From: Rakshasa Area: Base of Set To: The Sorcerer (Sysop) 30 Sep 92 00:20:24 Subject: Re: Base of Set? Sent UpdReq The Temple of Set's address is P.O. Box 470307, San Francisco, California, 94147. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Rakshasa Area: Base of Set To: Charles Nemo 30 Sep 92 00:23:04 Subject: Re: Zeena LaVey Rec'd Sent UpdReq I've heard some good things from friends of mine about Radio Werewolf's music. I'd be interested in knowing more about their _philosophy_. I've heard them called "fascist" and "neo-nazi"--but I've also heard that aimed unfairly at the Temple of Set. Seems that it's not enough to call LHP groups "anti-Christian." Now you have to identify them with the devil of this current historical period, who is of course Adolf Hitler. And I thought _The Manson File_ was very interesting--Schreck has a keen eye for holier-than-thou bullshit and a gift for pointing out the refusal of many people to see the major point of the Manson incident--that when society shits on an intelligent individual, he's going to do his best to shit back. I'd like to hear his perspectives on other serial killers, such as Ted Bundy...or maybe I should start posting something on the SERIAL echo. (I've got an interest in Serial Killings from a purely academic standpoint...heheheheh...and no, I don't know what happened to those Jehovah's Witnesses who knocked on my door) Xeper and Remanifest Rakshasa aka Setian Kevin T. "Warped by Metal and that's my Defense" Filan I* 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Blaise Area: Base of Set To: Deep Black 28 Sep 92 21:31:04 Subject: Set questions UpdReq Far removed from the subject of Set questions, Blaise mumbled to Deep Black this gem of wisdom. >Bl> Again I propose that the individual Self IS in fact Set. Has >Bl> anyone discussed that possibility? >Bl> DB> Yes. And I agree with you (some stipulations). Stipulate away. I'm game. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Blaise Area: Base of Set To: rakshasa 28 Sep 92 21:34:08 Subject: Set questions Rec'd UpdReq Upon the subject of Set questions, Blaise mummed to rakshasa this gem of wisdom. ra> I'm not sure how to respond to your question. I would ra> say that those groups which seek "immortal incarnation on this ra> earth" and "development of the higher self at the expense of the ra> Ruach" are basically LHP groups. ra> What I define as RHP are groups, as I said, ra> like Wicca (which seeks oneness with Mother Earth), Christianity ra> (dissolution in the "bosom of Abraham" or in the "Body of ra> Christ") or Buddhism (absorption into "Nirvana.") We seem to be missing each other's thoughts. First you define a person of the LHP as a person who seeks everlasting life while on earth and the RHP as the person who seeks dissolution in the Body of Christ. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that after the Tribulation the remnant of Jehovah's people will live on earth forever by means of previously having become under authority of the Body of Christ. How would you define these people RHP since they rely on dissolution of the psyche into the "Godhead" or "Body of Christ" to accomplish this goal or LHP since they strive for eternal live on earth? The grandfather of all Christian Charismatics, Kenneth Hagin, has written in one of his books that he will die whenever he feels like it and that the Christian has that power over death. With this type of thinking some Charismatics might want to live forever here on earth also. There again, it would by by means of Oneness with the Godhead that they believe they could accomplish this goal. Would you define the Christian who opts to stay on earth forever as a LHP seeker, or RHP seeker? 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Blaise Area: Base of Set To: rakshasa 28 Sep 92 21:55:20 Subject: Set questions Rec'd UpdReq Upon the fascinating subject of Set questions, Blaise excitedly asked rakshasa this series of questions. ra> I would also ask you; when you speak of a battle between ra> "good" and "evil," how do you define "good" and how do you define "evil." Touche'! You hit the mark on that one. Goodness is the acts which prolong life on earth and evil is the acts which shorten live on earth according to the Laws of Moses, Buddha, Manu, you name it. Isn't it strange that "good" popularly refers to beings and places that are non-terrestrial---"heavenly" while the actual acts keep the person alive on earth? 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Blaise Area: Base of Set To: rakshasa 28 Sep 92 22:08:36 Subject: Set questions Rec'd UpdReq Upon the fascinating subject of Set questions, Blaise excited asked rakshasa these questions. ra> BL) I propose that the Individual self is in fact Set. ra> So do many Setians. They consider Set not as an actual ra> being but as a symbol of the "Higher Self" (what you call the ra> "Individual Self"--the classic Golden Dawn et al description of ra> the "Higher Self" would encompass the Superego but not other ra> aspects of the personality which the Setian would also be ra> interested in developing and exercising. Humph! Well, I suppose that even the Setians are still bound by the old Freudian trichotomy of Superego, Ego, Id when defining the German word "ich" that Freud actually used. I see no need of splitting myself; at any one instant I can assume the title of Superego, or at another, Ego or yet at another (when I'm horny) the Id. I don't consider I HAVE an Id, Ego, Superego, but that I AM those as different times. Of course, the men of the Golden Dawn would feel differently but you must remember, these were all Victorian gentlemen whose raciest document that they ever had was Sir Richard Burton's Tales of the Arabian Knights and---maybe---a few Chinese sex drawings. If they ever got a hold of an edition of Playboy they would faint! 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: rakshasa Area: Base of Set To: Blaise 29 Sep 92 14:03:00 Subject: Re: Set questions UpdReq I think we're both getting a little too concerned with the Life After Death aspect of the LHP/RHP question. Let me put that on the back burner for a bit and suggest some _other_ differences between the LHP and RHP. (I'm not denying the validity of your questions--it's just that I feel like we're getting carried away from the subject here, which is differences between the LHP and RHP). Morality: RHP Morality is based on the subjugation of the self to the Other. In other words, a RHP person sees it as his or her "duty" to subliminate all "selfish" desires and work for the "betterment of others." Even the Golden Dawn and related orders (to the best of my understanding) laid all kinds of emphasis on the Adept's duty to humanity and need to put aside selfish desires for temporal gain and power in a quest to become "humble and loveable." The LHP philosopher/magician is under no such geas. We are concerned primarily with our _own_ development. I am not necessarily saying "the world be damned," nor am I saying that we can abuse others with impunity. We have (at least the LHP philosophers and Setians I have encountered) very strict ethical guidelines. Our reasons for them are different than RHP reasons, though. We believe that behavior like lying, cheating, etc. _belittles_ the self. Let me try illustrating the difference in this way--a Christian would avoid lying and cheating because "it gives him an unfair advantage over others" or "it's hurting other people." A Setian (at least this Setian) would avoid that behavior because to practice that behavior would be to inhibit my self-respect and make me, in my own opinion, less of a heroic person than I should be. Our moral code is similar to the Samurai concept of "face" or the Germanic code of honor; we avoid immorality not because it hurts other people but because it is behavior which is beneath us as heroic individuals. In at least one aspect, though, we come upon common ground; both a committed RHP philosopher and a committed LHP philosopher will have a strict set of ethical guidelines which they will strive to follow. Their reasons behind them will be different--the results will be awfully similar. I'd like to hear your comments on this; I'll get back to you on the LAD questions after I've had some time to think about them. Xeper and Remanifest Rakshasa aka Setian Kevin T. "Ducking the Tough Ones" Filan I* 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: rakshasa Area: Base of Set To: Blaise 29 Sep 92 14:05:00 Subject: Re: Set questions UpdReq Bl) Goodness is that which prolongs life on earth and evil that which shortens life on earth... Sorry, Blaise, but I don't think that definition is entirely satisfactory. What about the suffering terminally ill--is prolonging their existence so they can endure more misery a "good" thing? And is euthanasia, then, an "evil." I don't think so...and I feel I can make a good case for it. Could you offer another definition of "good" and "evil?" 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: rakshasa Area: Base of Set To: Blaise 29 Sep 92 14:09:00 Subject: Re: Set questions UpdReq BL) I don't feel I HAVE a Superego, Ego, or Id...but I feel that at any given time I may BE one of the above... I'd have to disagree with you on that. From my magical experience I've found that often our "higher moral standards, et al" are really tied in with our "id" more closely than we'd like to imagine. (BTW, I don't think the Freudian terminology very satisfactory--I use it because it's generally accepted and I can get a point across quickly and clearly. For more careful and exact study of the psyche I find Freud's work to be that of a sexually obsessed neurotic 19th century philosopher...) I think that, should you examine many of the times when you felt your "Ego" or "Superego" or "Id" was in control you'd find that the distinction was not so clear as you might think. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Charles Nemo Area: Base of Set To: Rakshasa 30 Sep 92 19:22:58 Subject: Re: Zeena LaVey Rec'd Sent UpdReq R> I've heard some good things from friends of R> mine about Radio Werewolf's music. I'd be R> interested in knowing more about their R> _philosophy_. I've heard them called "fascist" R> and "neo-nazi"--but I've also heard that aimed R> unfairly at the Temple of Set. Seems that it's R> not enough to call LHP groups "anti-Christian." R> Now you have to identify them with the devil of R> this current historical period, who is of course R> Adolf Hitler. They seem to be heavily into Social Darwinism, i.e., essentially survival of the fittest. Of course, that's a big no-no with Bob Larson and came through clearly on Zeena LaVey and Nikolas Schreck's "The First Family of Satanism" videotape from Bob Larson Ministries. Many do-gooders regard that attitude as well as any other kind of self-centeredness (such as advocated so effectively by ToS and embodied in the "Xeper" slogan) as "fascist" and "neo-Nazi". It's all a matter of perspective! };-) R> (I've got an interest in Serial Killings from a purely academic R> standpoint...heheheheh...and no, I don't know what R> happened to those Jehovah's Witnesses who knocked R> on my door) Why, that just makes you "an agent of change for the better"! As I said, it's all a matter of perspective! };-) R> aka Setian Kevin T. "Warped by Metal and that's my Defense" Filan I* Yeah, and Da Debbil made me post all those sarcastic comments on CultInfo and Amateur Theology! 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Rakshasa Area: Base of Set To: Charles Nemo 30 Sep 92 23:26:28 Subject: Re: Zeena LaVey Sent UpdReq Any attempt to produce a "Heroic Ethic" will result in people calling you "fascist" or "neo-Nazi." IMHO, the problem is that too many people benefit from business as usual--which includes the subsidizing of their existence--to be willing to stand up and say "I am better than others and I will claim what is mine." The safe and the comfortable--complete with safety nets--is what they desire. When somebody threatens to take away those safety nets they have to respond by calling them the nastiest name they can think of. "Heathen," "Infidel" or "Communist" don't work anymore--but we can still get some mileage out of painting swastikas on our opponents. If you haven't done so yet, read some of Ayn Rand's books--they're long but very easy reading and they get to the heart of the problem with our self-effacing culture. Wiccans and other "white lighters" seem to be especially afraid of going beyond these ideals because they're afraid of admitting they're studying magic for the same reason you and I are; because they want power. To admit that would be to also admit that they want something in their lives which they lack...something few people are willing to do. They see us admitting it--and doing so pridefully--and as a result they try to "cast us into the outer darkness." (I may be putting motivations in your mouth which don't belong there...if so please forgive me...I do that often). Xeper and Remanifest Rakshasa aka Setian Kevin T. Filan I* 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718