From: locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (SCOTT C LOCKLIN)
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Subject: Re: Robert Anton Wilson (was: Re: Satan)
Date: 16 Aug 92 19:51:26 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
X-Posted-From: titan.ucc.umass.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

Since I can't E-Mail this guy I'll waste some disk space...

In article <1992Aug14.172202.387@cine88.cineca.it> petruz@uqbar.UUCP (Petruz Boonenkamp) writes:
>In article <1992Aug14.012638.11155@ctr.columbia.edu> locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (SCOTT C LOCKLIN) writes:
>	...
>>labels that go with Satanism) and many of his fictional charachters could be
>>considered satanic, (Hagbard Celiene, Aliester Crowley, Sigsmundo Celiene ect.)
>
>Are we talking about the SAME Sigismundo?!  Just a wee bit further and you'll
>tell me Babcock too...:-)  HC and (Wilson's interpretation of) AC are
>archetypal shamans, Wise Men, The Magician; SC and Babcock are archetypal
>seekers, young hopefuls, The Fool.  Of course there is an identification,
>but at a deeper and higher level; RAW is quite careful and able in mxing
>his archetypes, like a great chief with sauces' ingredients...:-)

Interesting analysis of the archetypes in Wilson's fiction. You missed my point
by satanic I meant that these charachters would make good satanists; they 
adhere to the general doctrines of satanism; I don't mean that they represent
the Satan trump in the tarot deck (I agree with your analysis on that matter).

>Wish I could follow this bboard for awhile, but alas I'm leaving.  Anyway
>my doub is: is Satan a viable archetype for a Wilsonian trip? 

Why not? Another post compared Satan (Lucifer-the bringer of light) to 
Prometheus...

>talked of it as "postindustrial", but, you see... I first met Satanism in
>Carducci, a great Italian poet...

The "Satanism" I refer to was created in California in 1968; well into
the "post-industrial" age.

>Sure, you can choose to a good extent what to overload on your chosen
>archetype's shoulders,

Ahh, but the Satan archetype is richer than you think; in the Satanic Bible
Satan is divided into 4 personas representing the 4 aristotlean (sp?) elements
Belial (earth), Lucifer (air), Leviathan (water), and Satan (fire). Admittedly
not as rich as the Tarot deck, or the Enochian system, but not as 1-dimensional
as you assume.

>previous denotations; and at least in Italian culture, "Satanism"
>smells inexhorably of late-19th-century youthful-rebellious industrial
>revolution old stuff.  

Hmmm, nothing that I know of this sort in America. Old Benjamin Franklin
(18th century hero of American revolution & $5 bill fame) was a Satanist
(member of sir Francis Dashwood's hellfire club)

>(Nietzche)... but then he chose Zarathustra as HIS archetype, nicht wahr?
>Not Satan.

He also chose "the Antichrist" as an achetype (admittedly not as developed an
archetype as Zarathustra but it was chosen nonetheless)

>I can understand why, needing such archetypes, one may choose Zarathustra;
>or Nuit; or Ishtar (Nietzsche, Crowley, Wilson) -- NOT many immediate
>connections, besides possibly a passing familiarity with the name, so
>you can paint more of your message on them;

This is the STRENGTH of the Satan archetype; it has immidiate connexions. Note
how jumpity the xtians (& assorted associated establishment fools) are in 
posting to this newsgroup! Satan to them is the greatest threat to their 
"souls", and indeed it is! The Satanist philosophy forces them to question
their limp beliefs by a liberal dose of REALITY!
An archetypical description of the process;
LEVIATHAN stirs their blood with the various human feelings (hate, lust ect)
SATAN tempts them to question the slave mentality that traps them
LUCIFER brings them the light of knowledge, logic and reason
BELIAL brings mastery of the earth (one's enviornment)
Everyone gets to the Leviathan stage; its in our genetic makeup (note that
Leviathan is the oldest archetype here; ubiquitus in ancient religion [Tiamat
Dagon,the Chinese Dragons, Lovecraft's Cthulu, could be related to Wilson/Leary
1st circuit bio-dependancy circuit]) few get to the Satan stage (Loki; the 
rebelion against the [Wilson/Leary] 2nd circuit anal-authoritarian types)
and by the time they reach the Lucifer (Prometheus; [Wilson/Leary] 3rd circuit
semantic/scientific circuit) stage they no longer follow their inane dogma.
Note to xtians(and assorted 2nd circuit types); this is an allegory of a 
process of cerebral change; not some demonological revalation of how Satan
takes one's soul.

>Satan.  Or is the late-19th-century Satanism a strictly European cultural
>affair, so it would not weigh on American satanists at all?

If american Satanism had such a history I suspect LaVey may have chosen 
a different archetype. Then, perhaps not. Most americans have little knowledge
of their own history (never mind that of other nations) other than the
propagandistic garbage shoved into their heads in primary schools.
My favorite example; compare the "war on drugs" today with the "war on 
alcohol" in the 1920's. Point this out to your favorite couch-potatoe (sic-
Mr Quayle) and relish the blank stare. If we had TV in the 1920's they might
have propagandized my old friend Guiness Extra into illegality.
-Scott
Newsgroups: alt.satanism