I try to be familiar with as many religions as I can, Sir, and I don't think what UltraViolet has been writing in this thread is distinctively, in its very nature, exclusively LHP. Also, there are different classifications (both historical and modern) as to what is LHP and what is RHP, and a huge variety of movements, organizations and views on the metaphysics among the self-identifying LHP practitioners, so I think to say her views are LHP would require further qualification.
As for the Temple of Set, I don't see 'Setian' under UltraViolet's nickname, nor a title pointing to her being a member of the Temple, to which
being drawn to Setianism, to use her words, is not - in my opinion - equivalent.
I'm afraid I might disappoint you, but I do understand this view. I think I also understand those, who see the 'emptying of oneself' as a path to oblivion or total destruction. And those who view this as a false dichotomy too. I think you might be interested in an article by Edward Moore, S.T.L., Ph.D., titled
"Likeness to God as Far as Possible": Deification Doctrine in Iamblichus and Three Eastern Christian Fathers; to quote:
In this paper, I will examine the manner in which the Christian tradition fluctuated between the two extremes of eternal separation from God, and the absolute, person-negating presence of God in the soul. It is in the pagan Neoplatonic tradition, as exemplified by Iamblichus, I will argue, that a personalistic, existentially viable theory of the eskhaton is to be found.
On the other hand, should you like to use the the preservation and advancement of the Self and apotheosis as distinctive or exclusive to LHP or as elements, by which to say wheter a movement is LHP or not, you might end up classifying LDS Church - with its literal becoming a god (or uncreated, eternal human intellects as in King Follett Discourse) - as even more LHP than, say, LaVey's Church of Satan or Pantheistic Satanism, not to mention the 'original LHP', Vamacara Tantra.