Iconoclasm

I have a document where I copy quotes I come by from around the internet. I just read through some of them and came by this one which I found interesting:

I really think many of you put way too much stock in the word Satanism, and being "Satanic"! Quit being a Satanist and grow yourselves outside the title. The very philosophy of this very base religion is to cast off that which has no value and grow oneself. I submit that the title "Satanism" has no value.

Satanism stagnates because the people who wear it as a title are stagnant in the title. Satanism is personal to each individual, thus if there is nothing new its because we are lazy and have not sought anything new. If you truly have followed an idea to its fullest conclusion, cast it aside for something fuller.

Quit being Satanists. Religious titles are nothing but food for our egos. It is when you can mold yourselves into any idea that you can really begin to expand. I meant what I said: Become Christian for a while! When you can become your own antithesis at will you will be astounded at what you find.

This post was made by someone going by the name of birdland at the 600 club forums. I actually find this very educating and its an approach I naturally take to this myself. Allthough I have to admit it often shows with me wantng to fit into a label or category. Things would be so good if that were to happen. It would truly be the easy way. However it never happens and I know it probably never will.

I often find myself reading things and really liking one or a few ideas and try to justify the rest based on these ideas. Of course it never happens but I always understand that. But every time I pick up a book Im ready to plunge deep into it and I try to be as open as I can and I hope I will find that philosopher or thinker that resonates with me 100%. As I said above that has never ever happened and if it will I might be scared to confront it. How freaky would that be.

I think Im to strong of an individual to ever accept just one perspective without adding my own thoughts and incorporate other ideas and traditions into it.

I just read the newest chapters of Michael Aquinos unfinished history on the Temple of Set. It dealt with the Ronald K. Barrets policies that he introduced to the temple once he became a high priest why it happened and why it chocked the temple and made it lose so many members (from around 200 to just 31 active Setians in 1982). It was an extensive test much based on litterature study from a fixed and set reading list. He might have had good intentions and I understand how he wanted to produce something special of the members that he was the leader of. But as Aquino put it, its hard to herd a group of cats. This approach seemed to me to be about molding everyone in the same way. The initiation wasnt being personal anymore but collective and the importance was with a fixed set of books.

This is the way I feel strangeled by labels. They are to often so exclusive that they become limiting. I just heard a interview with Peter H. Gilmore of the Church of Satan. Despite my main philosophy being more in terms with Anton LaVey than with the Temple of Set I just cant deal with the LaVeyans praise of their dead leader and past accomplishments (and indeed history revisionism as well). Nothing new has come from that organisation in years and years and even Anton wrote just 5 books. Its static and meaningless and afraid to include new influences. In this way I find the Temple of Set way more beneficial and interesting. Although because of my disagreements with their core philosophy I could never be a member of their organisation.

In my first serious search for philosophy end religion I took a stand against Christianity. I was never raised in a very christian way and I wasnt constrained by direct influence of christian rules but I somehow felt the need to break free from its chains. This was the most important charachteristic of Satan as I saw it back then (and still do but in another way - or more evolved way of thinking).

In the past few years the motto of "questioning all things" had gone from questioning Christianity to questioning Satanism. This is what I think the aove quote refers to. By changing the outlook one can learn alot about the label one wears. Now I didnt choos ethe christian perspective since Im familiar with that already. I instead coose to go deeper into eastern metaphysics and I learned more about Satanism that way when I compared the to than I ever did by re-reading The Satanic Bible, The Diabolicon or whatever other book/essay there is on Satanism.

My main problem with Satanism is the claiming of a symbol (or symbols) of change, of chaos in its metaphysical meaning, of becoming but never actually do anything. Well Im sure alot of people are actively seeking to develop but to many are just parroting words written down a long time ago. But that might be the nature of the beast. People are lazy and want comfort and taking the easy way. This is why I can see the logic in this point that the Cavacante la Tigre blog recently described.