happy to hear that thing are going well. it's helped me tons too ^_^

Regie Satanas

I went through a phase of youthful idealism with a passion to try to change the world, or to somehow contribute to making the world a better place. However, on growing into my late 20s and early 30's most of that had worn off, and I found it more productive to concentrate on personal empowerment and self-understanding, rather than just on on social activism (unless the latter could benefit me directly).

Having already studied Western philosophy (David Hume took my interest in particular) and modern psychology, I also explored Buddhism in depth (in its Western forms), including various forms of meditation, as well as other meditative practices such as tai chi and Reiki - leaving the metaphysical baggage at the door and using them as meditative tools from a basically atheistic stance.

I later explored hypnosis, and ended up training as a hypnotherapist, getting two full practitioner diplomas. However, I've since decided to pursue a high-tech career path instead, although hypnosis (along with NLP, taken with a pinch of salt) is still a potential tool in my toolbox, which can be expanded upon as need be.

I don't practice much Buddhist-style meditation nowadays - it's quite an ascetic practice - and as for the Buddhist ethics, they promoted not only mandatory altruism (as much as Christianity) but the Eastern concept of Ahimsa or non-violence, which leads to a lot of social pressure in Buddhist circles to become vegan to prevent exploiting and causing suffering to animals, as well as to devote as much money as you can give to the "Dana bowl" (Dana meaning 'Generosity'), the Buddhist equivalent of the Christian money plate.

Despite these sky-high values however (or perhaps due to them), some highly devout Buddhists I have met are truly hypocritical motherfuckers. They preach compassion and 'lovingkindness' everytime they open their mouths, yet are often selfish and egocentric. Due to their 'lovingkindness' meditations, they convince themselves in their hearts that they are feeling compassion for another person, while going on to treat them like crap. Then they just meditate more until they feel more compassionate, stroking their own ego in the process.

Many Western Buddhists I have met held superstitious dogmatic beliefs about Karma and reincarnation/rebirth, such as the notion that if you have any anger or ill-will in your heart at the moment of your death, you'll come back as an animal!

So I also moved on from Buddhism, and away from its superstition, morality/ethics and political activism. What really gave me the push there was reading The Satanic Bible back in early 2004, and envisioning man as another animal, where everything is ultimately carnal, yet the rational mind (or 'ego' in Freudian terms) can formulate what is in one's self-interest and use that as a yardstick.

Another book which explores the notion of man as just another animal is "Straw Dogs" by John N. Gray (not to be confused with another John Gray). This book critiques many secular humanist ideologies and moral philosophies which the author sees as bastard offshoots of Christianity and the Christian notion of free will and with it, sin, and also makes some interesting comparisons between Darwinism and parts of Taoist philosophy. He quotes A.C. Graham:

"Taoism coincides with the scientific worldview at just those points where the latter most disturbs westerners rooted in the Christian tradition - the littleness of man in a vast universe; the inhuman Tao which all things follow, without purpose and indifferent to human needs; the transience of life, the impossibility of knowing what comes after death; unending change in which the possibility of progress is not even conceived; the relativity of values; a fatalism very close to determinism; even a suggestion that the human organism operates like a machine."

Such reading helped to uproot much of my Christian upbringing, and to get a realistic view of human beings as animals, no morally superior to non-human animals. There are no gods, there is no one upstairs. There are no moral categorical imperatives that we simply must obey just because we must. Free will looks likely to be a kind of illusion. There is no sin, no salvation, no damnation. Death is more than likely the permanent end of consciousness, but we can't imagine what that is like.

Still, according to the rules of Christianity, many paths I have chosen in live have been called evil or sinful.

Gray has this to say on the subject, under the heading of "Morality as an Aphrodisiac":

"A sense of guilt may add spice to otherwise unremarkable vices. There are undoubtedly those who have converted to Christianity because they seek an excitement that mere pleasure can no longer supply. Think of Graeme Greene, who used the sense of sin he acquired through converting to Catholicism as an aphrodisiac. Morality has hardly made us better people, but it has certainly enriched our vices.

Post-Christians deny themselves the pleasures of guilt. They blush at using a queasy conscience to flavor their stale pleasures. As a result, they are notably lacking in joie de vivre. Among those who have once been Christians, pleasure can be intense only if it is mixed with the sensation of acting immorally."

And here is what Anton LaVey had to say on the subject:

"We feel guilt is a necessary thing. Not necessary that it's practiced at all times, but we're stuck with it, we have it in our collective unconscious, we have a certain amount of feeling of apprehension for things we've done because we're taught from childhood not to do certain things. Any attempt to 'scrape the psyche clean' is only going to make us much more fraught with frustrations and tensions.

So what we've done is just reversed the procedure - instead of trying to free ourselves, we've taken all these hang-ups and we've turned them into useful situations. If you're gonna be a sinner, be the best sinner on the block. If you're going to do something that's naughty - do it - and realize that you're doing something naughty and enjoy it!"

Which brings me to the symbol or archetype of Satan. Personally I like the symbol, it's aesthetic potential and empowering nature. I don't personally though consider titles such as Satanist as any more than ultimately empty categories unworthy of bitch-fighting over, although I can see how some may have the need to defend such titles in a territoral manner. For me though, I enjoy the private symbolic and ironic use of concepts such as evil, sin and Satan.