“Temple” vs “temple”

Imagine that I have two forms to work with, the Church of Satan, and the Temple of Set – is either one of them right, or one of them more correct than the other? ~ ~ ~ Questions like ‘Is either one of them right or more correct than the other’ may be a well-meaning division that seeks to simplify the subject matter so as to delineate the choices, but this question, by virtue of even being asked, cannot help but pose further problems. These problems always eventuate in the instant that just One form or ideal is held up as a mode of heurisy – that is to say, as a means or model used as the base or ground from which one proceeds. No ideal and no form is ever or can ever be singular in nature but exists as a multiplicity, – its very presence divides space – which is to say that any supposed singularity possesses attachments that come with it whether one likes it, or accepts it, or not. If we say No, then we automatically posit the existence of Yes. Without Yes, No cannot be understood because it has no context against which to be compared – no tension of opposites as it were. White, gives us the tension of Black, but then also Grey. If we say Right, then we automatically posit Wrong, but we also posit Left which in turn posits Up, Down and direction in general – which cannot be without supposing Space in which to move in said directions – which then supposes the absence of space, non-movement, and so on. One could liken this to the advent (possibly invent?) of numbers. One comes into being. It is only natural that with nothing but one to imagine, it is imagined against itself. And supposes two. Two and One supposes Three… A process like this “inherent multiplicity” is suggested to be at the heart of the Big Bang Theory. These may seem like simplistic examples – but so many times have I not taken them into consideration despite ‘knowing’ the power of my own mind to set up 23 currents in my way of thinking that I think it useful to re-iterate them. The powerful logic of the Greeks sadly falls all too often into disuse in favour of absurdity. The moment we posit something, we immediately bring into being an entire army of alternate and connected aspects that go along with it. A metaphor for this “inherent multiplicity” is to be found in an old story that goes when John the rapist held up his hand in the sign of the Benediction – on the wall behind him his shadow correspondingly made a sign called the Malediction. Forms behave very similarly to this. Forms however are multiplied exponentially each time they are subject to interpretation, they do not have just a shadow, but possess a mirror image, a reflection, a refraction, a description, analogy, simile, relative spaces in time, and an undetermined number of aspects limited only by human imagination. Largely these multiple aspects are conjured forth when form is evoked or expressed through language– language cannot help but create attachments to any form brought into being and then proceeds to add attachments even to the attachments until the form is layered under a thick crust of illusions. Were we able to strip away every element of this crust we would find, in a sense, empty space denoting the original formlessness from which interpretation drew the particular form forth. For in any act of interpretation, say when one looks at a tree, one subjectively isolates only part of the space and visible contents of the worlds totality (the Black Clay) and moulds it with shapes, names, area, description and other values that break the whole into manageable chunks – i.e. one harnesses a particular and partial idea and pulls it out of the greater whole – then treats that partial aspect pulled out as a whole itself. I think this is because everything we bring into being is grounded in morality. Morality is an inescapable filter kept in place in part due to the language we use and the way it behaves. Latin, being the root of English, was a language developed by the Church. It was cobbled together from many other languages and was designed to be a universal language that would breed out the languages of the pagans. Because of the intent inlaid within it – it expresses a particular ethos, viz. the ancient ethos of Christianity, and this ethos is grounded in the Either/Or mode definitive of morality. What the world was like before morality I should love to know – but at this time, Morality is a prison that binds language to express itself in time and space and through a tension of opposites. Most people don’t appear to think too hard about what our language is and does or how it operates at this level – at its prime magical base. However, I do. For example: when we posit anything, i.e. “Timmy’s hat is green” we use ‘Is’ to isolate and exclude timmy’s hat from being other colours, from being any other type of clothing, or from being anyone elses hat. “Is” is itself a moral certitude and a positivism. As I have said above, in affirming a positive form or set of forms, we instantly set up a set of negative forms and vice-versa. But this is not out of ignorance per se but because we really cannot help it – there is a duplicity (2) and multiplicity (more than 2) inherent in the very essence of language that sets off the forms we create against their negative and at the same time summons unwanted attachments. For instance, we assume Timmy is a person, that the person who made the statement knows what green is, that it is in fact a voiced statement not perhaps some written sign, that Timmy is a person’s name, and that there is a hat at all. We make vague logical conclusions because these words and their combination into this sentence bring with their existence, certain attachments – and these steps are the foundation of communication. Yet as we discern sentences from words, the same process applies to words from letters. While the word Timmy contains the isolated letters of T, I, M, M, and Y – which mean little by themselves, their combination brings mental assumptions forth. I.e. we immediately picture the combination of these letters as a name, viz. Timmy – and assume that Timmy is a person. We get a sense of a physical body, perhaps a boy, wearing a hat. A green hat no less, but what colour green do we picture? Dark green, olive, verdant, lime, bright, blue-green, emerald? We would likely all differ in interpretation of that detail because the sentence does not instruct us as to which green. That information is missing. Yet, while our mind is processing which green the hat might be, it has probably already jumped to the conclusion that Timmy is a person, not perhaps a dog, or a mannikin, or even a girl – and already built up a certain picture, a certain prejudice about Timmy and the green hat. For the purpose of this exercise it really doesn’t matter what colour Timmy’s hat is – (dark green) but serves as an example that we often process information in a certain manner without questioning important parts of that information or indeed our own information processor. My point here however, is that while we may all make different assumptions – we will nonetheless all be forced to use the same vehicle to do it, flaws and all, viz. language – and are thus each unconsciously constrained in our available modes for interpretation. While numerous studies into linguistics and communication have time and again eventuated in the understanding that we cannot really ever understand one another – because we are not aware of this particular prison there is very little opportunity to develop alternate means by which to communicate. One of the infuriating problems with form is that they are impossible to grasp without using more form – owing to the fact that no form can ever exist singularly. If instead of asking ‘which organization is right’ we were to ask, ‘right for who or for what’ – we might think it possible to arrive at a more definitive answer – to question the question and assess whether it is the right one to ask. But as you can see from the ontology created by trying to define right by defining right, we only promote the creation (and negatives) of many more forms. Y to the power of infinity. We end up more deluged than before in information and forms with the x amount of shadows, reflections, opposites and attachments they cannot help but bring with them. The idea of something being ‘Right’ in itself – as if there were some one true meaning – is to mistake (or deliberately ignore – Christianity, I’m looking at you!) the abstracts used to define another abstract as every bit as objective as the primary abstract one seeks to define. In other words, we invent things (T), to validate something else we have invented (I), and if we manage to convince ourselves with enough words that this thing we have invented actually exists (X) we tend to mistake our tools and our inventions as real too. For instance, to make my point, it is necessary to believe in or summon up the concept of Reality itself couched in a whole host of others concepts in order to convey the concept I am trying to convey. This labyrinth of logic that characterizes conceptual thought works marvelously where humans are concerned – so long as its never looked at too closely. When it is – it all falls down. Here is another example that uses the Temple of THEM. The Temple of THEM (an abstract) was characterized as being based on faith in Synchronicity (further abstract) for example. So one abstract was used to validate (prop up) the other which then created a base of abstracts that supported one another and to which all manner of other abstracts could then be attached – including the validation of the process of its creators connecting abstracts to begin with. Each abstract brings with it an illusion of solidarity (of form) but also visible and hidden duties and boundaries – which boundaries are often not detected until certain conflicts occur due to the increasing complexity of one’s belief system. What one effectively does when they ask ‘Which group is right for me?’ Is to narrow down the infinitesimal possibility of choices available from the infinite collective. Perhaps this is because to grasp the scope of the world with all its complexity would overwhelm the senses – or perhaps it is precisely because the world has been broken into so many chunks from its original simplicity, with names, ology’s, onomy’s, ism’s and so on that it seems much more complicated than it is – that a process of mental mapping takes place filling spaces with thousands of names for objects and items and people and their combinations so as to make space seem extremely crowded. – especially when the human automatically itemized the contents of this space. Consider some of the many alternate options their question has closed off to them – they could have chosen from a wider set of groups instead of just the two; they could have flipped a coin to decide their choice; but they have already locked themselves into giving a particular answer just by asking a particularly phrased question. They have even imposed upon themselves a duty to answer their question. They have asked ‘Which’ – this choice of words has locked them into an inevitable ‘one form or the other’ based decision limited by the content they have selected to focus their decision on. They have said ‘group’ – narrowing down their answer even more – since the question now precludes individuals and possibly even selecting oneself. Moreover they have themed their choices, choosing between two satanic based groups. They have said ‘Is’ – denoting a positive affirmation (thus creating its corresponding negative – which group ISN’T right for me?) of one of the groups. They seek something to Be, and have locked out the option to not Be that something. They have said ‘Right’ – imposing a moral value judgement upon the question which will further limit the answer based on the strictures of their statutes of morality. They have said ‘for’ indicating an unconscious belief that the object in question is something they can take from or believe is meant for them. Thus they have made value judgements already about the groups that will affect their final decision. And they have also said ‘me’ – and here is where it gets tricky. What is a ‘me’? Well, what will decide which group is right? Will it be me? Or will it be you? Will it come down to a comparative list of their benefits and the common-sense of their movements? If so then what will you base that comparison on – what do you consider beneficial? So many variables… I have a way to simplify them all. If you say to me that the Temple of Set is more superior to the Cos – it is irrelevant what I think unless I am seeking to impose my will upon you. What if I am not? I am only compelled by your opinion to believe that you have an opinion. But the content of your opinion is beside the point unless again I am seeking to impose my will on you. If I disagree with your opinion? Do I, like so many do, then set up logical arguments, moral based judgements, and opinions of my own, in a careful arrangement to weaken your statements, and perhaps even your personal character – thus showing how the form I follow is better than the form you follow, and attempt to prove that I am a better judge of things than you? Typically, yes. This is precisely what I would do, return comment with an argument, response, or discussion – whatever you want to call it. Though whether I answer nicely or aggressively put forth a reply makes no difference overall in what I would be doing at a primal level – which would be attempting to exercise my will upon you or others who can exercise their will upon you by seeking control, of you, of events, of the singular space the ego can occupy, because only one ego can dominate a given space at any time. But in the end – when opinions clash – can anyone win? Sometimes, someone will back down – accede to someone else’s point of view, perhaps diplomatically so as to keep their own view by widening it enough to fit in the view of their opponent. But more often than not, when neither party will accede, comments turn away from the subject matter and toward the personal judgement and character of each person involved. I believe this shows the true struggle going on beneath the illusory battle to ‘be right’– which is not primarily to prove one’s opinion or forms against someone else’s per se, but to vy for the limited room allowed to prove will to power. Conversations, however tame or meek, are a direct attack by one ego on another that sometimes use indirect or rather, ‘incidental’, means such as a labyrinth of forms and concepts that the ego believes in and upholds, purely to start fights by having something to defend. The only way to win – is to never play the game. But there is a vital piece of the puzzle missing at this point and it is this: The only way to make any judgement at all is to first have some kind, any kind, of belief – which belief (sans form) immediately shapes our blank slate – into a particular geometric shape. This shape will attract other shapes and build a total shape that by will by virtue of its nature fit with/in/against some shapes but exclude others. That is to say, its own geometry, its own nature, will preclude certain types of other geometry and certain natures from ever interacting with it, just as if a wall was built or a line drawn in the mental sand that says to various forms and ideals ‘you can come in because you fit my ideal’, but ‘you must stay out there because you don’t’. This notion is best captured in the popular and eternal ideology created by humanity that voices itself as the ‘us’ and ‘them’ division. Naturally this division tends to find a voice in the most basic differences of geometry – political concepts that have developed such as ‘Race’, religious concepts that have developed such as ‘True Believer’, or scientific concepts that have developed such as ‘Facts’. Unfortunately though I see some interesting connections – a discussion of this process in relation to the mind with its habit of repression, the unconscious, the self and so on would take me too far from the subject matter at hand – but I expect the reader may have already drawn their own conclusions about the relationship of these matters to their and others psyche. If I can return to the matter of attachments for a moment. All indications are that the total number and nature of attachments (being suffuse) that accompany forms cannot with any sagacity be predicted, expected or even consciously recognized in any sort of entirety. At best we have vague semblances of what we believe in that we solidify with an armour of abstracts (such as words). These attachments can make life difficult when they drive our will without our will knowing it. Consider the person who joins an Aryan group because he agrees with the noble sentiments espoused by the Nazi’s of fatherland, unity, brotherhood – but correspondingly becomes tarred with the attachments of that form without his consent – i.e. tarred with the brush of the swastika, anti-semitism, the holocaust, Gestapo cruelty, and all manner of associations that have attached or been attached to this form and its signs. Whether they want them or not, our Aryan has just become a race-hating nazi in the eyes of many. In effect, his ‘me’ has been changed by the forms with which he associates. It matters little how eloquently he tries to explain his interest is only with those aspects of the philosophy he admires – because he is enmeshed in a sticky web of forms and their attachments both unpleasant and pleasant, the Benefaction and the Malediction, and, so are the many others that will condemn him. Those that might condemn him do so because they too are enmeshed in their own webs of form; perhaps their forms are centred around semitic pride and hate for neo-nazis and the different associations they make to a holocaust or hitler. Ideologically speaking they may be at opposite ends of the political spectrum. Yet they are both unified, involved in the same process of being controlled by forms to which they attach/detach or are attached/detached by whatever cause, mired in moral judgement. Before I finish up I will take the opportunity to quickly duck off into the tricky and dangerous ground of ‘immorality’ and ethics where such a paring down of these respective modes in effect suggests that both are equal; that killing a baby with a sledgehammer is equivalent to patting a kitten on the head. In other words, that everyone is as guilty or blameless as the other because they have no control over the forms that drive them. If I can imagine for a moment that it is possible at all to escape morality; this is exactly what I believe to be the case. Without imposing some kind of morality on our judgements – no thought or deed, event or person, can be judged one way or the other. They cannot be judged at all – for judgement rests on the supposition of morality. What constitutes/validates morality is both individually and socially determined by the combination of 23 current held by each person and by the total collective. Responsibility for morality rests with the individual who is held to have free will and the wherewithal to make moral decisions, but laws denote an expectation to follow a certain decree of the masses. The threat of punishment stops most of us spiralling out of control to serve self-interest.* But whether morality is another human construct that we have acquired, or is something innate, who can say. It is a moral judgement for me just to say having this type of judgement is as good as it is bad. Yet it is also moral for someone to insist that they are immoral – since morality contains within its form the tension opposite – viz. the very option of immorality is innate/implicit in morality, so it is a tautology to try to create morality’s opposite. Nothing can be immoral. Whatever the ethics involved, whatever we choose to consider to take into account in making our decision – is generally up to the forms we uphold. Some of us will filter our decisions to compliment various forms or group consensus or some ideological premise believing it with all our heart to be our choice. The problem with ethics and coming to some conclusion about what is definitively right or wrong is a problem of having to resort to subjective morality and subjective values, the result of which can be seen in the constant warfare and bloodshed humanity shows when forms clash. I believe there are no objective rights, or wrongs, or values. I therefore cannot fairly say with any authority what is right for you, or for anyone else, but only what is right for me insofar as my freedom/prison allows me. The more forms I attach to myself, the more I imprison myself. And that is why I believe conversation, however selfless it paints itself, seeks at all times to be or become an exertion of will by both parties. Assuming the reader has taken any of these points into some sort of consideration – and I ask again what you think to be ‘you’ – what is right for you – I can presume that enough natural habit has been challenged and conscious reflection brough to the fore to give you cause to reconsider what we really say with each word we use, what we do with each word we use, and the spiderweb that results when we use them in any combination. At the start of my talk I wrote “So now we have two forms to work with, the Church of Satan, and the Temple of Set – is either one of them right, or one of them more correct than the other?” I explained that I believed this to be a channel or mode by which I limit the available possibilities and close in on one particular aspect or group of aspects by creating a wall, a boundary, an obstacle, a statement, a form – to define how I will proceed or react and in what direction. But in asking the question I don’t actually have two forms to work with, but three, because I created another form by which to decide between two others. This one here has been created as a fourth to explain this trilogy. So while the question seems to be about two distinct choices, it’s really more than that. Unfortunately to try and explain these processes I have outlined above only sinks me further and further into the geometric mire of form. On the surface of things we appear to try to escape forms (using more and more of them to do so believing that we are able to narrow things down, be specific) – and on one level, it is accepted that we do, but on another level, a more piercing analysis, we cannot escape the hidden traps simply because there is nowhere to escape to. There exists as a distant option the voiceless realm of Art – where form is used to communicate without the trappings inherent in language – but the idea of completely foregoing language altogether rallies billions of egos – who are part of language itself – collectively against the idea. Assuming we could ever have a blank slate when we approach forms – the statements others make in their writing on behalf of various forms, (say Anton LaVey for the Church of Satan), that seek to appeal to our identity; the pride, emotions, sentiments, memories, etc of our ego; cultural norms or counter-cultural values; philosophical merit; current affairs; archetypal notions and memes; etcetera – that ask for our agreement, our chorus of applause, our time and patience, our money, blood, sweat or tears: can all be said to be appeals to our morality. If our morality is at the whim of the forms that inhabit us: we will choose to be in agreement or disagreement despite ourselves and according to the forms which choose for us. In Summary. What is right for you may not be right for me – because of the intricate attachments form brings when it is communicated through language, or through various mental filters. What is right for you depends on your moral code and the particular geometric (some might say synaptic) arrangement of the 23 syndrome that drives your brain to uphold certain forms that causes a counter-reaction to shun others. What is right for you is entirely at your discretion assuming human beings can ever manually determine their ‘I’ within the myriad of elements that act on our behalf and influence/prejudice/bias our decisions with attachments and shadows. If we recognized we all wear 23-type blinkers in regards to our decisions – we might be able to make more informed decisions. (note that the very concept of informed decisions literally refers to form within decisions.) I tried to keep this treatise linear and orderly, unfortunately, there is no clear distinction where forms or morality start and end – these concepts are all deeply suffused within one another, swimming through one another and biting each other’s tails so as to swallow and become each other pending on how they are handled and by which mode perceived. This has always been a discernible problem when I attempt to outline notions to do with perception. Every form raised up creates a loophole, a shadow and the means to turn a form around on itself. I have written so much here that there are any number of holes by which my essay can be countered or attacked. But these are my own ruminations and even as I finish typing this I am certain that my mind moves to undermine its own creation and escape the prison it has built itself… ah see, there it goes. No state of perfection exists on shifting sands or ever will. I can only answer to my own forms just as I expect you will answer to yours. Most people require other people to hack their own arguments to pieces or validate/invalidate them. But I do just fine on my own. Heurisy is as Heurisy does. ~ ~ ~ Let me leave you with a final scenario – where, like Timmy’s green hat, certain information has been taken for granted in the haste to define Satan and Satanism – or possibly ignored, to justify man’s own notions as befit his ambitions. Given all that I have said in relation to individuality so far in 101 about the sacrifice one must make of it to belong to or subsist within a group mentality – consider how different things might have turned out historically for Earth if Satan had not satisfied the requisite sacrifice necessary to assemble an army of angels around himself to help overthrow heaven, but had indeed been the archetype of the individual he is so often claimed to represent. *See Australia of late (2007-2010) for instance, its present escalation of knife violence is influenced by four things, 1) for several years the government forced mothers to work and thus leave their children in daycare depriving them of vital maternal aspects that are usually imparted from mothers to their sons. 2) the diminishing of humans touching one another in any fashion has left many blind to the damage they do when they overcompensate in seeking touch and injure others. 3) poor law reforms due to the softness of political correctness and the over-stated empathy of everyone being a victim has led to few or no punishments being meted out resulting in a get-away-with murder mentality 4) no serious attempt to change social structures is considered to get to the genuine root of these problems, which are symptomatic reflections of the forms upheld at any given time and the creation of their shadows and attachments – wherein corporations and multi-nationals flood the world with certain messages that are re-inforced daily by the very institutions that claim to be fighting them. Since the ethos of teenagers is to define counter-culture by rebelling against culture campaigns like Don’t Drink and Drive, or No Hooning, provide the very tools for people to define and enter counter-culture. Media is highly irresponsible in this regard – in that, it washes it hands of all responsibility for the messages it sends. All indications are that it knows people are idiots, treats people accordingly, but acts indignant and claims the moral high ground when called out. When selling to us it relies on and plays up to our stupidity as a collective to buy into the advertised material – but when challenged it insists we are each capable of making our own choices. It switches between treating us collectively, and treating us individually – manipulating us masterfully.