The debate whether Satan should be viewed as an archetype or as a very real being has raged between those describing themselves as Satanists for many decades now. Ultimately an extension of the atheism vs theism debate that serves as jingling keys to distract us from the true source of mental slavery, I find both positions, and the argument itself, fairly meaningless. Viewing Satan as another superstitious figurehead, built into a dualistic framework that is separated from any other western ‘religion’ only by the names and ‘regulations’ seems an exercise in onanism, while on the other hand viewing him as little more than a psychological figurehead for ‘being yourself’ or ‘being your own god’ ultimately understood as a feelgood excuse to be just like everyone else but feel superior based on the existence of said figurehead, regardless of any actual praxis, doubly so. Modern or theistic, I just find most contemporary ‘satanism’ to be worthless. Perhaps this is why I continue to write.
In the Autodiabolic framework, ‘Satan’ is both real and figurative, both descriptive and prescriptive. ‘He’ is simply the destroyer.
In an esoteric context, He moves you beyond limitation, into the dark places most fear to tread (both figuratively and literally). He is that ‘pathei mathos’ resultant from doing his deeds and walking in his shoes, and he is the resultant personal change born of this. He is the principle and praxis of that which leaves your personal ‘sacred cows’ in a mutilated bloody heap, crunching that which was once certainty under cloven hoof, exposing what lay beneath, often horrifying, often painful, yet always ‘true’, to the light of day.
In an exoteric context, He is that which destroys the old so that the new might be, the sword, fang and claw that rends the flesh from the bone. He is the deeds done that tear down walls, ripple the still pools and tip over the canoe. He is the fire that burns what it can, leaving only that which it cannot. Without him, meaningful change, meaningful progress would not happen..yet we are told to shun ‘him’, to fear ‘him'(or at least, all that ‘he’ represents). In many ways this makes perfect sense.
If you like how things are, enjoy your comforts, and are down with the status quo, why would that which challenges it not be a sort of ‘evil’? After all, we are wired as animals to protect our territory, amplified by our ability for abstract thought to extend that territory to ‘ideas’. It isn’t like there is a ‘better way’, for surely that is not the point of view I am offering, but only diversity. To most the dark is scary, the unknown is a source of unease. To those that value most highly their comfort, as we are taught to, the entirety of Satans providence is an alien and inhospitable landscape. The principle and praxis of burning down that comfortable place, to those, will always be the barbarians at the gates.
Yet to a certain sort, to my kind, comfort has been dethroned as the prevailing psychological authority base. To those like me, the stagnation of ‘sameness’ and stillness is the greatest ‘evil’. To those like me, the society we live in,enshrining mediocrity, placid mentality, egalitarian valuation, and all the other safeguards to the great stagnation that is the body and blood of nomos, is a sickness. For my kind welcomes those same barbarians to dine at our table, to burn down the fort..if they can.
To some, the beauty lay in the spires of the emerald city, for others in the flames that consume it.