ktf
Member
Greetings All,
I am not interested in simple bickering...I am interested in philosophical investigation...so here I will post once again:
I am glad there are some responses…and so soon. First of all let me clarify that I have no beef with Dr. Aquino. From what I can tell from his writing (both fiction and non fiction), his posting in various forums, and the words of friends who have been in personal contact with him over a number of years, the man is a consummate Black Magician. It is also beyond doubt (to me atleast) that he has contributed tremendously to the elevation and quantum leaps of understanding and praxis of the LHP in the West. I do not always agree with his conclusions, and I have found that in some areas his scholarship is less than stellar, and that he makes some questionable leaps in logic. However, I do not think I would be where I am or even who I am without the Work of Dr. Aquino. To a large degree the same can be said of the Works of Don Webb, Stephen Flowers, RKB, and James Lewis. By extension, I would not be who I am or where I am if the Temple of Set had never Come into Being. I deeply, deeply appreciate the Work that the ToS has done over the years. Some of my most prized magical documents have there origin in the Temple. In the same way, I deeply appreciate the Work of Anton LaVey, and the Church of Satan. Where would most of us be if LaVey had not stepped boldly onto the scene in the 1960’s? I also have been formed by the Work of Crowley, Jack Parsons, Peter Carrol, and Phil Hine. The Work of the IOT has been a great source of inspiration and knowledge as well. These were/are all great magicians, who started great magical Orders…most of which have morphed into something far, far different from what they were founded to be. Perhaps it would be safe to say that were it not for the initial greatness, and ground breaking nature of the ToS there would be no point in so closely scrutinizing their actions, trajectory, and praxis.
When I write that the ToS is no longer an Initiatory School and more a cult of personality and faith based religion I am attempting to make assertions, not based on emotion, but based on logical scrutiny and analysis. We are told repeatedly that the only dogma in the Temple is Xeper but even a quick glance through “Black Magic” by Dr. Aquino will prove that this is not the case. Among some of the more blatant dogma in “Black Magic” is the idea that human brain development can not be explained by modern science. While the explaination might not be satisfactory to some, there are numerous explainations that do not involve the Set entity tampering with early human evolution. This is basic science and easy to research if one is so inclined. The very existence of the Set entity is a matter of dogma. I know that R. Adams and Sireal will repeat the line that it is only necessary for the Priest hood but what does Dr. Aquino say?
"As noted above, the relevant point of "Black Magic" is that there is a necessity for the existence and influence of Set, and it is based upon this necessity that we presume his existence.
Having made such a presumption, through a more precise Understanding of our own consciousness we empathize with this Form/neter. None of this requires "faith" or "belief".
In this sense we do not require "faith or beleif in Set" of anyone in the Temple, no matter of what degree. On the other hand, I would expect anyone qualifyng for the II* to comprehend the above presumption and to personally agree with it. If one cannot or will not, then that person is not (in my opinion) displaying the kind of mental and initiatory rigor of thought that identifies an Adpet II*, much less any higher degree."
The Scroll of Set
Issue #114
Vol. XVII-I
Feb. 1991
It would seem clear that a belief in the Set entity would be required from the II*. Perhaps the greatest expression of dogma I have found is again in the early pages of “Black Magic”. On page 4 the new Setian is told that, “If on the other hand you find that you are having difficulty with these basic propositions, or if you find them unsatisfactory or unconvincing, then it is an indication that you should probably seek out another religion or philosophical environment for personal exploration and expression.” Compare this quote with the following from pg.43: “True philosophy differs from faith or ideology in that philosophy is a disinterested search for truth, where in the outcome of the search is not predetermined by dogma”. In other words, philosophy starts with questions not answers. But early on the new Setian is told that if he cannot accept the basic propositions of the Temple, he should go elsewhere. Not that he should question or investigate, but move on. This is a hallmark or religious dogma, not true philosophy. The first 4 chapters of “Black Magic” are peppered with further dogmatic claims. If you have not read it in a few years I would suggest doing so with a critical eye.
I was asked what the point of such critique and argument is. It was asserted that such critique was time wasted that should be spent on furthering personal Initiation. In my view, the two are not separate. I agree with Dr. Aquino that a tremendous aspect of Initiation is a, “Socratic refutation of confused, imprecise, and unsubstantiated information and thinking. It is the imparting of truth a smuch as we know it to be, and even more importantly it is the imparting of the ability to pursue truth and to recognize it when it is found.”(pg.20 “Black Magic”
I would hope and assume that Dr. Aquino does not place his ideas or the praxis of the Temple outside of the bounds of Socratic refutation and analysis.
Regarding the cult of personality, I do not think it is based on Dr. Aquino as much as it is based on the Priesthood and Magistery. In my experience members, and prospective members do not criticize the ideas or practices of these individuals as these individuals hold the keys to higher grades of recognition. As a member of the Priesthood once told me, “no one ****** off the Priesthood if they want to get the black cookie.” I also think that the Temples recognition system falls sway to politics and nepotism (see Dr. Flowers’ article “Contra Templum” for a very detailed explanation of this phenomenon). So again, in my opinion the cult of personality is based on the recognition system and the Priesthood and Magistery.
Lastly, it was asked what I myself am doing to attempt to further the trajectory of the LHP in the West. Firstly I think dialog is crucial. We have to understand what our collective missteps have been and attempt to progress from there. Secondly I attempt to stay in communication with as many adepts from as many different Orders and groups as possible, to learn from and attempt to expand the scope of current LHP philosophy and practice. Thirdly I cultivate my friendships with the renegade and solitary Setians. In my opinion they are on the cutting edge of Setian praxis. From all of this we work to create a new synthesis that will progress ourselves further down the road. I myself am not a Setian. I am a magician, a practioner of the LHP.
To Sireal, Robert Adams, Etu Malku, you are all members of the ToS who have publicly claimed that you are interested in discussing the philosophy of Setianism and who have argued for the status of the ToS as an Initiatory School. The above paragraphs are one expression of my critque and questions regarding your religion. Can you discuss this? Can you debate it?
And to all: there are all kinds of funny jokes, and claims that could be made in relation to all of us...and I am an individual that firmly believes in the unrestricted freedom to do so. However, it is obvious that certain levels of freedom of speech are not acceptable in certain realms among certain people. I think this debate could lead to some interesting ideas and critques that might lead to the advance of our LHP praxis. Perhaps we could keep our posts to logical, philosophical critque and debate of those we disagree with, there are plenty of arguments to be made! Cracking jokes, no matter how humorous, do not really contribute to debate, discuss, and compare and will not get very far.
I am not interested in simple bickering...I am interested in philosophical investigation...so here I will post once again:
I am glad there are some responses…and so soon. First of all let me clarify that I have no beef with Dr. Aquino. From what I can tell from his writing (both fiction and non fiction), his posting in various forums, and the words of friends who have been in personal contact with him over a number of years, the man is a consummate Black Magician. It is also beyond doubt (to me atleast) that he has contributed tremendously to the elevation and quantum leaps of understanding and praxis of the LHP in the West. I do not always agree with his conclusions, and I have found that in some areas his scholarship is less than stellar, and that he makes some questionable leaps in logic. However, I do not think I would be where I am or even who I am without the Work of Dr. Aquino. To a large degree the same can be said of the Works of Don Webb, Stephen Flowers, RKB, and James Lewis. By extension, I would not be who I am or where I am if the Temple of Set had never Come into Being. I deeply, deeply appreciate the Work that the ToS has done over the years. Some of my most prized magical documents have there origin in the Temple. In the same way, I deeply appreciate the Work of Anton LaVey, and the Church of Satan. Where would most of us be if LaVey had not stepped boldly onto the scene in the 1960’s? I also have been formed by the Work of Crowley, Jack Parsons, Peter Carrol, and Phil Hine. The Work of the IOT has been a great source of inspiration and knowledge as well. These were/are all great magicians, who started great magical Orders…most of which have morphed into something far, far different from what they were founded to be. Perhaps it would be safe to say that were it not for the initial greatness, and ground breaking nature of the ToS there would be no point in so closely scrutinizing their actions, trajectory, and praxis.
When I write that the ToS is no longer an Initiatory School and more a cult of personality and faith based religion I am attempting to make assertions, not based on emotion, but based on logical scrutiny and analysis. We are told repeatedly that the only dogma in the Temple is Xeper but even a quick glance through “Black Magic” by Dr. Aquino will prove that this is not the case. Among some of the more blatant dogma in “Black Magic” is the idea that human brain development can not be explained by modern science. While the explaination might not be satisfactory to some, there are numerous explainations that do not involve the Set entity tampering with early human evolution. This is basic science and easy to research if one is so inclined. The very existence of the Set entity is a matter of dogma. I know that R. Adams and Sireal will repeat the line that it is only necessary for the Priest hood but what does Dr. Aquino say?
"As noted above, the relevant point of "Black Magic" is that there is a necessity for the existence and influence of Set, and it is based upon this necessity that we presume his existence.
Having made such a presumption, through a more precise Understanding of our own consciousness we empathize with this Form/neter. None of this requires "faith" or "belief".
In this sense we do not require "faith or beleif in Set" of anyone in the Temple, no matter of what degree. On the other hand, I would expect anyone qualifyng for the II* to comprehend the above presumption and to personally agree with it. If one cannot or will not, then that person is not (in my opinion) displaying the kind of mental and initiatory rigor of thought that identifies an Adpet II*, much less any higher degree."
The Scroll of Set
Issue #114
Vol. XVII-I
Feb. 1991
It would seem clear that a belief in the Set entity would be required from the II*. Perhaps the greatest expression of dogma I have found is again in the early pages of “Black Magic”. On page 4 the new Setian is told that, “If on the other hand you find that you are having difficulty with these basic propositions, or if you find them unsatisfactory or unconvincing, then it is an indication that you should probably seek out another religion or philosophical environment for personal exploration and expression.” Compare this quote with the following from pg.43: “True philosophy differs from faith or ideology in that philosophy is a disinterested search for truth, where in the outcome of the search is not predetermined by dogma”. In other words, philosophy starts with questions not answers. But early on the new Setian is told that if he cannot accept the basic propositions of the Temple, he should go elsewhere. Not that he should question or investigate, but move on. This is a hallmark or religious dogma, not true philosophy. The first 4 chapters of “Black Magic” are peppered with further dogmatic claims. If you have not read it in a few years I would suggest doing so with a critical eye.
I was asked what the point of such critique and argument is. It was asserted that such critique was time wasted that should be spent on furthering personal Initiation. In my view, the two are not separate. I agree with Dr. Aquino that a tremendous aspect of Initiation is a, “Socratic refutation of confused, imprecise, and unsubstantiated information and thinking. It is the imparting of truth a smuch as we know it to be, and even more importantly it is the imparting of the ability to pursue truth and to recognize it when it is found.”(pg.20 “Black Magic”
I would hope and assume that Dr. Aquino does not place his ideas or the praxis of the Temple outside of the bounds of Socratic refutation and analysis.Regarding the cult of personality, I do not think it is based on Dr. Aquino as much as it is based on the Priesthood and Magistery. In my experience members, and prospective members do not criticize the ideas or practices of these individuals as these individuals hold the keys to higher grades of recognition. As a member of the Priesthood once told me, “no one ****** off the Priesthood if they want to get the black cookie.” I also think that the Temples recognition system falls sway to politics and nepotism (see Dr. Flowers’ article “Contra Templum” for a very detailed explanation of this phenomenon). So again, in my opinion the cult of personality is based on the recognition system and the Priesthood and Magistery.
Lastly, it was asked what I myself am doing to attempt to further the trajectory of the LHP in the West. Firstly I think dialog is crucial. We have to understand what our collective missteps have been and attempt to progress from there. Secondly I attempt to stay in communication with as many adepts from as many different Orders and groups as possible, to learn from and attempt to expand the scope of current LHP philosophy and practice. Thirdly I cultivate my friendships with the renegade and solitary Setians. In my opinion they are on the cutting edge of Setian praxis. From all of this we work to create a new synthesis that will progress ourselves further down the road. I myself am not a Setian. I am a magician, a practioner of the LHP.
To Sireal, Robert Adams, Etu Malku, you are all members of the ToS who have publicly claimed that you are interested in discussing the philosophy of Setianism and who have argued for the status of the ToS as an Initiatory School. The above paragraphs are one expression of my critque and questions regarding your religion. Can you discuss this? Can you debate it?
And to all: there are all kinds of funny jokes, and claims that could be made in relation to all of us...and I am an individual that firmly believes in the unrestricted freedom to do so. However, it is obvious that certain levels of freedom of speech are not acceptable in certain realms among certain people. I think this debate could lead to some interesting ideas and critques that might lead to the advance of our LHP praxis. Perhaps we could keep our posts to logical, philosophical critque and debate of those we disagree with, there are plenty of arguments to be made! Cracking jokes, no matter how humorous, do not really contribute to debate, discuss, and compare and will not get very far.
Last edited:
