Tuesday, October 27, 2020

Thinking harder: defund the pleasure police, pt 3

The series of posts that continues here constitutes a sequel to a previous entry I wrote about the LaVeyan principle of “Indulgence, not abstinence.”  Similarly to that entry, it too is about the further implications of that principle - specifically, the idea that the free pursuit of pleasure, defined in whatever manner suits the individual, is a fundamental good of life that therefore ought to deserve more respect than it sometimes gets.

The central argument of this series of posts is that inasmuch as indulgence is of the significance that it is, people ought not to police pleasure unless engaging in it is causing a clear-and-present identifiable harm.  Among the things this specifically means are:

  1. Do not police pleasure on the basis of accusations of falsity.
  2. Do not police pleasure on the basis of supposed awkwardness.
  3. Do not police pleasure on the basis of it allegedly revealing something one ought to feel guilt or shame over.

Observing these rules re: not judging other peoples’ pleasure makes life a more pleasurable experience for everyone.  Doing the opposite creates situations in which people are garbage toward one another for no good reason, all-too-often toward the end (whether intended or not) of promoting herd conformity.  The overarching sentiment can be summed up briefly as "just let people like what they fucking like."

This series is already-written-and-complete, but is being split into three entries spaced over several months, because i) it’s long and ii) then I don’t have to put my blog on hiatus due to being busy.  Editing it after the fact, I'm realizing that some of it is toward the extra-bitchy end of stuff that I post on this blog, but that's how it goes sometimes: I have opinions, and you can enjoy them... or not. ;)

This particular entry is especially on the longer and bitchier side, but you folks who actually like hearing me rant about politics should at least enjoy it.

* * *

Tuesday, September 29, 2020

Thinking harder: defund the pleasure police, pt 2

The series of posts that continues here constitutes a sequel to a previous entry I wrote about the LaVeyan principle of “Indulgence, not abstinence.”  Similarly to that entry, it too is about the further implications of that principle - specifically, the idea that the free pursuit of pleasure, defined in whatever manner suits the individual, is a fundamental good of life that therefore ought to deserve more respect than it sometimes gets.

The central argument of this series of posts is that inasmuch as indulgence is of the significance that it is, people ought not to police pleasure unless engaging in it is causing a clear-and-present identifiable harm.  Among the things this specifically means are:

  1. Do not police pleasure on the basis of accusations of falsity.
  2. Do not police pleasure on the basis of supposed awkwardness.
  3. Do not police pleasure on the basis of it allegedly revealing something one ought to feel guilt or shame over.

Observing these rules re: not judging other peoples’ pleasure makes life a more pleasurable experience for everyone.  Doing the opposite creates situations in which people are garbage toward one another for no good reason, all-too-often toward the end (whether intended or not) of promoting herd conformity.  The overarching sentiment can be summed up briefly as "just let people like what they fucking like."

This series is already-written-and-complete, but is being split into three entries spaced over several months, because i) it’s long and ii) then I don’t have to put my blog on hiatus due to being busy.  Editing it after the fact, I'm realizing that some of it is toward the extra-bitchy end of stuff that I post on this blog, but that's how it goes sometimes: I have opinions, and you can enjoy them... or not. ;)

* * *

Sunday, August 30, 2020

Thinking harder: defund the pleasure police, pt 1

The series of posts that begins here constitutes a sequel to a previous entry I wrote about the LaVeyan principle of “Indulgence, not abstinence.”  Similarly to that entry, it too is about the further implications of that principle - specifically, the idea that the free pursuit of pleasure, defined in whatever manner suits the individual, is a fundamental good of life that therefore ought to deserve more respect than it sometimes gets.

The central argument of this post is that inasmuch as indulgence is of the significance that it is, people ought not to police pleasure unless engaging in it is causing a clear-and-present identifiable harm.  Among the things this specifically means are:

  1. Do not police pleasure on the basis of accusations of falsity.
  2. Do not police pleasure on the basis of supposed awkwardness.
  3. Do not police pleasure on the basis of it allegedly revealing something one ought to feel guilt or shame over.

Observing these rules re: not judging other peoples’ pleasure makes life a more pleasurable experience for everyone.  Doing the opposite creates situations in which people are garbage toward one another for no good reason, all-too-often toward the end (whether intended or not) of promoting herd conformity.

This entry is already-written-and-complete as of today, but I’m going to split it into three entries spaced over the next few months, because i) it’s long and ii) then I don’t have to put my blog on hiatus due to being busy.  

Today is thus merely part 1 of my extended “just let people like what they fucking like” rant. ;)

* * *

Friday, July 31, 2020

Ritual magic addendum: magical equipment

I’m increasingly thinking I may have to put this blog on hiatus for a few months or longer, as I’ve started a new project that draws on the same pool of mental energy as writing these blog entries draws on.  The amount of writing thereby being produced, while definitely good in-and-of-itself, is barely sustainable now while I’m on holidays, and thus clearly unsustainable once I go back to work in the fall.  I’ll likely still write a few more entries yet, though.

The current entry is an addendum to the previous sorcery lesson, which was in turn a concrete example of principles discussed in the greater magic entry.  Very likely there will be more than one of these addendums coming up, so as to further elaborate on previously-posted stuff.  

This particular addendum is about magical “equipment,” as while the banishing ritual I described was intended to demonstrate that there is very little equipment that ritual magic actually “requires,” there are also various reasons why one may want to get “fancier” and I thus wanted to discuss some nuances of that here.

This entry is divided into three parts:
* * *

Tuesday, June 23, 2020

On behalf of my fellow "leave me the fuck alone" -type people...

I’ve been struggling with blogging a bit for the last while, partly due to the demands of other newly-initiated projects and partly due to what might be called unfortunate and unwanted re-arising and lingering of certain past personal issues.  

The related thought that I’d like to share this month - “once a month” having been about the maximum manageable for the last while, blogging-wise - is about one of Satanic Temple’s tenets:

One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.

Two further implications that I myself take as following from this tenet are:
  1. A person is within their rights to act in whatever manner they consider necessary to secure their own bodily safety, provided that they do not thereby violate the bodily inviolability of other people.

  2. In the absence of supernatural beliefs about the soul and so forth, the mind is plausibly framed as an extension of the body; thus, any claim to a right to bodily sovereignty and privacy implicitly entails a right to sovereignty and privacy of the mind also.
In connection with world events over the last few months, I have some thoughts about 1, 2 and both together (3) to share in the entry below.

* * *

Sunday, May 31, 2020

On becoming a Satanist...

The question of wanting to become a Satanist - i.e. how does this occur to anyone as a life path to begin with? - has come up in a few recent conversations and inquiries I’ve gotten the last while.  This struck me as a good, manageable topic for a blog written in the busiest part of the current semester for me, so that’s what I will be discussing below.

Possibly the question may seem like a stupid / obvious / patronizing one to a portion of this blog’s audience, who may take the very asking of it as an offensive questioning of one’s life choices.  I think though that it’s important to try to help people who think differently from one another reach an understanding.  Toward that end here, I see three questions to answer:


* * *

Thursday, April 23, 2020

Energy meditations for bored self-isolators with no occult experience

Continuing in the spirit of my previous entry, here’s another one in the “stuff for the bored-and-anxious folks stuck at home to try” category.

The practices described here actually fall a ways outside of what most folks call ‘Satanism,’ i.e. this sort of thing is not typical either of LaVeyan or Satanic Temple practices.  Having read books in which Luciferians describe doing practices like these, frame it as if they speak as “typical” Satanists, and thereby put forward misleading impressions of what most Satanists actually believe, I would rather not be guilty of the same.

Where the meditation practices described below instead come from is an amalgamation of spiritual traditions drawn upon by diverse authors.  I find it interesting, on this front, that regardless of whether a given “New Age” author is influenced by yoga, qi gong, Westernized conceptions of “energy work” or etc., one finds similar practices, principles and visualizations described again and again.

An orthodox LaVeyan would typically be dismissive of this kind of thing, inasmuch as wishful thinking and practitioner attempts at self-elevation via snake-oil selling are always a potential concern.  And I would argue that inasmuch as the fifth Satanic Temple Tenet references the importance of beliefs having a scientific grounding, the default in that denomination too would appear to exclude practices of this kind.  As a heterodox practitioner and chaos magician myself though, I find that conceptions pertaining to what other spiritual folks often call “energy” can be of use, if kept within their proper context - as I’ll explain more below.

This entry has three sections:

* * *