The Star of Azazel - Azazelin Tähti

I would be interested to hear from members of SoA about the metaphysical justification of your beliefs and principles. As a side note this thread could be a conversation about epistemology.

So, in a nutshell, what are the metaphysical justifications of the basic premises and principles of SoA's beliefs about the unification of RHP and LHP, and the brotherhood's embrace of theosophical satanism? What is the role of epistemology in these principles and beliefs?

One example of metaphysical justification:

http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/article ... -ignorance

I am not much of a philosopher. I think that the metaphysical justifications for the LHP are fetched alone at night from some abandoned house. And then they are sealed inside the inner chamber of the heart. And when two hearts like that come into contact, they rocognize each other. Because, in the end, there are no words to communicate the living spirit of it.

obnoxion wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 9:33 am I am not much of a philosopher. I think that the metaphysical justifications for the LHP are fetched alone at night from some abandoned house. And then they are sealed inside the inner chamber of the heart. And when two hearts like that come into contact, they rocognize each other. Because, in the end, there are no words to communicate the living spirit of it.

A very poetic and accurate answer.

I can only tell my own opinion on this, without speaking for any other SoA member.
Basically, the metaphysical justification for LHP must be developed on an individual level. What is developed at an individual level does not in itself require justification towards the world as it does not hold the claim to be shared. The RHP may hit in as soon as the realization of of the steady connection towards the whole rises in the individual. In my case the main impulse for this thought process was Schelling‘s ideas in „Von der Weltseele“ and the Kopula.
As all dualism is more or less an illusion, RHP and LHP do not exist but they are tools to understand the whole apart from dualism. However, to see the whole one must have seen the fragments, meaning the separated parts of the whole. In some way, this is the essence of Satanism too, it is about taking the position of the excluded part, so to say. In an epistemological sense, I’d say that since everything is connected and only manifests in contrast to it’s counterpart, object and subject are intertwined and there is a subjectivity in nature. This whole thought process leads quite obviously into panentheistic waters were I‘m trying to swim right now.

Boreas wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 4:41 pmSo, in a nutshell, what are the metaphysical justifications of the basic premises and principles of SoA's beliefs about the unification of RHP and LHP...?

Like sor Cerastes said, the whole is made of the both of these, so I'd say that there's more justification needed to take them apart. The reason why such an approach is more common is cultural, resting in often problematic theological doctrines & reaction to those. (Many choose RHP because it is "proper" or LHP because "proper as we know it is false", and seldom go very far beyond these intuitive reasons & emotions belonging to them.)

Boreas wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 4:41 pm...and the brotherhood's embrace of theosophical satanism?

Also siding with Cerastes here, Satan is very much "in the position of excluded part". 19th century theosophy at large (as it is taken in our philosophy, instead of a system important to take as a dogmatic whole) is universalistically inclided form of esotericism that stressed one's moral judgment instead of ritual. In these together we have both most important parts of the perpetuum mobile most usable in practical spiritual working: willingness to go through one's darkness, and demand to do it in a way that is beneficent instead of harmful.

p.s. I think we might move this to the Questions directed to the Star of Azazel area, since the question was presented for the members?

Thank you for your answers!

Nefastos wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 4:40 pm p.s. I think we might move this to the Questions directed to the Star of Azazel area, since the question was presented for the members?

Yes, my bad.

What principles and beliefs specifically need metaphysical justification in your opinion? The unification of RHP and LHP can be understood simply as religious attitudes trying to find common ground and (theosophical) satanism as a tool to hopefully integrate rejected otherness into our understanding. This on it's own doesn't seem to need any metaphysics to be justified.

Insanus wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:45 pm What principles and beliefs specifically need metaphysical justification in your opinion?

Everyone!

Although somewhat explained already in the articles and in the text about the seven principles of SoA, I was kind of hoping to spark some interesting conversation about the principles themselves and what kind of metaphysical justifications members find for them if any. Epistemology I brought up because I want to know how people have come to these conclusions and also on what authority they lie, if any.

So, I was hoping for answers like "the metaphysical justification for the fifth principle of SoA is that it encourages one to take the reins of ones life into ones own hands" and then some elaboration on this. I'm interested about the why and how members have come to these conclusions.

A lot comes down to how the principles are interpreted. For example, the doctrine of unity and aspiration to truth could be seen as demanding intellectual comprehension of absolute god as a prerequisite for even applying for a membership. The part about Satanism could be seen as whitewashing the most difficult archetype without any personal effort. Worship of death as indifference. Et cetera. I think they should be understood as sketched out direction where we try to aim our efforts rather than some pointers that we have to accept and then "be correct" or something.

I understand the doctrine of unity to simply mean that every system that excludes some part of reality/experience has blind spots and that we should try to see divinity where there was none in order to grow our understanding. Mistakes would be something like trying to get out of this world to some higher place or dismissing the meaning of spirituality.

Aspiration to truth is sort of the same thing. You shouldn't settle for less than the whole truth, for some tradition, or your own creation without really testing it, questioning it, trying to find flaws and different interpretations. Again, in order to grow, to not stagnate in some imaginary (or real, makes no difference) achievement.

Satanism is the challenge to the doctrine of unity and also a form of this theme of transgression. Absolute evil is tough to imagine, but I take the point to be that satanism is about something else than violent crime and stuff the general public considers unpleasant. I'd think absolute evil would also be something else, but that's another topic.

There is no good or evil as absolute values. Trickier, but if we understand the ethics of SoA as the threefold key and the doctrine of unity even in this limited sense I'm trying to express, it's clear that everything we condemn has some worth. It's not the act or drive or force that's wrong in itself, it's the context and the way the drive is used that's more or less effective in doing what it's trying to do. Failure is not evil, it's just tragic. Diabolical evil and downward path is again another topic.

Every man is his own saviour. Again, individual strife and personal responsibility trump gurus and churches. Of course you can learn from others, get help when needed and so forth, but every change begins within, with personal choice and determination. Even the most utilitarist person has to see before he guides the blind etc.

Worship of Death. Psychological and existential, but nevertheless same point yet again about not excluding the frightening parts from the attempt to see everything as divine.

Threefold key. The explanation what this whole personal strife business means in essence. Truthfulness, as an attempt to understand more and more clearly. Love, as an attempt to ease the most horrid suffering of the world in oneself first, then in the world. And will to do right, the courage to act according to one's own experience of the earlier two.

All in all, to my understanding the point is to grow over our limits and become whole beings who act out this dharma or younameit. I like the idea.



I still don't see the metaphysics though.

Now there's an answer I was hoping for! I'll get back to it if I have something to comment.