<snippage throughout>
"Kori Houghton" <***@hotmail.com>:
# LaVey, of course, connected the Trapezoid to modern Satanism -- not
# simply the name of an Order within the CoS.
my interest was primary origins. you think LaVey made it up, apparently.
# Dunno why it happened, but the quality of ToSser publishing (internal
# and books sold to the public) seems to have taken a nosedive as Webb
# the Awesome and Magnifico rose in influence....
I saw that coming, yes, and promptly avoided their material.
now you've given me more incentive to continue that.
#> i.e. those who are more likely to enjoy military-like
#> conservatism or strict codes of religiomystical behaviour,
#> etc., might like the Temple of Set more, whilst those who
#> are into strip clubs and media circuses might like the CoS.
#> do Temple of Set rites have nude female altars?
#> if not, why not?
#
# AFAIK, they can do CoS style nude altar rituals -- there aren't any
# rules against it.
I wasn't asking 'bout rules, but about recommendations, standards.
these Hermetic and quasi-Hermetic orders often have some kind of
'official rite' which they promote within for their own purpose
and by which they may be known in greater depth. in the OTO it
is the Gnostic Mass of the EGC, for example. the Golden Dawns
often have some kind of pseudo-Christian or pseudo-Jewish rite.
# IIRC, back in the magicknet days, a group of male
# ToSsers was trying to talk one of their lady friends to be an altar
# and they all refused (the prudes LOL), so I doubt it is forbidden?
depends on one's objectives. it is easily seen as admirable that
these women refused to become the ritual furniture of their
temple associates. apparently early CoS rites that included
women altars were hired strippers and dancing girls. this is
right in line with early OTO (Reuss at least), and probably
a facet of many frustrated male orgs who seek titillation.
#> it syncs up with it well enough (high-brows "upper crust
#> 'white collar' boys" with the ToS military-connection;
#> low-brows "unsophisticated 'blue collar' resocialites
#> with the CoS). the sociology of Satanism is amusing.
#
# As I commented to Tani, I know of no evidence that ToSsers are "white
# collar" while CoSsers are "blue". What evidence, besides Tani's
# comment, do you have to support that?
some reading in Moody's analysis of the poor socialization
of CoS members who need retraining and characterize their
manners-education as 'magic' to feel better about it.
otherwise, little. the pics in Aquino's book didn't give
me the impression one way or the other, really, though
generally I got an inkling nerds might be the mainstay.
# Do you mean members having *parents* who were/are that,
# or the members themselves? I don't really see white males
# without even an undergraduate degree as "white collar',
# but that's just me.
I was talking about their general self-image and societal
participatory modes, but I don't have sociological data
to back that up. Webb certainly gives the impression in
his illiteracy (dyslexia?) that he isn't an uppercrustie.
#> Edward Moody has those needing resocialization heavily
#> involved in the [First??!] Church of Satan ("[First???!@]
#> Church of the Trapezoid" and doing love magic, some
#> cursing, nothing extremely mystical mentioned.
#
# I know basically nothing about FCOS.
heh, Moody's article is unclear in spots and uses "First"
strangely and inconsistently. he's talking about CoS and
some interior body to it, probably the Order of the Trapezoid
or what would become such. why it might have been called 'the
Church of the Trapezoid' inside 'the Church of Satan' is
difficult to imagine, and the reason for his mistaking this
given his obvious anthropological and sociopsychological
analyses and intelligence is not entirely clear. perhaps his
paper contribution to the work by Irving and Leone was rushed.
#> all of it can be explained as psychodrama and resocialization,
#> explaining magic as both symbolic application of conventional
#> magical principles (contageon/sympathy/etc.) and conditioning
#> toward material refinement of actual characteristics. no chi.
#
# I'm not sure I follow that?
Moody's explanation of the CoS and its magic doesn't talk about
"chi" by name or even any kind of "energy". the closest that he
comes to talking about anything similar is "Command to Look"
attributed to women in the Satanist fold, which is some kind
of special power or learned ability. it isn't a human energy
like 'chi' or 'ki' and it isn't described in *any* detail.
my mention of Moody is because his was a 'seminal' examination
of Church of Satan terminology and sociology (early 70s).
# Magic/initiation IMO should lead to refinement of the
# magician's characteristics and development thereupon.
:> fine. generally this is considered a Hermetic notion and
a kind of dogma within mystical cults trying to co-opt magic
to their religious purposes. this is exemplified within such
forums as alt.magick, to which this is helpfully X-posted. :>
# No Chi? Why not?
an observation as to Moody's report. he didn't describe
anything alike to it. my point is that this is a Tani thing
or something that was overlaid later after the CoS grew.
it's an asian import.
# Everyone (and everything) has chi; it's only a
# matter of getting a feel for it and using it.
your cosmology. thanks. I'm looking at sociology and where
the educational styles play out through time. you're giving
me your own ideas, which is fine, but not really related to
any specific kind of Satanism but yours (if you're a Satanist,
which I now forget; it's no longer hip to be in with infernality).
re ToS:
#># I like the simplicity of their CM. It seems so tragic that a lot of
#># newbie magicians feel they have to have a regular missal to read
#># countless names of protectors and demons. I like the fact that newbies
#># are being encouraged to ask "the big questions" about the meaning of
#># Life, the Universe and Everything.
#>#
#># I especially like the concept that an initiate's life should be
#># about developing a more complex person, rather than zoning-out
#># in contemplation of .....whatever. Fill in the blank of your
#># fav image of the so-called Divine (or Satanic).
cliche:
#> making something of oneself.
#
# No. I think one is already something.
mine was a cliche. the import is that "the initiate's life should be
about" something. and particularly doing something to DEVELOP. it
is given a good refutation in some modern Taoist sources such as
that by Raymond Smullyan who I adore, that lazy old magician.
# Oh, okay. NA in my case. Because of where I live, and also
# because of my disability, I'm unlikely to meet any Satanists
# or magicians of any flavor.
where do you live and what is your disability?
# I've never been mistaken for a ToSser actually by anyone who isn't
# completely clueless. The Temple apparently wanted to remove one of
# their members, whom I've never met but lives about 50 miles away. So
# Aquino used the proximity to confuse our identities, and set her up.
# She was stabbed in the back by her own gang; what she did to deserve
# this I haven't a clue....
apparently the stabbing was not literal. what does "set her up" mean?
"PI (private information) revelations"? like others we've heard about?
#>#>#># The only benefit of joining an initiatory group is getting
#>#>#># the 'keys', if you will, to the material.
#>#>#>
#>#>#> societal contacts, comradery during magical workings, mutual
#>#>#> support and consolation, feedback and sounding on rumour and
#>#>#> esoteric verity. dunno if those are the keys.
# ...For me, getting the keys is the only benefit. Working with
# others isn't an option. The benefits you listed above are
# likewise good things, but not the keys.
how do they differ?
#> perhaps you don't consider the rest valuable, or at least in
#> comparison to these keys (guess: the rite-maker's commentaries,
#> blocking, variable paraphernalia like words, grips, signs, etc.).
#
# Well, I don't think you need all that mumbo-jumbo to do effective
# ritual, solo or with a group.
heh, by numerous individuals those are considered to be the keys.
you seem to be talking about something transcendental (defined in
more detail below, thanks!).
#> do you think that gods make the keys? are they designed for any
#> specific people to understand or experience or encounter?
#> not others? maybe Satan wouldn't like whiners?
#
# I don't think the kind of 'keys' I mean are identical for everyone --
# no 'one size fits all'.
that makes you difficult to understand when you talk about it.
# Dunno if everyone even seeks initiation, but if someone does they
# will find something.
second time I recall seeing this from you: initiation.
your lingo is rotating around quasi-Hermetica, like Tani's.
ToSsers do this too, a broad categorical semblance. when I
mentioned this to Tani she took a defensive posture, but said
nothing to gainsay me really, not wanting to be seen as part
of some Herd, I guess ("I am unique and so is my Herd!").
# Personally, I don't consider 'gods' in this context.
why not? aren't they involved in initiations?
what are you, some kind of *atheist*? ;>
# And if Satan doesn't wanna hear me whine, he can turn up
# the volume on his headphones, or whatever. Sometimes,
# I whine. I'm human.
admirable. presumably this was a joke. I doubt that you
believe in a Satan with headphones. if you whine for the
keys, will they be given to you? or do you have to earn
them by doing something else?
#> is there some expectable combination of material and initiate that
#> "works" or is "unlocked" by the keys, comprehending intimately the
#> perfect actuality of the operations? is this what you had in mind?
#
# No. The 'keys' relate to my knowing myself and expanding on that
# knowledge -- with more knowledge and with experience.
wow, and orders or organizations and whatnot can provide these?
# Truths would be
# something applicable, if not to all, at least to more than myself
# alone.
that makes sense, and therefore explains why you ask me about them
in the context of discussing "keys" (Truths being the extension
thereof to multiple individuals; very rational).
# It seems to me that the search for self-knowledge and the
# search for Truth(s) go together without being the same thing.
interesting. I do think there are things which are commonly held
amongst human beings, some of which do seem important for some
kind of helpful spiritual condition (subjective optimizing).
I don't generally think that most organizations (outside some
general educational facilitaties) are helpful for those, no,
and I have no specific evidence for any prana/chi/kundalini
as a mysticospiritual fluid, energy, or whatever (though I *do*
have proper experiences which map to these, so I am watching
and gradually developing theories about them in parallel).
so to sum up:
keys -- catalyzing initiation can be had, yes, but I
don't think all matches of person and org are
likely to result in anything helpful happening
(problems being parasitism of org on person);
you say something similar about orgs below
Truths -- these seem to either be biological or in some
very minor ways psychospiritual; I find more
often that there are *types* of people who may
benefit from certain keys, as it were, so that
these 'Truths' are more like 'Tendencies'
in short, no, I don't believe there are Truths in some overarching
and absolute sense which applies to all people. in fact, I've more
or less disproved this in the face of many who have claimed to find
them -- confirming that the rationale for proclamation of them as
such as primarily sociopolitically-motivated or irrationally-based.
#> as regards a comprehension of Truths, perhaps attuning to their
#> author would be helpful as a means of approaching any organization's
#> materials.
# I'm pretty sure that Truths (big tee) are not to be found
# (exclusively anyway) in orgs or org materials.
agreed. Tendencies (big tee?) may be found in books too,
or in the wild, or in natural systems, by the aspirant,
as I have understood it.
#> as such, hir character and the effectual capacity of the
#> magicians who engaged hir material might determine the value of
#> engaging it. hir Truths, so to speak, may be valueless for me,
#> no matter its genius, and its perfect expression.
#
# Those are not Truths with a big tee.
that's kinda what I figured, right.
#> or do you refer to awesome Mysteries like may be gated via the
#> Book of Thoth and its sefirotic implementation?
#
# Mysteries, yes. QBL...not my bag LOL.
Mysteries transcend strict QBListic categories and extend all the
way to deep socioritual formulae (e.g. cf. Angus "Christianity
and Mystery Religions" or something like that). the Book of Thoth
is primarily a Hermetic thing that doesn't necessarily pertain to
QBL either. sefirotic implementation (as in pathworking) is often
associated with QBL, agreed, but it needn't in any strict sense,
despite the protestations of those smitten with its use/belief.
also, Mysteries might not be actually different even though they
may be encountered in the QBL or faux-QBL world, and as such
they might be considered the Truths of those systems, regarded
as 'Truths' in some other mysticoreligious context.
#># I admit that I have felt exactly that way at times, but not at other
#># times. A work in progress, with options open.
#>
#> Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted. isn't it Wizard Rule #1?
#
# For some Wizards, yes.
that's appropos. the implication of the above is that it would apply
to *all* Wizards (i.e. in order to do Wizardry or be a Wizard, the
taking to heart or application using said principle is imperative).
you apparently think this works for some but is nonessential. I'm
of similar opinion, but have received instruction that something
similar and less absolute was involved.
# Douglas mentioned that one, as I recall.
of course. it's primarily popular amongst Chayoats.
# It's not my rule, but no prob for me with others applying it.
how can you tell it isn't your rule? because you've verified
that some things *are* True, or that some things are *not*
Permitted? if so, what does this mean? examples, mayhaps?
#>#># The 'keys' are the core concepts which are explored/explained
#>#># by the initiation process. It's stuff the initiate will either
#>#># comprehend as the process unfolds, or they will not. There's
#>#># no practice or course of study alone that will give clarity.
#>#># Many do hear the words 'mouth to ear' and those who do not
#>#># understand can still work within the group at the level they
#>#># are capable of reaching. This isn't ToS-specific.
#> those keys are nothing to play around with, they say.
#
# Who are 'they'?
people who tend to claim to have them or that others lost 'em.
example is Tani's and others' claim that kundalini should not
be "unlocked" by the uninitiated or unprepared because it is
"dangerous". I recently received email from an old internet
friend referring to "kundalini syndrome" which, apparently,
comes to about the same thing. Neopagans and others talk
about power words or especially god names and spells that
are 'not for the newbie' and consider them to be like loaded
weapons or superpowertools. 'nothing to play around with'.
#># to one who has 'been there',
#># it sounds like pretty talk or mumbo-jumbo. Cf. what Tani
#># sez about the DDocs. She's right about the process of
#># discovering whether or not there is a basis for further
#># communication.
#>
#> knowledge intersection vectors? is this relative or absolute?
#
# To the individual, relative. That it is possible for more than one
# individual...perhaps not absolute enough to convince me to use that
# word yet, but more than relative.
understood. we've said similar things here, which is why I have
suggested 'Tendency' above (currents for some people; which seems
to fit with your expression also when you say that the #1 rule
for Wizards presented is not for you). I'm going to have to
dig out Kali's suggestions for comparison in our discussion soon.
#># IMO, a mentor cannot make you an initiate.
#># They can help you give yourself the final push down the path
#># -- because it is something you have to do for/to/with yourself.
#># And then they can see that you've gotten there, and give you
#># something to show *yourself* that you've done it.
#>
#> sounds very matricular. Goldawnian even. the luxophiles might like it.
#
# But can be done without ritual, and certainly without
# implements/costumes/trappings of wizardry.
totally agreed. the career of magic need not include the
costumes and general trappings. even when the wizardry
extends beyond strict magic I think your expression
is here correct. however, when magic is involved,
my impression is that "implements" *are* imperative
(else it becomes something other than magic in a strict
sense -- quite specifically *symbolism* is imperative).
#> New Age cosmologies with paths and rewards and badges with powers
#> and special secret keys and experiential nonspecial energies and
#> insights into sporadic experiential qualities undemonstrable and
#> subjectivist at base appeal to ToSsers, Hermetics, & Manaists alike.
#
# Dunno about that. I'm not any of those things.
your expression conforms to the last, with your mention of "chi".
I meant to include you and Tani in the last category. some feel
that the term 'magic', for example, refers to a power-supply
and they may directly relate it to this same kind of notion.
#># I think it was on Peter Koenig's site at one point, but the
#># bookmark I had isn't going anywhere now. I'll look for it.
#># The math explains the aesthetics of the card illustrations,
#># not the Crowley text.
#>
#> I'll be happy to hear of it. if you have key words to search
#> for it via Google post 'em and I'll follow up myself.
#
# I'll have a look and see what I can find for you.
thanks!
# No preference. I just expect that a publication for early CoS members
# would be less general, and might give some fresh insight (not incite).
:> that's perhaps a pref for SB or CH-columns.
#>#> Motta and others? never saw anything I liked from them. Regardie's
#>#> "Gems From the Equinox" (of Crowley) that I liked as much.
#>#
#># Don't you think Motta was a Satanist,
#>
#> I never heard such a thing, no.
#
# He knew of LaVey's work.
so do many who wander into Barnes and Noble.
#># or was heading in that direction?
#>
#> what little I saw of his writing struck me as inexpert and puffery.
#> do you like his material? does he like chi-bolts too?
#
# I have read his material. Don't recall chi-bolts in there, but I can
# look in the indices of his books....if I have nothing else to do.
thanks.
#># Forget the political ranting.....I mean his attraction to the dark
#># side of all Crowley's 'holy books' and such.
#>
#> I hadn't noticed. anything in particular that stands out in your
#> mind?
#
# Yes. "The Sun in the South".
interesting. I'm completely unfamiliar with Motta. maybe I've seen
some commentary on Crowley at some point, and of course heard many
curses from the (c)OTOans.
#>#> New Ages are rooted in astronomical configurations hooked
#>#> with thematic apperceptual identifiers. no lasting value there.
#>#> new groups are rooted in transformational trigger-points,
#>#> simultaneously overlapping amongst a throng of interested.
#>#
#># A kind of fertilization process, you mean?
#>
#> a kind of catalyzing agent intersecting numerous individuals.
#
# Okay. I like catalysts better than fertilizer.
these are probably the 'keys' to which you're referring.
#>#> new schools are rooted in the presentation of curricula to some
#>#> novel body of students or through some novel method in the hope
#>#> of better or worthwhile results.
#>#
#># I think there have been experiences of worthwhile results in all ages,
#># and our temporal location alone does not indicate the best method for
#># anyone.
#>
#> is there anything to it which is more than mere experiences?
#> is a Truth as you were asking about more than experiential?
#
# Yes. I want to know WHY.
commonalities of nature and nurture, presumably. refining
the query may yield more helpful responses from this quarter.
#># I know where one was online, but I don't have access. I refused to
#># believe that the person who offered me the possiblity of access was the
#># Holy Moldy Messenger of Set Himself and said as much. I've never
#># developed the proper technique for kissing arse. Maybe someone will
#># see your post here, and give you the password....if you are willing to
#># put on kneepads for him. Which I doubt!
#>
#> trade usually works well with ingrates.
#
# That is what he wanted. But I don't share potent materials with
# unstable individuals. This person was involuntarily committed
# shortly after our exchange.
eek!
# There are a lot of whackos out there. Keeps me entertained.
the bane of those without the stridency or competency to killfile,
the amusement of those with an interest in abnormal psychology.
blessed beast!
boboroshi at-sign satanservice.org: Satanic Outreach Director
Church of Euthanasia: http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/
TOKUS WEBLINKS: http://dmoz.org/Bookmarks/B/boboroshi/
Ninth Scholar's Library (Satanism Archive): http://www.satanservice.org/