From: Tagi@cup.portal.com (Tagi Mordred Nagashiva)
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Subject: Re: Temple of Set: Letters from Uncle Setnakt
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 11:51:44 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

[Here is a letter I sent to Uncle Setnakt with excerpts from the one I
received.  I think it is relevant to an exploration of TOS to display
the thought (and/or lack thereof) from one of its members.]

-------------------------------------------------------------------
9209.29 e.v.


Dear Uncle Setnakt,

You wrote to me:

1.  
...I am very glad that you are critical.  
...The critical attitude is one that can lead to the truth, provided that
skepticism itself, does not become a new faith.  I distrust all
forms of faith in myself and try to root it out.  I still have a
knee jerk reaction of disgust when I see faith in society whether
in televangelists or members of CSICOP. 
 

Response:

Your words are confusing to me here.  Could you tell me what you mean
by the following in the above excerpt:

truth; skepticism; faith (in myself/in society); CSICOP?  Thanks.

 
You:

2.  
...Organizations
are tools, if people apply the tools consciously and creatively
they can achieve their wants _faster_.  


Response:

This is only true if the tools are effective at doing the job.  As long
as you assume that your organization is doing what you want it to, that
is all well and good.  I urge caution.


You:

If they apply the tools
stupidly -- as in if I join X or Y organization,  then I am a
better or stronger person [--] they get what they deserve.  


Response:

Agreed.  You seem to be doing this, but I could be misreading you.


You:

I don't have to justify my organization any more than I justify the use
of a screw driver. 


Response:

Justification is not required, thank goodness.  Yet when an organization
makes claims about what it IS useful for, then these claims must be
justified to be taken seriously.  Screwdrivers tend not to talk or have
introductory letters. ;>

 
You:

3.  
Of course we are neo-Platonist.  Anyone who is not Plato is a neo-Platonist.


Response:

Apparently you are very seriously in need of an education in modern philosophy,
Uncle Setnakt.  I'll quote from my Bible (American Heritage Dictionary):

"Neo-Platonism/Neoplatonism:
n. 1. A philosophical system developed at Alexandria in the third century
A.D.[sic], based on a modified form of Platonism combined with elements of
Oriental mysticism and some Judaic and Christian concepts and positing a
single source from which all existence emanates and with which an individual
soul can be mystically united.  2. A revival of Neo-Platonism or a system
derived from it, as in the Middle Ages." pg. 837, Second College Ed.

So you see, there are Platonists and Neo-Platonists.  By your words I
doubt that you have much background in either.
 

You:

4.  
Does ANY process lead to immortality?  Who knows?  I just
find it a more pleasing aesthetic to structure my life around.  


Response:

So you structure your life around tools that you don't have faith will
work?  What does this say about your choice of TOS?
 

You:

5. 
Socratic dialogue is not debate.  The term refers to one
individual leading others to a set of predetermined conclusions,
which the teacher already knows.  


Response:

This is hilarious, given what you say about Socrates below.


You:

It causes the student to think
for himself, and is an excellent method of learning.  It is a
dangerous process, as may be seen in the fate of Socrates.  


Response:

Of course you will see below that I doubt you have ever engaged it
knowingly because I think your ideas about it are fallacious.


You:

I am
not interested in entering in Socratic dialogue wit in large.  I
am not interested in being their teacher, nor in matters of
philosophy am I interested in being their student. -- In matters
other then philosophy I try very hard to adopt the attitudes of
Socrates, the wisest man of Greece, who said, "I know nothing."   


Response:

Honestly, do you think he meant what he said?  You say that Socratic
dialogue is how a teacher leads the students to understand what the
teacher already knows.  Was Socrates lying when he said that he 'knew
nothing?'  You're not a very convincing witness for TOS here.
 

You:

6. 
The phrase :Reyn Til Runa: ...is an
Old Norse phrase meaning, "Seek after the Mysteries."  It is the
Law of a the current Magus of the Temple.  The process of seeking
after the unknown is a way of steering Xeper.  


Response:

Please define what you mean by a 'Law of a current Magus of the Temple'
and explain more about 'steering Xeper'.  Thanks.


You:

If you look to
ever greater depths within yourself, and ever greater depths
beyond -- you not only stretch yourself beyond all limits you
thought you had, you also begin to create yourSelf and enrich the
cosmos with your creations at the furthermost levels.   


Response:

So you posit a difference between the 'self' and the 'Self'?
What is this difference, exactly?
 

You:

7.  
I have found two benefits in the organization, one is the
exposure to a unified system of coherent thought  coming mainly
from a hidden source  _Crystal Tablet_, 


Response:

Ok, so TOS gave you a coherent worldview.  Great.


You:

and two the actual
interaction with people slightly more and slightly less advanced
than me.  In seeing how they apply the philosophy to their
variety of life situations is a greatest spur that anything else
external to the self is.  


Response:

Ok, so you also believe in 'advancement/progress' by applying 'the
philosophy' to one's life.  Fine.


You:

Of course all the real Work is done by
me, and what I get from the organization reflects _my_ strengths
and abilities rather than the organizations.


Response:

Ok.  Why do you capitalize 'Work'?  How does this differ from 'work'?
 

You:

8.  
My guess is that we're more like a Gurdjieffian group than
any other type of organization.  G almost had our formula, he did
not have the idea of conscious identification with darkness,
which is a great way to get at the limitations within and do
certain Work upon society without.  


Response:

This is the first unique idea I've heard from you so far.  First that
there is some 'TOS formula' and second that it involves 'conscious
identification with darkness'.  Fine.  Now what, exactly, do you mean
by 'darkness'?


You:

Of course also there's cute
babes dressed up like vampires running around, and a neat
vacation in the International Conclaves.


Response:

Socialization can be a valuable reason to join any group.
 

You:

9. 
We hope to avoid the Jungian trap of saying that we must live
in the one-sided, alienated modern world and experience the
Unconscious only symbolically and privately.  I'd like to share
some things I wrote recently to a an RHP friend who teaches in
New Mexico and had analysis with Marie-Lousie von Franz in the
60's.,


Response:

I'm not enough of a Jungian to know that this is considered a 'trap'.
Interesting.  Is the Unconscious, then, this 'darkness'?  If so, then
have you arrived at the 'formula' of conscious identification with the
Unconscious?  This is not novel, but I think it may be effective.
 

You (quoting (?) von Franz) [my brackets]:

"I've come to the understanding that facing death is indeed the
key to 'power.'  After that encounter, whether through the death
of a loved one, a near fatal experience or even a suicide
attempt.  The experience seems to provide the shock of
disassociating the psyche from the natural world.  


Response:

Fascinating language here.  I wonder, at this point, what the 'natural
world' includes.  Your quotes are your best stuff.  Keep 'em coming.


von Franz quote:

"After that
moment one has to do one of three things.  Work like hell at
distracting oneself -- TV and beer or churchwork and gossip.  


Response:

This could describe much within the TOS from what you've (NOT) mentioned
thusfar.


von Franz quote:

One can try to find something to obtain unity with through various
means of slaying the ego -- such as the quest for Nirvana or its
equally sophisticated  Western counterpart Jungian work.  


Response:

This displays a gross oversimplification (and I would argue MISinterpretation)
of Buddhism.  I'm not adept enough with Jung to know about that, but I
doubt that this is accurate also.


von Franz quote:

Or one can try for a sort of spiritual self actualization -- accepting
the Self's nonunion with the Cosmos and work on developing the
self and after discovering the principles within making those
principles manifest in the world outside.  I choose this feared
option as the path to Becoming an immortal and powerful essence.  


Response:

I question the capitalization scheme here.  It sounds as if the
person quoted is attempting to impress us with 'big goals'.
 

von Franz quote:

"This is a generally frowned upon option.  It is alright to study
the psyche, but not to do anything with it.  Actually it's really
not alright to study the psyche in our society -- it is alright
to learn the language of slogans.  It is alright to pretend to
know, rather than to say the highest ideal I can think is to seek
after the mysteries.   


Response:

Where did von Franz get this idea?  Mysticism is LOADED with
traditions which manipulate the psyche/self.  Sounds like more
substance-less self-promotion to me.
 

von Franz quote:

"I'm not interested in becoming one with the archetypes that are
my inheritance as a human.  I am interested in manipulating those
archetypes to create the changes I desire in my subjective
universe and guide me to greater spheres of action in the
objective universe.  


Response:

Sounds inherently dangerous for all the rest of us.  First you proceed
from ignorance to play with your deep mind.  Then you use 'archetypes'
to inspire you toward political/social activity.  Haven't we had enough
of this busibody mentality?  Sure, in the 1960's it was 'cool' to be
a 'part of the solution', but now we know that LOTS of these 'solutions'
were just more of the PROBLEM.  Wise up Janet Weiss!


von Franz:

I expect my path to have at least five
criteria:
 
A.  Self deification,  attainment of an enlightened,
independently existing intellect and its relative immortality.


Response:

This necessitates a 'non-enlightened state' from which you arose.
This indicates that you prop yourself up based on your supposed
'intellect' (anybody see 'The Wrath of Khan'?) and feel good about
yourself at the expense of others.
 

von Franz:

B.  Individualism,  the enlightened intellect is that of a given
individual, not a collective body.


Response:

Now we're getting somewhere.  This is why I argue against TOS so
strenuously.  It seems NOT to fully promote individualism.  How can
an organization which HAS a formula, a philosophy, promote individual
authority???
 

von Franz:

C.  Initiation, . the enlightenment and strength of essence
necessary to the desired state of evolution of self are attained
through stages created by the will of the magician, not because I
was "divine" to begin with.


Response:

Lots of seizing on the word 'enlightenment' for one who has given up
the goal of 'Nirvana'. ;>

This is garbled, and I don't think I understand the point.  Is 'divine'
now a 'bad word'?  So will creates a state of self (through some
'evolutionary' process, apparently) in which we may attain 'enlightenment'
and 'strength of essence'?  Sounds like more gobbeldy-gook that makes
the Jones' who DO it better than the Smiths who DON'T DO IT.  

Please define 'enlightenment' and 'strength of essence' without using
Buddhist and Christian explanations, since you seem to deplore them.
  
 
von Franz:

D.  Magic, I think of myself as using my will in a
rationally intuited system or spiritual technology designed to
cause the universe around them to conform to their willed
patterns.


Response:

Ooooooooooo boy.  Now we get not only to use MATERIAL technology to fuck
up our environment, we get to use 'SPIRITUAL technology' too!  Imagine
if you will a bunch of somnambulant progs all 'manifesting their wills'
all over us!  Sounds like the world is in for a shit-fit.  The ignorant
and naive who gain power cause the most damage.
 

von Franz:

E.   Antinomianism.  I think of myself as "going against the
grain" of their culturally conditioned norms of "good and evil." 
I find it necessary to experience being an outsider -- more in a
figurative sense than a literal one.  This means a certain
identification with conventional evil -- be associating with the
products and attitudes that mainstream society condemns, I can
gain the spiritual independence to do the Work of becoming who I
would be."


Response:

This last fits directly in with individualism and makes much sense.
I tend to think that adversity through opposition brings resolution
of the psyche faster than conformity.
 
 
You (Uncle Setnakt now):

I hope this is of interest, my work that produces paychecks calls
and once again I must plunge into dependence on human
organizations.  And yet hopefully I exert more control here than
do those that sleep.  

Ia Cthulhu!
 
Uncle Setnakt [Edited for typos and presentation]


Response:

I find it interesting that you have Work that doesn't produce paychecks
and 'Work' that does.  This does not give me hope for TOS, especially if
you find the TOS philosophy so persuasive.

Interdependence is an unavoidable thing, as you mentioned in your letter.
I only recommend that we all be very careful what dependencies we foster.
Some tools are better than others for securing what we desire.  Sometimes
even our desires will not lead us to lasting satisfaction.

I'm encouraged by your exclamation of Cthulhu.  By the way, did Aquino
keep up the writings about Cthulhu et al?  Is this what _Crystal Tablet_ 
contains?  Thanks.


Thyagi
-------------------------------------------------------------------
 
"So we'll go to the top of the toppest blue space,
The Official Katroo Birthday Sounding-Off Place!
Come on!  Open your mouth and sound off at the sky!
Shout loud at the top of your voice, 'I AM I!
ME!
I am I!
And I may not know why
But I know that I like it.
_Three cheers_!  I AM I!'"


Theodor Geisel   (Dr. Seuss)