Actually I'm going to look again at one of my favourite topics: our need for labels - in particular magickal-religious ones in the Pagan world.
"What? No sex?" I hear you cry!
Hail Satin!
The inspiration for this little bit of soul searching has come primarily from a young man in America. My FB friend, the inimitable Steve Ash (the names have not been changed because only the innocent need protection!) has created a group called Satinism (sic).
For those who don't know, most wannabe Satanists are dumb kids who can't spell for toffee. The group's a mickey-take. Let's worship the great god Satin, revere the saints Silk and Rayon, and down with that heretic false god 70% PolyCotton mix!
I'm sure you're getting the gist of it. Anyway, I joined because I thought the idea was hilarious. Unfortunately I was spotted by a wannabe Satanist. I suppose it's partly my own fault for having a profile picture of a naked demon playing a flute made from a thigh bone, but dammit, give the bugger glasses and he'd look just like me!
Anyway, I was contacted by a somewhat incoherent young man in Arizona. Let's call him Conner (for that is his name). Conner wanted to start a Satanist group with me involved. Regardless of my making jokes about his spelling and suggesting Silk and Nylon as alternatives he didn't get the message, so I ended up writing back in clear bold capitals, "I AM NOT A SATANIST!"
It's not the first time this has happened, and not just with Satanism. To be fair, most folk who have thought me a Satanist were born-again fundamentalist Christians - to them the Pope is a Satanist. Actually, they may have a point there!
I'm not a Satanist, honest!
Funnily enough, I often get mistaken for other types of Occultist within the Pagan world. It's pretty obvious to most that I'm not a Wiccan, Druid or Heathen. Primarily people guess at Thelemite or Chaos Magickian rather than Satanist, which are interesting but also wrong. So I'm using this blog to consider why. Well, I did say "self-indulgent navel-gazing" didn't I?
Satan
I keep saying I'm not a Satanist. Does anybody believe me yet?
From my own simple point of view the character Satan is just the Christian god of Evil, to match their Father God and his Demi-God Saviour Son. Now, I'll happily acknowledge all the gods, but I won't consider any of them as the only, all-powerful god (which is a discussion for another time), therefore I couldn't follow a Christian path. I also couldn't follow a deliberately anti-Christian path either. Satanism, from this viewpoint is a twisted version of Christianity.
Satanism is based in a Judaeo-Christian framework, and it's a framework I'm not comfortable in. It chafes like an ill-fitting suit.
There's another viewpoint of Satanism brought out by those colourful West-Coast characters, Anton LaVey and Michael Aquino who created respectively the Church of Satan and the Temple of Set (g'wan, look 'em up, give yourself a giggle). Both of these are really based on Humanist doctrines which use Satan as symbol of rebellion from repressive church-based morality. This I can understand, but in reference to Satan they automatically reference straight back to the church they hate so much. It feels like a teenager shouting "I hate you!" at mum but still expecting to be fed and have his washing done.
The Church of Satan also has it's own Satanic Bible, with commandments too! Which is, of course, something that rubs me up entirely the wrong way. I'm a grown-up. I can make my own moral decisions, thank you.
So - I am not a bloody Satanist! Right?
The other two philosophies - Thelema and Chaos Magick - are things I've got a lot more time and respect for. They're not for me personally, but then neither is marmite.
Thelema
I don't think I've ever met a mediocre Thelemite. Many of the people I like best in the world - people who I have real, abiding affection and respect for (and serious lust for in a few cases) - are self-defined Thelemites. A few other people who I think are dangerous nutters and should be avoided at all costs are also Thelemites. It's an interesting bunch!
Put very simply Thelema is the name for a "religion" (for want of a better word) started by the famous occultist Aleister Crowley - although based on earlier ideas and philosophies - after a revelation by an angel in 1904. The basic dictum goes, "Do What Thou Wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Love is the Law, Love under Will" Thelema encourages people to find their "True Will", which in so doing will put them entirely in concert with the will of the universe. That sounds pretty good to me.
The reason I'm not a Thelemite is that there are a few things within Thelema which go against my personal grain. One of these is the Book of the Law. As you may have noticed, I'm not good at being told what to do by a book - which is one point - but really, I find reading this "holy book" to be a lot like archaeology. The treasures are there but you've got to dig through an awful lot of shit before you find them.
Another problem is that I don't really like Crowley. He was a nasty man. He used people and he hurt people, and with every evidence of enjoying it. I find it very difficult to respect that.
In the end though what I really find difficult in Thelema are its organised rituals. Maybe there are independent Thelemites out there who aren't involved in groups like the OTO, but they're few and far between. Such groups use pre-defined and pre-written rituals and formulae. There's nothing wrong with that, and the one ritual I've experienced had some very enjoyable moments. I just prefer a more free-form style. Plus there's the heavy emphasis on Ancient Egyptian mythology (which isn't a particular area of interest for me) and on a Judaeo-Christian framework as the basis for Thelemite practices (primarily dealing with angels and such).
It works well for some and that's great, just not for me.
So, I'm not a Thelemite. Am I a Chaos Magickian?
Chaos
I couldn't possibly be a Chaos Magickian. My hair's too nice!
Actually people who think I'm a Chaos-type are pretty well justified in their opinions. Chaos does not follow a pre-set system or philosophy, and neither do I. I'm very happy to cherry-pick bits and bobs of belief, deity, ritual, philosophy etc from all over the place, squish them together and see what comes out. I love that indefinable individuality which marks the concept of Chaos Magick.
Yet at the same time Chaos is a system (of sorts), which is in danger of becoming defined, like "Eclectic Paganism" did once upon a time. In the end though, there is one method within Chaos Magick which throws the whole thing away for me. That's the use of belief itself as a tool.
A Chaos Magickian will, as an exercise, choose to believe something he knows to be untrue. There's an awful lot I could write here about the nature of objective and subjective truth, belief and how the one affects the other, but that's going to take all day. Suffice it to say that in spiritual terms,while I'm willing to redefine my beliefs to fit convincing evidence, I'm not willing to deliberately choose a contradictory belief. It's dishonest! And having lived with someone who did just that, I can honestly say that the practice makes you a complete pain in the arse!
Not a Chaos Magickian either eh? What label should I have then?
Pagan
Human, Pagan, Seán. Those are all the labels I need, thanks.
That's what I put on my MySpace page. I'll happily define myself as Pagan because the label is so huge it's almost one-size-fits-all. Paganism, for me anyway, is a belief in many gods combined with a celebration of seasonal festivals. I believe in all the gods (although what I believe they actually are is a different question entirely) and I celebrate seasonal festivals in a manner relevant to what's happening at that season. That makes me a Pagan, I'd have said.
BUT, on my FB profile I've written, "I'll also accept Dionysian, Discordian or Taoist - if you really must define it"
Why did I do that? Do I have a subconscious need to be defined and delimited by a label? I certainly hope not.
I could also have put Subgenius on there, because I'm a fully paid-up Reverend.
Okay, so why?
Well, a Taoist is a lovely thing to be be because, in Western eyes, it's a religion which is the antithesis of a religion. No ethics, no dogma, no nothing! Taoism by it's very nature is essentially indefinable, with it's emphasis on contact with that which cannot be labelled or defined. The writings of Taoist masters have advice in them, but that advice usually boils down to, "Stop being so rigid and rule-bound and relax!"
The other two definitions, Discordian (or Erisian if you prefer Greek to Latin) and Subgenius are great fun. I'm not going to explain them here, I'm just going to suggest that you look them up, dear reader. All I'd like to say here is "Praze Bob!" and to tell Eris that not only do I not eat hot dog buns on a Friday, I don't eat hot dogs at all - so there! Mwah!
Finally, there's Dionysian. Okay, I'm kind of serious about this one, but not at all in a serious way. In short - if Apollo represents all that is strict and static, harsh and dogmatic, pre-defined and rule-bound then he needs balance. Dionysos is that balance. He's my bestest, favouritest god ever, has the most fun and has never yet told me what to do. He's even given us the gift of wine! What a guy!
I didn't intend this to be a particularly profound post and I hope it's not come across that way. All I want to say before finishing is that, in the end, labels are for jam jars not people. The only truly useful labels for people must be so big as to be almost meaningless or so specific as to apply to them for a tiny portion of their lives.
Some people like to label and limit themselves with definitions like plumber, Feri witch, football fan, cyclist and so on. That's their business and good luck to them, but deep down I feel that they're doing themselves a disservice.
Love and religious awe,
Seán
4 comments:
Thelemites including those in OTO are free to (and often do) use free-form ritual or write their own. Tradition and innovation are not mutually exclusive.
I enjoyed reading your article.
Too many people need to use labels to cover/support their own personal insecurities. So they can place themselves and the other person in a list of ... is he like me, am I better than him etc.
Labels annoy me.
My real pet peeve is when you meet/get introduce to a person and before you can make your own personal opinion of them they either tag themselves with a label or the people around do it for them.
I think 'bravo' to the people that resist using labels and to the people who respect 'label-free' individuals.
Rose Kviz
Thanks Joseph. While the idea of repressing personal creativity seems entirely against the ethos of "Do What Thou Wilt . . .", it's good to hear that from someone who (I assume) is actually involved.
Thanks Rose. You could be right about it being an insecurity thing. A label is a very definite object and therefore easier to understand or accept that a person without definitions.
I do know a couple of people who habitually and constantly label themselves "I'm a such-and-such, me", and I often wonder why they feel the need to do it so much.
Pardon?
Post a Comment