most animals.
So most animals do not even have a sense of self and therefore it is
absurd to claim they act either selfishly or altruistically.
> > If true, then apparently without comprehension.
>
> You are one of those people, I see.
One of those who have actually read widely instead of merely having
bragged about doing so.
> I'm not a religious person.
Just like you're not a satanist. You simply have a different
definition for the word, one that you've made up for yourself.
> > Just because some idea is simple doesn't mean it's correct. Lots of
> > easily understood ideas are wrong.
>
> People know what they feel.
Not as often as you'd think. Mostly people make up stories about what
they feel and then confuse the stories for the feelings. A talented
self-confuser like yourself is very likely to do that a lot.
> > > > For instance, have you even heard of, let alone read with
> > > > comprehension, "The Art of Loving" by Erich Fromm?
>
> > > Frankfurt Schooler, LMAO. Yah.
>
> > Then you will retract your false claim that no one has ever defined
> > love clearly except you.
>
> Excuse me, but I did not say that. You did.
Yes, I did say that. Nor did I in any way imply that *you* said
anything of the sort. You're neither honest enough nor educated
enough to even realize when you should retract a blatantly false
claim. I'm simply telling you that, if you had actually read Fromm
with comprehension, then you'd know he defined love very clearly,
although not as simplistically and ignorantly as you have. But you
haven't actually read Fromm. You've only read a little bit *about*
him. That's now quite obvious as well.
Alrah
> On Nov 27, 5:37 pm, Alrah <alrah-pub...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 27 Nov, 20:19, KoriHoughton <korihough...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I see you've fully recharged your BS battery over the summer, Tani.
> > > What fun!
>
> > Ah - that's Tani? Author of the psychotic rant athttp://apodion.com/vad/article.php?id=20&aid=177
>
> > Perhaps I will pass on the 'dark doctrines' after all. lol.
>
> > Well, unless anyone sane has something to recommend them... Frothing
> > at the mouth is a bad sign for both horses and people.
>
> Interesting. That's a rant? It is supposed to be funny.
Not even as a comedy act in a big red nose, rewritten and performed by
the ghost of Bill Hicks, would that be funny.
> I see Hr.
> Vad put my name to it. His bad. I didn't write it. I did, however,
> EDIT it from something written long ago and handed it to um, heh (not
> Vad) - where it got all kinds of praise and shit. Yup - and shit,
> imo. I didn't write it. I did edit it - and while I was doing it, I
> was laughing so damned hard I didn't know if I could finish it. The
> author? I'll never tell. Someone whose long dead.
Ok. Back to the original question.
You were saying that Satanists (some of them anyways) do not see love
without attachment as selfish love? So a few Satanists basically take
a line identical to some Buddhists on love and non attachment? How do
these Satanists distinguish themselves from the ones that say all love
is intrinsically selfish? I'm assuming that such a fundemental
difference in perspective could not exist within one school?
Tehiru
> You are fundamentally misunderstanding what a "sense of self" is. It
> is not simple consciousness. It is the ability to recognize oneself
> as an individual, distinct from other individuals. One of the most
> widely known tests of animal sense of self is the "mirror test"
> developed by Dr. Gordon Gallup, currently with the University of
> Albany.
>
> Gallup, G.G., Jr. (1970). Chimpanzees: Self Recognition. Science, 167,
> 86-87.
>
> This test is used to determine if an animal can recognize its
> reflection in a mirror as itself, not as some other animal. Cats and
> dogs consistently fail this test, as do most human beings up to almost
> three years of age. The sense of self as distinguished from others is
> a higher order cognitive process not shared by most animals.
Starting from the definition of self-awareness as the ability to
recognize oneself as distinct from other individuals and the
environment and further understanding this recognition to be a higher-
order cognitive function, I have a question. Do you agree with the
notion that on the most fundamental level, this self-awareness of
duality is the logical foundation for recognition of other dualities?
In other words, the essential duality from which other dualities
cannnot be recognized? How does this dovetail with the mystical
pursuit of formless consciousness, where those dualities are
undermined with the ultimate goal of non-existence?
Alrah
There is no essential duality.
On a fundemental level then awareness is simple a tracking of where
you are in time and space. Hadit.
The feedback from the senses can be fed into a feedback loop that
creates 'self', or it can be fed back as it is to create boundless
awareness without reflection of self. Nuit.
You have to add something for delusion to creep in.
You know - enlightenment is very very simple. It's so simple most
people miss it, because the mind does not create simple structures for
it's reflections. It thinks and builds halls of mirrors that are not
real.
Love adds everything that actually *is* and cleans up delusion spilled
on the floor by also loving that which is *not*.
If you can't love it, you can't see it.
Tehiru
> There is no essential duality.
Between self and not-self? Yes, I am aware of the Buddhist concept of
formless consciousness. However, I am not a Buddhist. Does it
necessarily follow that the Buddhist path of mystical pursuit is
necessarily the one true way? Why not Sufism, Malek Tous or even
something Western? Aren't there many paths to the Absolute?
Tom
>
>
> Starting from the definition of self-awareness as the ability to
> recognize oneself as distinct from other individuals and the
> environment and further understanding this recognition to be a higher-
> order cognitive function, I have a question. Do you agree with the
> notion that on the most fundamental level, this self-awareness of
> duality is the logical foundation for recognition of other dualities?
One might argue it, but I wouldn't say I'm convinced of it.
According to Buddhist teachings a human being is made up of five
"skandhas", five aggregations of tendencies. These five skandhas
proceed one from another. The first is form, the elements, or the
body itself. The second is sensibilities, the organs that react to
stimuli, the eye, the ear, and so forth. The third is perception, the
representation of the sensibilities as sensory experiences, sight,
sound, and so forth. The fourth skandha is the will, the ability to
act, based on one's perceptions. The fifth and last is self-
awareness, the representation of the body's actions and perceptions as
if they were one on-going individual instead of a temporary and
dynamic collection of aggregations.
In this ordering, self-awareness is not fundamental to differentiation
(of which duality is only the simplest possible condition out of
many), but a late development of it, just as self-recognition as
expressed in the mirror test is a late-developing cognitive process.
> How does this dovetail with the mystical
> pursuit of formless consciousness, where those dualities are
> undermined with the ultimate goal of non-existence?
These dualities are revealed as illusions. They are not solid objects
but continually transforming collections of tendencies. One might
think of the self as sort of like a rainbow. A rainbow is an illusion
formed by the spreading of sunlight bent through tiny droplets of
water, which, when viewed from a particular angle, appears to our eyes
as a series of very discrete colored bands arcing from one location to
another. It seems like a solid, ongoing thing, but it's not.
TJ
> On 1 Dec, 01:11, TJ <t...@post.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 27, 5:37 pm, Alrah <alrah-pub...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 27 Nov, 20:19, KoriHoughton <korihough...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I see you've fully recharged your BS battery over the summer, Tani.
> > > > What fun!
>
> > > Ah - that's Tani? Author of the psychotic rant athttp://apodion.com/vad/article.php?id=20&aid=177
>
> > > Perhaps I will pass on the 'dark doctrines' after all. lol.
>
> > > Well, unless anyone sane has something to recommend them... Frothing
> > > at the mouth is a bad sign for both horses and people.
>
> > Interesting. That's a rant? It is supposed to be funny.
>
> Not even as a comedy act in a big red nose, rewritten and performed by
> the ghost of Bill Hicks, would that be funny.
What's funny about it is that it was praised thru the roof, tho
nobody's real name was on there originally, it simply said "The
Commissar" or something like that. Or "A comrade" - I don't exactly
remember, But I DID NOT WRITE IT. So, you see, my name was not on the
original. What Vad did with it - I don't know. Oh, I edited it,
that's for sure, with some help. And that it was so highly praised by
the ORG I WROTE IT FOR is what is funny. In fact, it's hilarious.
Call that an SR inside joke played on the org that asked for the
article.
>
> > I see Hr.
> > Vad put my name to it. His bad. I didn't write it. I did, however,
> > EDIT it from something written long ago and handed it to um, heh (not
> > Vad) - where it got all kinds of praise and shit. Yup - and shit,
> > imo. I didn't write it. I did edit it - and while I was doing it, I
> > was laughing so damned hard I didn't know if I could finish it. The
> > author? I'll never tell. Someone whose long dead.
>
> Ok. Back to the original question.
>
> You were saying that Satanists (some of them anyways) do not see love
> without attachment as selfish love? So a few Satanists basically take
> a line identical to some Buddhists on love and non attachment? How do
> these Satanists distinguish themselves from the ones that say all love
> is intrinsically selfish? I'm assuming that such a fundemental
> difference in perspective could not exist within one school?
I gave you the fAQ to the SR, which some consider, which some scholars
consider in books they're written, a "satanic" school of thought.
Yes, it IS identical to the Buddhist/Vedantic. Suggest you read the
FAQ which clearly explains these questions. I think Egan's
organization, I don't know what he calls it now, or what name it's
under, also has Love in the Buddhist sense. Agape in Greek. How do
they distinguish themselves? Sir, ALL these other satanic
organizations, for the most part, have NOTHING TO DO with the CoS.
That's pretty clear in what they have to say on their own sites, about
their own orgs.
TJ
On Dec 1, 1:42 am, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Nov 30, 5:50 pm, TJ <t...@post.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Here is the faq.http://www.satanicreds.org/satanicreds/faq.html
>
> Where you (You *are* a founder of this "SR" thing, are you not?) admit
> you are a satanist but try to differentiate yourself from other
> satanists,
You are confused. I am not a Satanist. I am one of the founders of
the SR. I am Lamaist by culture/race - if one wishes to ascribe a
religion to a race. The SR is not like any other satanic org out
there - that's very very clear to anyone that seriously reads the
stuff. It's clear to a Jesuit Priest that JOINED it and to a few
other Christians that joined it, it's clear to Muslims that joined it,
it's clear to atheitst that joined it and it is clear to scholar that
wrote about it. OK? You do the research, then. The faq is clear
enough. Is SR even a satanic org? It depends on whom you ask. I say
no. Jerome says yes. I say no because Sri Kala Chakra or Mahakala
(great blackness) IS my cultural Deity - and it is ONE, not two - just
one. There is no adversary. Jerome says yes because Christians and
western culture regard "darkness of any kind" as bad and counter to
"lightness." Jerome is Jewish by culture. I'm Lamaist. Have some
christians considered the deity of our people, and many other people
that have similar philosophy, to be like the devil? Oh yes, they
have. In this age of political correctness, they tend to shy away
from such claims.
but that doesn't make any difference because other
> satanists also say they are not like other satanists, so instead you
> all quibble about what "satanism" means.
Excuse? I do not quibble about what satanism means at all. I
recognize that there are MANY orgs out there, and I saw that right
away (in the face of one org that wanted to be The Only True Org)...
I don't quibble with anyone - because I don't care. To me, it's
perfectly obvious that NO TWO PEOPLE ON THE PLANET see the color green
in the same way. NO TWO PEOPLE ON THE PLANET taste coffee the same
way. It's obvious. There is nothing to argue about. Perhaps the
quibbling from that "One True Org" used to come due to their losing
money when these other orgs got members. I'd guess so.
You see, two people carefully read the same story. They even read it
outloud to each other and friends, taking turns. I say that Mr. Jones
is to blame for the catastrophy that ensued, and I list all she did
wrong to screw it up. He says that Mr. Smith is to blame, and lists
good reasons. Yet we both read the same, identical story. Who is
right? One might try asking the WRITER of the story what HE intended
when he wrote it. But many say that the author's intent is
meaningless. So you have it. SR people DO NOT quibble with anyone.
We tend not to care what others do - so long as they don't HARM US.
That just means that none of
> you want to be associated with each other. And no wonder, since
> virtually nobody else wants to be associated with any of you either.
That's not what I see. I see that MOST of the many many orgs out
there use material from the SR, the CoS/LaVay and from the ToSet. But
who cares if they want to be associated otherwise? I don't see anyone
caring, but heh, perhaps I'm not paying attention. I do me. You do
you. That works fine.
I know that evengalicals are loathe to be associated with Blessed
Mother worshiping Catholics. So? Who cares. The fact that Shiites
are at war with Sunni - now, due to terrorism, that might be something
worth caring about - i.e., PAYING ATTENTION TO. Got it? Simple,
right?
>
> > > Like I say, you seem more than a little confused here.
>
> > You are, for assuming and not reading.
>
> Reading the blabber you just cited bears out my conclusion. You're
> badly confused.
>
> I especially like the part where you make up a whole new word "satan"
> out of "Sat" and "Tan", and then claim you "stick to standard
> words".
Read the faq. Read the "types of satanism" on the GoD site - a Jesuit
wrote that.
I'm so happy that you have found something to LIKE, sir :) I hope it
made you happy.
>
> Cite the "scholarly authors" talking about your "Dark Doctrines".
> Let's see some verifiable numbers on how many "more than a few" is.
One is a book (the latest one, there are a few others and I can't cite
them because I wasn't paying close enough attention - like, I didn't
care). "Contemporary Religious Satanism" by Petersen. One other
might be calles "Satanism Today" but I'm not sure. I don't have the
book - and I never even ventured to borrow it to read from a library.
I'm not interested in it.
>
> > It's NOT adversarial in the least.
>
> What you're trying to do is ride on the cultural notoriety of certain
> words, like "satan" and "red" and "dark", without actually having to
> commit to what made them notorious in the first place. You're
> indulging in adolescent rebellion against the traditional religions of
> your culture for shock value alone, which is essentially adversarial.
Not in the least. Only a fool would think that, a fool that looks at
book covers and doesn't look inside the book.
>
> > It's NOT dualistic in the least,
> > either.
>
> You declare yourself "Left Hard Path", as differentiated from "Right
> Hand Path" and you think you're not being dualistic. You idiot.
You are the idiot and you really stepped in it. Here - one of the
main articles:
http://www.satanicreds.org/satanicreds/lhp-rhp.html
Snip the rest. You are a royal fucking bore and you seem to be in
conflict with yourself - so you come on here seeking conflict with
others. Heh, try shadow boxing.
This convo is over because it is boring to me. You are stupid - a
typical white boy.
TJ
again - and then, OH JOY, eastern daylight savings time! YAY.
On Dec 1, 1:41 am, KoriHoughton <korihough...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 30, 10:12 pm, TJ <t...@post.com> wrote:
>
> Tani, WTF??? I've deleted alt.magick from this spam of an interesting
> thread.
Heh, you know, you brought the subject up, lest you forget it. Imo,
it's ancient history.
>
> > Kori, you can try to rewrite history all you wish. But you weren't
> > there. I was from 1989 re these people (just 4 of them). And I know
> > exactly what happened - and so do quite a few other people who were
> > there and honest about it. Some of them are STILL in the COS, btw.
> > Oh yes. Contrary to popular opinion that likes to blame me and mine
> > for things that go wrong - their OWN FUCKING MEMBERS are doing that
> > shit to them. NONE of us are doing it.
>
> Since you are not a member of the COS, what makes you think anyone is
> doing anything to the actual members? I think what you refer to is
> ancient history. I doubt the COSsers give you and the SRs much of a
> thought these days.
>
And vice versa - as it should be - and as it SHOULD HAVE BEEN back
then. It WOULD HAVE BEEN, on our end.
>
> > Obviously, these people flaming each other over absolutely nothing
> > don't know that thishttp://apodion.com/vad/section.php?id=28
> > Is in the fun section :) And while the actual article text some idiot
> > posted a url to doesn't mention it, the page I just posted DOES.
> > Scroll and see. And that is one more example of exactly what I
> > "thought" of the org that asked me to write them up an article - that
> > is, AFTER I experienced their members online (not before that) :) Oh
> > yes. JOKE. And they LIKED it. LMAO.
>
> Ancient history.
Agreed. So who brought it up? I didn't.
>
>
> > You know of online shit. I know of offline stuff - and there were
> > only 2 people, sometimes 4, I was ever in contact with - I wrote
> > articles and they printed them in their official publication - and
> > they wanted more from me and others here. That's all that went on for
> > about 8 years. That's all.
>
> You're right, I don't know anything about the COS offline. They don't
> bother me, and I don't bother them. Works for me.
That works for me too - and it have worked for me back then when they
DID bother me - and so many other orgs out there, like Egan's.
>
>
> > The same can be said of any other satanic org out there at the time.
> > I wrote articles, they published them. Eventually, they all handed
> > out honorary titles - which were as meaningless to me as was the
> > honorary title handed to Sammy Davis Jr. and M. Manson. Perhaps less
> > meaningless, because I never USED those titles. That's a huge clue
> > that your little muddled hatefilled mind refuses to come to terms
> > with. I NEVER USED IT. Never had a use for it either, UNTIL, UNTIL
> > the day that I got online and saw what hateful fuckheads they all were
> > - and then, Jeff Gerber of the ADL entered the picture and HE had a
> > use for my little honorary title. Now now, what the fuck did that
> > organizatino do, to anger a powerful Jewish orgnization like that? I
> > have no idea. And I don't care. BUT, in real life, Jeff was pals
> > with us. Pals overrides some org that I'm not even a PAID MEMBER of.
> > Get it? It's very simple.
>
> More ancient history.
Yes, but its published and hard copy ancient history :)
>
>
> > See in - of course, you are panting and wanting to see in.
>
> Actually, I am leaving one of my computers on (this one) to see if the
> security software does it's first of the month scan. I missed last
> month due to my move.
>
Also visit "trend.com" occasionally to get the free "house call."
They often catch stuff other programs miss. Spybot Search and
Destroy is also good to have with antivirus.
>
> > They need to really read up on BUDDHISM if they want to understand
> > what detachment is - and understand how the eastern meaning of self is
> > nothing like the western meaning. They find one thing from Vexen and
> > they imagine ALL of satandom means the same thing, or lacks info on
> > something. Lord Egan even wanted to included the L word (LOVE) in a
> > book he was going to write. Egan's take was that it was utterly
> > lacking in LaVeyan satanism.
>
> Who cares what Egan thinks or wants? I don't.
But obviously the people writing on this thread about love and
selfishness do care.
>
>
> > The problem is simple. Online, I dealt only with the MEMBERS of that
> > org. OFFLINE, pre-internet, I dealt only with the LEADERSHIP - and it
> > was very simple. They wanted articles. We gave them articles (not
> > just me). They ran our add and did quite a few other big favors and
> > gave us stuff (we never asked for...., like Baphomet medals in
> > different colors which I sold....).
>
> Still more ancient history.
>
Yes - but WHO brought it up inspiring me to explain this ancient
history? Um, not me. I didn't. YOU did.
>
> > That's the big difference - and it's the huge piece missing from what
> > you imagine you'd like to know. Strangers offline with some cordial
> > or OK thing going - articles, publicatins, etc. Tit for tat. And
> > then online, meeting the fucking shitheads - and their own fucking
> > members coming to me, as if I could DO something for them, complaining
> > about the shitty treatment from their own membership. Why come to
> > me? I had no authority in that silly organization. You have no
> > fucking idea what happened. Raptis and Rinker were terrified to even
> > TALK to me on a phone, lest "THEY" find out. What the fuck? And
> > exactly what would "THEY" DO if they found out? What the hell kind of
> > people are these? They behaved as if Gilmore and company were the
> > fucking Mafia or something. No, they weren't. They were NOTHING.
> > Yet these people coming to me were SO DAMNED SCARED. Really, Kori,
> > what the fuck do you THINK I thought of all this - and of them? Hey ?
> > Or are you an imbecile, too?
>
> Tani, you and your goons threatened and attacked quite a few people on
> here, including folks who belonged to no org. I don't care what the
> COSsers did offline. I saw you and your pals online attacking people
> you had never met as if they were real life enemies of yours.
NOT unless they attacked one of us first. REPEAT - NOT unless they
attacked one of us first. That has always been the case. DEFENSE,
not attack. There is no doubt about that. And there is just too much
of some of that that DID happen online, for you NOT to know that our
side only defended. We never initiated any attacks on anyone.
You know, you remind me if some really stupid, mentally fucked up kids
back in the 50s that oftentimes would push and shove, push and shove,
hit and slap, punch and knock books out of another kid's hands - and
when that kid whirled around and kicked the bully in the head causing
serious damage - the bully WHINES "you attacked me." Uh huh. It
didn't fly back then. It doesn't fly now.
>
>
> > Well, with nicks like Mein Kampf and Doktor Mengele in the ranks, on
> > their own chatrooms, the Auschwitz Dancers and the Cyclon B song and
> > such things, I can see what might just possibly have happened with a
> > few Jewish members or something, at least one I know for sure was out
> > to GET them for something. And so entered MY pal - Jeff - and his
> > radical nephew Jeff Jr. Jeff Sr. was of the ADL, had the connection -
> > and the head of it asked for MORE - and oh yeah, I got it. It was
> > just THAT easy. Jeff Jr posted online, pretending to be Jeff Sr.
> > Heh. So? He just didn't sound much like Jeff Sr, but who knew.
> > Nobody that counted.
>
> Yeah? How do these people feel about the TOSsers and how they play
> with Nazism, and just fascism generally?
I have no idea. I don't know what they have going on in their
organization. You know, you know a LOT about the ToSet. You know a
LOT about what they do and say, too. I don't. Well, "Evolution
Christians and Setians" is about the sum of what we on our side know
about the ToSet. The article is still on Vad's site.
The COSsers are just more
> open and matter-of-fact about shocking people. Personally, I find
> mocking the baddest bogeymen of the 20th Century more rational than
> sugar coating racialist doctrines in paganism and spoonfeeding it to
> the spear carriers in an org. But I'm funny that way.
You see shocking people. I didn't quite see it that way at all.
Neither did the ADL. I was there. Jeff was there. You were not
there.
>
>
>
> > And you think I didn't want to step on them? What the fuck? WHY JOIN
> > something like that? They PAID for a red card - and got treated like
> > shit? So they come to ME? ME? Asking for what? HELP? HUH? So
> > QUIT and get the money back. Sheesh.
> > These people imagine they are "big individuals" big "alien elite."
> > Kori, I have met MORE GUTS in an old freaking crippled people
> > belonging to fundamentalist christian evangelical outfits. Sheesh.
> > Coming to ME over this "they're picking on me, blah blah." What the
> > fuck ever. All I could do it forward their email/complaint to Peggy
> > or Peter. End of story, or so I thought. It all fit into Jeff's
> > schemes and whatever else. The rest is pure idgaf for me, except Jeff
> > PAID WELL. Ha.
>
> Okay, Tani. We've already heard about how you will turn on anyone and
> sell anyone out. Ha indeed. Ha ha ha ha
Turn on a total stranger that I consider scum of the earth? Indeed,
sure thing. Guaranteed.
>
>
>
> > I have more respect for the moronic kids in Jesus Camp than I do for
> > ANY MEMBERS I ran into in that satanic outfit. And phew, that's
> > saying a lot.
>
> Well, that's not a surprise considering you're still such a good
> katlick girl.
More fantasy from Kori.
>
>
>
> > YOU are not in the know, Kori. YOU have no knowledge of almost a
> > decade OFFLINE and their official publications and such. NOTHING.
> > You are dealing in the dark - in the world of cyberspace only. And it
> > would have been OVER, had not a few hangers on obsessed on me like
> > little sychophantic asskissers.
>
> I doubt that. For you, it is never over.
Correction - DEFEND. It SHOULD have been over when I wrote Barton
that letter no longer allowing her org to use a WORD of our stuff.
But it was never up to me. If it were, it would have been OVER. You
just don't want to believe that. And WHO - YOU bring it all up
again. YOU did this. Not me.
>
>
>
> > You DO know that I trashed the shit out of their members - oh, yeah,
> > on usenet. But what you fail to realize is that you and a few others
> > are STILL obsessing over me. I find that LAUGHABLY FUNNY. Let's see,
> > I refused to trash Zeena when you were in a jealous rage over the
> > pretty woman. HA. Oh yes, I told you the one thing designed to make
> > you rage for years at me: I said I sent Aquino all your emails :)
> > Actually, I didn't do anything of the sort. I couldn't be bothered.
> > But it sure the fuck bothered you :) You are quite welcome! I LIED
> > to you, you stupid pathetic bitch. You didn't DESERVE anything
> > else.
>
> You're too dense to figure out it wans't WHO you supposedly BCCed my
> words to, it was that you said it was done at all. You could have
> pretended you sent my emails to Peter Gilmore, Lard Egan, Harry Lime,
> or Cindy the Undead Bartek-Medina and I still would have reacted the
> same way. And that is the funniest thing about the whole matter. You
> are so obsessed with org politics that you project your emotions onto
> everyone else, including me. I think you are too old to change. Eh.
I didn't project a thing. You know too much about the ToSet and you
knew too much about them and the personal lives of their members,
including Lilith, all along. You got upset over it - and you can't
admit your buttons got pushed. You asked for it when you railed in a
jealous fit over Zeena. Woman, you are simply PETTY. So get the fuck
over it. You still aren't over it - and you STILL know way too much
about the personal lives and personal doings of the ToSet. I find
that very odd, since even LaVey (who hated the ToSet and Aquino) did
NOT know as much as you ever knew, and still know.
>
HG
> To me, it's
> perfectly obvious that NO TWO PEOPLE ON THE PLANET see the color green
> in the same way. NO TWO PEOPLE ON THE PLANET taste coffee the same
> way. It's obvious. There is nothing to argue about.
I beg to differ. Let's argue:
How can you *know* that you and me see the color green in a different way?
Or feel the taste of coffee differently.
You can't.
You and I might experience the same thing when we see the color green, *or*
we might experience the color green differently. But we cannot know what the
other experiences, so we cannot tell if we experience green the same way or
not.
So your statement "it's perfectly obvious that NO TWO PEOPLE ON THE PLANET
see the color green in the same way" is false, since you cannot tell what
other people experience. They might all experience the color green the same
way, for all you know.
HG
Tom
> See in, but now this is growing tiresome.
>
> On Dec 1, 1:42 am, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 30, 5:50 pm, TJ <t...@post.com> wrote:
>
> > > Here is the faq.http://www.satanicreds.org/satanicreds/faq.html
>
> > Where you (You *are* a founder of this "SR" thing, are you not?) admit
> > you are a satanist but try to differentiate yourself from other
> > satanists,
>
> You are confused. I am not a Satanist. I am one of the founders of
> the SR.
Since the "S" in "SR" tstands for "Satanic" and the FAQ answer to the
question "Are you Satanists is "Yes and no, depending on how you
define Satanist", then you are indeed a satanist if you associate
yourself with SR, which you can hardly avoid if you claim to be a
founder of it. So, you are indeed confused when you deny that you are
a satanist while also claiming to be a satanist.
> I am Lamaist by culture/race -
There is no race called "lama" or "lamaist". Nor can culture be
equated rationally with race. The number of things you display
confusion about grows with each posts.
> if one wishes to ascribe a
> religion to a race.
Which only a very confused person would do.
> The SR is not like any other satanic org out
> there -
But it is a satanic org, by your own declaration.
> It's clear to a Jesuit Priest that JOINED it and to a few
> other Christians that joined it, it's clear to Muslims that joined it,
> it's clear to atheitst that joined it and it is clear to scholar that
> wrote about it. OK?
Given that most of what you say is non-factual, I dispute your claim
that any Jesuits or Muslims have ever joined your little cult. Name
some names.
> The faq is clear
> Is SR even a satanic org? It depends on whom you ask.
If you are to believe your own FAQ, it *is* a satanic organization.
Of course, if your FAQ is not to be believed, than none of the rest of
your drivel should be believed either. The fucking *name* of your
cult is "Satanic Reds". If it isn't "satanic", then you have the
wrong name entirely.
> I say
> no. Jerome says yes.
Your FAQ says yes and no, depending on your definition. But no matter
how you define it, you call your group "sataniic" and it's just plain
stupid to try to deny it.
If you and your little friend can't even agree on something as basic
as the name of your group, you aren't much of a group.
> I say no because Sri Kala Chakra or Mahakala
> (great blackness) IS my cultural Deity- and it is ONE, not two - just
> one.
Then get the hell out of a group of crackpots that proclaims something
you think is incorrect. You might as well declare yourself a
fundamentalist Christian who doesn't believe in Jesus. If your deity
is Mahakala, you're not a "Satanic Red", you're a "Buddhist".
> > but that doesn't make any difference because other
> > satanists also say they are not like other satanists, so instead you
> > all quibble about what "satanism" means.
>
> Excuse?
Yes, it's just an excuse you're using to try and piss off mommy and
daddy by calling yourselves something they'll find shocking.
> I do not quibble about what satanism means at all.
You sure are big on denying the blatantly obvious.
> To me, it's
> perfectly obvious that NO TWO PEOPLE ON THE PLANET see the color green
> in the same way.
That is not "pefectly obvious" to anyone. In fact, it's nothing but a
philosophical quibble about something essentially unknowable. Private
experience is prive. You cannot know what someone else experiences.
Thus, you cannot know whether or not any of your experience is the
same, similar, or very different from anybody else's.
> > That just means that none of
> > you want to be associated with each other. And no wonder, since
> > virtually nobody else wants to be associated with any of you either.
>
> That's not what I see.
Oe that's not what you claim to see. Since we have ample evidence of
your self-contradictions, we certainly can't depend on any consistency
in your self-reports.
> I see that MOST of the many many orgs out
> there use material from the SR, the CoS/LaVay and from the ToSet.
And this contradicts another statement you made that you have no
familiarity with any other satanist organization beyond LaVey's. So
that's just more of your bullshit.
> > I especially like the part where you make up a whole new word "satan"
> > out of "Sat" and "Tan", and then claim you "stick to standard
> > words".
>
> Read the faq.
I just cited your FAQ, idiot.
> > Cite the "scholarly authors" talking about your "Dark Doctrines".
> > Let's see some verifiable numbers on how many "more than a few" is.
>
> One is a book (the latest one, there are a few others and I can't cite
> them because I wasn't paying close enough attention - like, I didn't
> care). "Contemporary Religious Satanism" by Petersen.
Hilarious. You can't cite it because you're not paying attention. So
you know the title of a book and not what's inside the book. You
don't even know the whole name of the author or whether its
"scholarly" or not.
> One other
> might be calles "Satanism Today" but I'm not sure.
You don't even know the title, let alone the contents, of this one.
You are about the most ridiculously ignorant poseur I've come across
in months.
Face it. Your claim that "scholarly authors" acknowledge your group
is so far completely unsupported by any actual citations because you
haven't actually read any scholarly authors who've ever said diddly-
squat about your tiny cult. You're just talking out your ass, as
usual.
> Only a fool would think that, a fool that looks at
> book covers and doesn't look inside the book.
Then by your own standard, you are admitting you're a fool. You
haven't even bothered to look at the covers of the books you claim as
support for your claims.
> > You declare yourself "Left Hard Path", as differentiated from "Right
> > Hand Path" and you think you're not being dualistic. You idiot.
>
> You are the idiot and you really stepped in it. Here - one of the
> main articles:
>
> http://www.satanicreds.org/satanicreds/lhp-rhp.html
That article does nothing but support my evaluation of your dualistic
approach. Perhaps you haven't bothered paying attention to your own
articles.
> This convo is over because it is boring to me. You are stupid - a
> typical white boy.
Obviously thinking and reading bores you. You'd much rather indulge
in a little overt racism while glossing over all your confused pseudo-
scholarship and ridiculous, baseless claims. No wonder you choose to
hang out in a little self-congratulatory satanic cult, which seems to
consist solely of you and some other ignoramus named "Jerome". And
even the two of you can't actually agree on much.
HG
I missed that shining diamond of his, since I didn't bother to read to the
end of his rant. Wow.
So Leonardo da Vinci and Albert Einstein were stupid, since they were white
boys? What a grade-A, gold plated, ISO-certified and church canonized
fucktarded moron.
HG
KoriHoughton
I see you are a newcomer to Tani's definitions of race. I'm not sure
she considers a Jewish or Italian person 'white'. For her, being
nonwhite means being non WASP.
Luv,
Kori
HG
So if I'm a white guy living in Finland, and my ancestors have been living
here, and being white, for at least 10 000 years, I'm not "white" in her
book...?
I guess it's true when they say all racists are fucking morons...
HG
Tehiru
Not white enough, I guess. It is apparently irrelevant what your
genetic background is, if someone's definition revolves around
"someone like me". I guess I should point out that the original Aryan
stock came from... India. I'm German by ancestry, but I'm probably not
white either.
HG
Maybe we could form a "white, but not accepted by TJ" support group?
For fuck's sake, I live in a place where I'm in the *minority* for not having
blonde hair and blue eyes!
http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/blond_hair_map1.jpg
http://www.thetech.org/genetics/images/ask/EuropeLightEyes.gif
HG
Tehiru
Alrah
Why not throw away the dictionary?
Alrah
> On Dec 1, 8:59 am, Alrah <alrah-pub...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 1 Dec, 01:11, TJ <t...@post.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 27, 5:37 pm, Alrah <alrah-pub...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 27 Nov, 20:19, KoriHoughton <korihough...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I see you've fully recharged your BS battery over the summer, Tani.
> > > > > What fun!
>
> > > > Ah - that's Tani? Author of the psychotic rant athttp://apodion.com/vad/article.php?id=20&aid=177
>
> > > > Perhaps I will pass on the 'dark doctrines' after all. lol.
>
> > > > Well, unless anyone sane has something to recommend them... Frothing
> > > > at the mouth is a bad sign for both horses and people.
>
> > > Interesting. That's a rant? It is supposed to be funny.
>
> > Not even as a comedy act in a big red nose, rewritten and performed by
> > the ghost of Bill Hicks, would that be funny.
>
> What's funny about it is that it was praised thru the roof, tho
> nobody's real name was on there originally, it simply said "The
> Commissar" or something like that. Or "A comrade" - I don't exactly
> remember, But I DID NOT WRITE IT. So, you see, my name was not on the
> original. What Vad did with it - I don't know. Oh, I edited it,
> that's for sure, with some help. And that it was so highly praised by
> the ORG I WROTE IT FOR is what is funny. In fact, it's hilarious.
> Call that an SR inside joke played on the org that asked for the
> article.
You've already said you didn't write it and merely edited it. I have
no reason to believe otherwise, and no one else is claiming you wrote
it either. Relax! I'm glad you got a giggle out of it. I'm not in
on the joke so I don't. Fair enough. *shrug*
>
>
>
>
> > > I see Hr.
> > > Vad put my name to it. His bad. I didn't write it. I did, however,
> > > EDIT it from something written long ago and handed it to um, heh (not
> > > Vad) - where it got all kinds of praise and shit. Yup - and shit,
> > > imo. I didn't write it. I did edit it - and while I was doing it, I
> > > was laughing so damned hard I didn't know if I could finish it. The
> > > author? I'll never tell. Someone whose long dead.
>
> > Ok. Back to the original question.
>
> > You were saying that Satanists (some of them anyways) do not see love
> > without attachment as selfish love? So a few Satanists basically take
> > a line identical to some Buddhists on love and non attachment? How do
> > these Satanists distinguish themselves from the ones that say all love
> > is intrinsically selfish? I'm assuming that such a fundemental
> > difference in perspective could not exist within one school?
>
> I gave you the fAQ to the SR, which some consider, which some scholars
> consider in books they're written, a "satanic" school of thought.
> Yes, it IS identical to the Buddhist/Vedantic. Suggest you read the
> FAQ which clearly explains these questions. I think Egan's
> organization,
Egan who?
> I don't know what he calls it now, or what name it's
> under, also has Love in the Buddhist sense. Agape in Greek. How do
> they distinguish themselves? Sir,
I'm a woman. Not that I mind getting a 'Sir' though. ;-P
> ALL these other satanic
> organizations, for the most part, have NOTHING TO DO with the CoS.
> That's pretty clear in what they have to say on their own sites, about
> their own orgs.- Hide quoted text -
So... Church of Satan: "all love is selfish!"
All other satanic orgs: "no it's not!"
If that's about the size of it, then I thank you for answering my
question. :-)
Tehiru
I'll bite. Go on.
Alrah
We're all human beings. Throw away the dictionary, the doctrines, and
how different cultures interpret mystical experiences and different
states, and you'll find the actual experiences and states themselves
to be identical the world over. For instance - take the 'white light'
experience. Usually happens unexpectedly - and someone is 'hit' by a
white light from above that transforms the way they think and see the
world. A Christian will jump to interpret his experience through the
lens of Christianity. A Magickian may see it as an initiation and
look to place it on the TOL. Perhaps a Neuroscientist will get a Cat
scan or something. These lens through which we interpret the
experiences are not really 'paths', but often delusional barriers that
people get hung up on.
Tehiru
> We're all human beings. Throw away the dictionary, the doctrines, and
> how different cultures interpret mystical experiences and different
> states, and you'll find the actual experiences and states themselves
> to be identical the world over. For instance - take the 'white light'
> experience. Usually happens unexpectedly - and someone is 'hit' by a
> white light from above that transforms the way they think and see the
> world. A Christian will jump to interpret his experience through the
> lens of Christianity. A Magickian may see it as an initiation and
> look to place it on the TOL. Perhaps a Neuroscientist will get a Cat
> scan or something. These lens through which we interpret the
> experiences are not really 'paths', but often delusional barriers that
> people get hung up on.
Perhaps I haven't presented myself clearly. Normally I don't do this
(and more so since I put this little snippet up the other day", but
think about this quote:
"The aim of the Adept is union with the Absolute; this is the
summit of True Mysticism, and yet, for the Adept, this height of
attainment has a distinct interpretation. Rather than his own
identity dissolving within the Absolute State of Being, merging and
unifying like the droplet within the ocean, the Adept realises
himself as Absolute: a Perfected Unique Being, and thus as an
Active Principle of New Creation. Taking Himself to be the Hand
of Fate, the struggle of the Adept is that of Lucifer: a War against
That which resists or denies his Will to become the Sole and
Unique One, a Singularity of Unique Power, the Polestar of his
own Universe: QUTUB."
Now, this would normally be classified as a left-hand path
perspective. It's antinomian, and concentrates on the experience in a
manner very different from what smattering of Buddhist lore I have
(although I surmise that the Buddhist corpus probably has something
along this line as well, somewhere). However, the experience is the
same but the interpretation is different, as is the underlying
perspective as to the reasons for pursuing this adventure in the first
place. That is the point I was trying to make, is that individuals
have individual reasons for pursuing the path and their interpretation
of the results as well.
It's the same old nutmeg "who is the Master who makes the grass
green", which begs the question of what color is. Being color blind,
my "color" is different from yours. I don't invalidate your perception
of green, but it is obviously different than mine.
Alrah
And this is the reason why the LFP/RHP dichotomy is bullshit. The
absolute is as much a stone you've picked up in your shoe as it is any
meditative state you've ever entered into.
Wanting your perceptions to be special is just feeble egotism.
Everyone is individual and has a core of individuality and the
summation of that is that no other being can be in the same space/time
as you or have the same primal space/time awareness that your ego and
self originates from... but as soon as you adopt 'self' reflection
then commonalities occur and the more you do this reflective pantomime
then the more you'll find commonality of thought. Anything selfish is
actually something shared. I speculate that from a Satanic (cos)
perspective, only a magus is selfish and only briefly as he speaks the
word before inviting the total annhiliation of God.
Tehiru
> And this is the reason why the LFP/RHP dichotomy is bullshit. The
> absolute is as much a stone you've picked up in your shoe as it is any
> meditative state you've ever entered into.
The dichotomy is bullshit, but that realization only comes at the end
of the path. When you are on the path it's the chosen method, probably
chosen for reasons the worker probably isn't fully aware of. When you
"reach the beach", the path you took is understood to be irrelevant.
However, the experience of the absolute may be experienced in the same
way but the interpretation of it will be as unique as the individuals
who perceive it, no matter how much they have let go. Does the
experience of the absolute turn you into a zombie? Or do you still
have an personal identity, no matter how disidentified you are with
your ego, emotions and thoughts? The latter of course, it's a
comfortable tool for interacting with the world, it works well but
like any garment it can be taken off at will.
> Wanting your perceptions to be special is just feeble egotism.
> Everyone is individual and has a core of individuality and the
> summation of that is that no other being can be in the same space/time
> as you or have the same primal space/time awareness that your ego and
> self originates from... but as soon as you adopt 'self' reflection
> then commonalities occur and the more you do this reflective pantomime
> then the more you'll find commonality of thought. Anything selfish is
> actually something shared. I speculate that from a Satanic (cos)
> perspective, only a magus is selfish and only briefly as he speaks the
> word before inviting the total annhiliation of God.
No matter how much you want, you cannot psych yourself up to perceive
something you aren't, just as no matter how you try to perceive dental
surgery as joyous it doesn't make the pain go away.
Commonality of thought means similarities, not mental clones.
I'll have to think a bit on your notion that anything selfish is
something shared. I could argue that a homogenous compound is unity
while a mixture is selfish.
As for your Satanic speculation, maybe Jani (Tani?) would comment?