Magical Philosophy

Philosophy is based upon logic, otherwise it called religion. Thereby, it is also based heavily upon emperical observation, scientific deduction, and reasonable extrapolation. With that in mind, it is logical to conclude that there was a creator. Extrapolating normal linear physics (even cyclic concepts possess a point A and B), if we exist, then we must have come into being. In this way, "god" can be viewed as a simple catalyst for the birth of our existence. And on to our next challenge: define "god."           It seems to me that the foremost question to arise here would be "Is god a simple catalyst or a conscious being?." Have you ever tried to create a machine, an elemental, or write a computer program that was more intelligent than you are? Logic would dictate that anything that could create something as complex as the human consciousness, must be conscious as well. Thus "god" is a conscious creative force.           Extrapolating other physical principles, we know that matter and/or energy can never be created or destroyed. Thus, in order to be created, we had to be created from something. The only logical conclusion here is that we, and all things that we know, literally are our origin. We are "god." Unfortunately, this is about as sound as this theory will get. The fact that there may exist something outside of god is in invariable question. It is among too many other questions whose answers are simply outside of our current frame of reference and therefore unanswerable for all practical intents and purposes.           How were we created? This, unfortunately, cannot be proven logically. However, a conclusion can be reached through empericism. I feel, from my personal experience, that will is the only creative force in the universe. All else is reactionary. Experimentation with projection, auric manipulation, and direct manipulation of space has taught me a great deal about the world in which we dwell. All things bend to sufficient will. This, as well, will fall cleanly in line with almost every creation theory I have come across. Thus, logic would dictate that "god" created all knowable and measureable things through sheer will and by the principle explained in the last paragraph, we, as conscious human minds, innately possess the same capacities.           Traditional religious views program us to worship or revere our creator. To this I must ask "Why?." Why would you worship something that you cannot even prove exists, much less know anything about? Personally, I must say that my creator, no matter who/what it is, cannot expect my worship, given that I have comparable capacities to it's own and no real proof as to its existence. If the roles were reversed, I would expect the same. I willfully acknowledge the existence of a creator, because of the logic presented here, however viewing it as innately greater than myself is, what I would like to call, a radical assumption.           If god created the world through will and we, as humans, possess comparable capacities, then we possess the potential to become as god. We have the innate ability to recreate the world to our liking and the mental capacity to choose what that is. There is, of course, a proportional difference between what has been termed here as "god" and ourselves, but that is just the embodiment of the proverbial grain of salt with which all things should be taken. Give this some thought next time you are ready to cast something.           Satanism is a philosophy, and all logical conclusions therein, that emphasizes personal freedom at all costs. Specific examples would include the removal of things such as personal limitation (seperate from personal regulation), self deception, and social preconceptions from one's thought processes. Satanism also carries a heavy emphasis on logic and analysis, as all decent philosophy does, both of which prove very useful in day-to-day life. You can thank the catholic church or for the term "satanism." Unfortunately, this is the name these philosophies have been given and there is no real use in changing it now.           Personal limitation, in this context, is expected to be seperate from personal regulation. Personal limitation is essentially believing that you cannot do something for whatever reason. Personal regulation is defined as voluntarily controlling one's behaviour. Outside of a social context, personal regulation does not matter. It is only necessary to operate within a society for the sake of interaction with other members of said society. If one did not care to interact with others or how, then how that person conducts themselves is irrelevant.           To expound a bit more, personal limitation is the satanist's worst enemy. The phrase "I can't do this, even though I want to." is the closest to blasphemy a satanist can get. Quite frankly, there is no reason not to do anything that one may wish to do. This particular tenent fits very well with act utilitarianism, however that is determined by the individual. This is where self deception comes into play. One must know oneself in order to know what one wants; not a very difficult concept to grasp.           Social preconception is a bit stickier of a subject. Psychologically, we are all programmed every day, by every experience we have. Everything you see, everything you hear, and everything you think shapes your mind. This is standard psychological programming and is how people are shaped to fit into a specific society or social group. Thus, until this is recognized, the people around you are doing all the thinking and you follow blindly. The ironic part of it is that the thinkers of society are just as jello-minded as everyone else.           Once these hinderences have be removed, one may think freely. This will inevitably alienate said individual from the rest of society, however the power of absolute freedom, I feel, is entirely worth that while. This freedom will begin to become apparent in one's behavour over time and will alienate said individual even further, causing society to view them as dangerous. Oddly enough, a popular old christian analogy will begin to ring true (at the risk of being called thelemetic). Society is full of sheep, minds to be herded hither and yon. In changing one's mind, one will become the proverbial wolf, to be feared by all valuable and productive members of society.           These changes will bring about their own revelations, such as the fallacies of the concepts of "good" and "bad." In this light, "good" and "bad" are illogical. "Good" and "bad" are blanket concepts that are determined by social preconceptions. Once this has been recognized, the concepts of good and bad become the concepts of desireable and undesireable, which are much more readily recognized as being relative to the individual rather than a generalization.           As said earlier, the most dear and precious thing to a satanist is their absolute freedom of thought and action. In this light, creating or joining an organization such as the Church of Satan is quite laughable. To ally oneself with so many others of so many invariably seperate ideas and philosophies would simply serve to form a miniature society in which one would be reprogrammed.           Can a satanist accept the existence of a divine order as described above? Of course. I would scoff at the idea of limiting myself in such a way. I have my self, my logic, and my magic. These are the only three things in my life that have proven themselves to me time and time again. My ideas may change and these three things will follow, as they always will. I wouldn't have it any other way. May your path be as steady.