Jenyar--some relevant points and some random babbling
Thanks for that insightful post Tiassa.
It is, technically, the least I can do ...
I still find it disturbing that it is left up to an individual to decide for himself and about himself what is supposed to be good, a parentless society.
I don't see the idea of a "parentless" society inherent. I would ask for clarification.
More often than not, people have absolutely no obligation towards society, profitable or not. They get stuck at the Thelema and "do unto others..." and have no reason to learn, except through mistakes.
There's a number of factors at play here.
• Most Satanists are former Christians (I like the "depressed Christian" point).
• As such, Thelema becomes a "new" idea that must be adapted to.
• The lack of human obligation toward society is symptomatic of the Western (Judeo-Christian-derived) paradigm affecting even atheists in the West. There are key, underlying presumptions in Christianity that contribute to human division.
• As such, the nature of how an individual will react to Thelema is already hinted at by their status otherwise. (Look around at some of our posters here; while they may not recognize
Do what thou wilt directly, doesn't it make you shiver to think about some of our posters adopting that with the same biased ferocity they engage certain Biblical passages?)
Bearing those factors (incomplete as they are) in mind:
Are there any directives that describe the wisdom one is supposed to be looking for in Satanism?
I don't recall any specific directive, but when you consider the Satanic
fiction and
non-fiction reading lists, you'll get a reasonable impression of the underlying principles.
The idea, by and large, is a celebration and elevation of the self. As such, one seeks wisdom that will increase their personal prosperity and security in the world. As such, to interpret Thelema as a license to steal, rape, whatever, would be erroneous because it directly endangers the self. The self is not elevated in any useful way when it is the subject of a six-state manhunt.
(There's even a Satanic
video list.)
And looking at these materials, you'll find a couple of trends: there is a bent toward arcane magickal suggestions and esoteric darkness as well as a philosophical foundation for certain brands of selfishness.
In the 1980s during the post-Geraldo debate on Satanism, it was repeatedly pointed out that you won't know a Satanist by appearance. (As such, you can cross the really blatant "Satanists" off the list in the same way Christians would like to cross televangelists and others off the list. You have to account for what they do with the philosophy, but they ain't the church.) The point of not being able to distinguish a Satanist by appearance is that you're supposed to be able to function in society. While some Satanic routes might lead to greater profit, it would seem that Satanism generally acknowledges the difficulty of overhauling a societal paradigm, and chooses to work within it.
Stupidity is a very broad and relative concept. Does vengeance (which could be common in various forms) prohibit going through an innocent to get to a guilty party?
It seems to me that such a prohibition is somewhat in place. The thing is that Satanism technically licenses lethal retribution under severe circumstances, but at that level, so does the Bible. LaVey, reacting to the stupidity of the people, seems to have erroneously presumed that the intellectual shift would be instantaneous; or else he didn't care about that aspect of it. Either one is possible, and it's also possible that a Satanist could put literature in my hands demonstrating otherwise; it's been ... eleven years or so since I gave Satanism any serious consideration. It's entirely possible that Anton LaVey covered this before he died and I just didn't notice.
And while ethically you're allowed to
manipulate people in order to achieve your ends, I recall that there is a line drawn at physically harming them in order to "send a message" or get to one's target. They are individuals; what you can get their will to accept is fair game, but one should not resort to physical means. By Satanism, as I recall, it is fair to seduce and con a guy's wife if you're trying to get back at
him. Like I've said before, Satanism is the religion people
want but won't admit to. They want the eye for the eye, they want to cut each other's throats conceptually in order to advance. Satanism just gives them a religious platform on which to mount their issues.
Consider the Bible's wisdom literature, which decribes foolishness and idiocy quite comprehensively:
James3: 13 Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show it by his good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom. 14But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth. 15Such "wisdom" does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, of the devil. 16For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice. 17But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. 18Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness.
What saddens me about such a passage is that it seems more sloganistic than realistic.
Furthermore, it seems to rest on a central idea that the human tongue is inherently evil. I must necessarily, as a principle, disagree with such a notion, and thus I find the passage weakened by its foundation compared to its presentation here. Nonetheless, your point is well taken.
•
Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit ](Third Satanic Statement)
•
Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth
•
Nine Satanic Sins (again)
Theoretically, by the time you accept--better to understand, but at least by the time you accept--the Nine Statements, the Eleven Rules, the Nine Sins, and a few other basic points of the Church of Satan, the presumption is that you're well-guarded against certain brands of idiocy. While this isn't necessarily true, these texts do lay a fairly broad groundwork that covers quite a bit. Design a worst-case scenario, run it against such ideas as the Church espouses, and you'll find that most of those worst cases will run into one or another doctrinal challenge. Whether or not the individual chooses to respect those challenges is as arbitrary a result as whether or not a proclaimed Christian attends to their Biblical responsibilities.
And to clarify the "eye for an eye" part:
Exodus 21:22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth...
And ...
•
When a man causes a disfigurement in his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he has disfigured a man, he shall be disfigured. He who kills a beast shall make it good; and he who kills a man shall be put to death. (Leviticus 24.19-21)
•
If a malicious witness rises against any man to accuse him of wrongdoing, then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days; the judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother; so you shall purge the evil from the midst of you. And the rest shall hear, and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you. Your eye shall not pity; it shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. (Deuteronomy 19.16-21)
•
An eye for an eye leaves everybody blind. (MLK, Jr.--John Hume of Ireland's SLDP has also been known to throw this phrase around in the Northern Irish conflict.)
You see that this is a form of unambiguous justice, not separate from society but designed to protect the future of the people. You'll find that most of the Old Testament laws were designed to protect family and posterity at all cost.
When does the Old take precedent over the New? Is it merely a matter of convenience?
•
"You have heard that it was said, `An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you. "You have heard that it was said, `You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5.38-48)
(I just wanted the larger passage out there for us ....) I think with Satanism you'll find it much similar to Christianity; human beings will be prone to mix and match their standards until they're satisfactory. It's why we aim for progressively higher standards. Think of the fact that to ignore Christ's instruction in favor of the Old Covenant is very common among Christians.
Technically, yes, with Satanism it's somewhat "no holds barred", but Satanists are expected to have a sense of self-preservation. One must preserve the self in order to celebrate or elevate it.
If only Islam and other religions offered the authority to judge as well as the following verdict: Love has conquered, you are free to go. Now go and act out of love for those who were freed with you, and towards the One who has freed you.
The problem, I think, is that statistically this doesn't hold among adherents of Christianity. It is properly Christian rhetoric and cannot be denied its proper considerations, but how many of the poor sinful sheep can really live up to the expectations of the Shepherd? It's why "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven". To be perfect as the heavenly Father is perfect is just too much to ask of someone, it seems.
I sometimes chide Christians who have problems with Islam. I think it will serve us well as an example: Often, I'll point out to a war-frothing "God & country" Christian how strange I find it that s/he will ignore Christ's instructions in favor of the Old Covenant. Especially when we stop to consider that many such Christians will hedge in their sentiments to reflect not Christian domination but Christian authority; that is, they stop short of worldwide supremacy because it's bad PR. Whatever this issue actually is, however, is their own. But in the present conflict (War on Terror) I find it intriguing how many Christians would prefer to be Muslims in the sense that they want to strike back until aggression ceases. And I'll tell you, when you run into one of those G&C Christians, nothing can get them worked up like reminding them of that little point.
However, we see in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all manners of idiocy among the execution of the paradigm. The same is true of Hindu and Sikhism and most religions, as well as larger paradigms. (I like to pick on Capitalism here, since Americans tend to regard it religiously.) There are stupid atheists, stupid communists, stupid Capitalists, stupid Christians, stupid
ad nauseam. Let's face it: when we strip away the tiny classifications, we end up wit a lot of stupid
people.
In that sense, no, Satanism can't guard against
everything. But given a comparison of common anti-Satanic fears and anything else comparable, it would seem that the fears tend more toward hysteria than reality. The reality of it is that Satanists are often cruel like other people: greedy accountants, stockbrokers, lawyers, CEO's ... they're also in the mailroom, or selling shoes or ice cream. I always say "watch out" if it turns out a local Christian preacher turns up as a Satanist; those tend to be bloody and awful because the psychological stress is so polarized and the subject quite obviously unbalanced.
For me, over the years, Thelema has gained more and more importance. It really does seem that this is the idea that people wish to represent them except that they're too embarrassed by the aspect of greed most people zero in on to actually say it. But then again, since I believe that many of our paradigm-level fears are merely projections of our own fears for ourselves, such embarrassment seems almost predictable. People zero in on the greedy, unrestrained aspect for two reasons primarily: (1) it is the statistically prevalent idea, (2) it is that important to the individual. (e.g. You ever notice how the left and right complain about each other? The left rails against the state dominating your decisions--e.g. free speech, personal governance, &c. The right rails against "big government intruding in your life"--e.g. money policy, &c. Yet the left will dominate the people with its "solve-everything" intrusion, and the right will extend government to intrude into your bedroom, your library, and if they can, your thoughts. Each vilifies in the other essentially what they fear in themselves.) I would assert that we generally react to the greedy aspect of Thelema so directly because it really does tap an issue central to us. What we fear in this case is the harm of others, for we distrust them because, after all, they were "born into sin" and require "salvation" or "redemption". They're naturally sinful--why should we trust them to do what they will? Even though my mind screams over such things occasionally, I try to actually execute this perspective when I can. You'll notice that people sometimes think I endorse terrorism or warfare; I've even had a poster go so far as to accuse pacifists of endorsing violence ... how strange. But it seems to me that the more I understand, the less I have to fear. The less I have to fear, the less afraid I will be of other people.
You see, biblical law is about methods for creating a society in which wisdom can thrive, and it also provides clues to the nature of such wisdom.
The funny thing is that I know witches, Satanists, Sufi students, Buddhist students, atheists, and others who all say the same thing about their paradigm. I'm perfectly willing to agree with you about biblical law, but I'm also willing to project that we would see disparities 'twixt our interpretations of what that means in execution, and also to inquire about those places in the Bible and those times in life when Christians are just flat-out wrong because of their Biblical principles. (I'd rather forego the examples since they derail good discussions with commentary from the peanut gallery, but I would hope you would know at least approximately what I mean. Sometimes people are just flat wrong, and I'm curious as to how.
In that sense, it seems to be what we're exploring about Satanism.
thanx much,
Tiassa
