phenomena one wishes to add to it.
In the “exclusive” OU, a house is simply a geometrically-coordinated, gravitationally-braced
and weatherproof arrangement of certain kinds of molecules. As various individuals design,
decorate, occupy, or view the house, however, it is imbued with characteristics assigned to it by
them [cf. Kant in “The Psyche”]. It now exists in their several SUs, and it may continue to exist
there even after the OU house has been demolished.
As various people discuss the house, moreover, their SU concepts concerning it will be
exchanged. Thus SUs may themselves overlap. This is another way of defining “intellectual
affinity”, and it is also a precondition for affection and love.
It is open to question whether an individual can detect the existence of the OU at all, save
through the “distorting medium” of his SU. Rene Descartes’ famous statement “I think; therefore
I exist” was the result of his attempt to batter through his SU to secure evidence of the OU’s
reality [and his existence within it]. The Irish philosopher George Berkeley disputed Descartes,
claiming that the OU does not exist - that such reliable data as we have concerning it are merely
agreements or similarities between our several SUs. The creator and “enforcer” of these
similarities, Berkeley continued, is the divine mind (i.e. a God or gods).
Berkeley’s philosophy is called immaterialism. It was followed by two offshoots:
solipsism and subjective idealism. Solipsism disputes the existence of a divine mind, and
indeed of any other individual minds. To the solipsist, the universe consists of “nothing but
myself and my ideas”. The physical world, including the human beings populating it, are simply
figments of one’s imagination. [If one should be “attacked” by such a figment, the sensation of
the fight and the bruises resulting from it would be viewed by the solipsist as unpleasant
fantasies of his mind originating, beyond his conscious control, in its subconscious depths.]
Subjective idealism, whose most prominent proponent was the German philosopher
Johann Gottlieb Fichte, was an approach to immaterialism that seemed to be “less absurd” than
solipsism. Fichte began by acknowledging that neither materialism (the existence of nothing but
the OU) nor immaterialism (the existence of nothing but the SU) can be established. A
philosopher must arbitrarily accept either one or the other as a point of departure, then
construct his theories from that platform.
Fichte opted for immaterialism. He felt that he existed, per Descartes’ maxim. But, unlike
Descartes, he didn’t trust in God to subsequently impart to him reliable sensory impressions of
an OU. He postulated the original existence of a mental essence divided into the ego (the
sensation of the self) and the non-ego (sensations of things not perceived as the self). This
mental essence is more impersonal than the subconsciousness of the solipsist. The essence is a
sort of “supermind” which transcends all particular ego and non-ego manifestations.
As noted above, Fichte chose the premise of immaterialism and from it developed the
philosophy of subjective idealism. His successor, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, chose the
premise of materialism and from it developed the philosophy of objective idealism. In its
simplest form, this philosophy imparts reality to the OU, making all SUs simply aspects of it.
- 179 -
Hegel’s OU, however, is not a physical substance. Rather it is an all-embracing, absolute mind
which is racing through its many ideas to reconcile them, refine them, and ultimately realize
itself through them. This is the “evolution” of the universe, and is what Hegel referred to as the
historical “dialectic” of thesis/ antithesis> synthesis.
Endless debates rage concerning these and other metaphysical theories. This is not the
place to attempt to resolve them. They are introduced in elemental form simply in order to
illustrate the role that the concepts of the SU and OU play in them. They are “building blocks”:
points of reference.
Using these building blocks, the individual may conceive of himself as a self-conscious,
intelligent entity who confronts the OU and SU from a point of external perspective. [Whether
this external perspective extends to the SU is problematic; this is like asking the mind whether it
realization of the SU, will suffice.] The challenge of existence is thus how to approach both
universes intelligently and rewardingly.
There are two essential approaches to each universe, which may be termed natural and
non-natural. 76 Hence a total of four possible approaches: (1) natural/OU, (2) non-natural/OU,
(3) natural/SU, and (4) non-natural/SU. Each will now be discussed in turn.
Q. Personal OU/SU Perspectives
1. The Natural Approach to the Objective Universe
The natural approach to the OU is to endeavor to blend in with it, to harmonize with it, to
become one with it. In one mythological context or another, this is the goal of all conventional
religions, which view man’s estrangement from the OU as something “out of adjustment” at best
and “sinful” at worst. A fundamental paradox is involved, however, which makes such a goal of
reunification impossible. The paradox is that the very desire to attain union with the OU
evidences the individual’s essential separateness from that universe. It follows that any
conscious act relative to that universe - even one which seeks to approach it - is an exercise of
that separateness. Hence to be aware of one’s disconnection from that universe is to remain
disconnected from it.
Jesus Christ is reputed to have said that, to enter Heaven, one must be “as a little child”. To
put it another way, such a person would have to radiate an innocent, selfless passion for the
harmony of the Universe; he would be unable to conceive himself as apart from it.
The irony of Christ’s admonition is that neither innocence nor selflessness are
products of the conscious intellect. Hence he was stating a truth about which those
listening to him could do nothing, whether or not they understood or agreed with him. One
cannot “decide to be innocent” or “resolve to be selfless”. One can conduct one’s life as though
one were innocent and selfless, of course - and be a nice person who does nice things for others
in the process. But beneath all appearances, all affectations, the actual state of the soul remains
as it is: either animal/natural or human/enlightened, either asleep and ignorant or awake and all
too aware.
It is nothing short of horrifying to review the record of man’s efforts to “get at” the state of
the human soul. He has cruelly tortured the body and the mind, even destroyed life itself in
efforts to suppress or exterminate the “Satanic” state of self-awareness and pride in personal
existence. He has concocted innumerable religions and substitute-religions purporting to be able
to snuff out this flame; these have used every conceivable combination of drugs, incense,
76 See Appendix #97.
- 180 -
pageantry, recitation, ritual, and even Thomistic-style “logic” whose conclusions are safely
predetermined by faith-derived axiom
s.
All such devices are ultimately of no avail. At most they confuse, distort, and lull - but in the
end “are all spirits, and are melted into air”. They are false, useless, meaningless, and tragic -
tragic in the sense of the ancient Greek dramas: futile efforts of an Œdipus struggling
pathetically to evade what the gods had decided must be.
Such efforts to deceive the consciousness into believing that it has been accepted into the
OU are defined by the Temple of Set as White Magic (WM). It will be noted that this definition
is far broader and less value-laden than pop-occultists’ use of the term. WM embraces not only
all conventional religions, but all pagan or nature-worship ideologies as well. To the Temple, the
only distinction between them is one of style and imagery, not of underlying purpose.
Atheists and logical positivists attempt to create the illusion of man’s inclusion in the OU
simply by refusing to admit to the possibility of any alternative. Such individuals brusquely deny
that anything worthwhile exists in the SU, which they consider useful only for fantasy and
escapism. Such natural/objectivists thus include Machiavelli, Hobbes, Hume, and Marx, as well
as the Sophists of Hellenic Greece and the later Stoics of the Hellenistic and Roman eras of
Mediterranean culture.
When confronted with metaphysical issues, natural/objectivists profess annoyance at such
“useless” speculation. They pride themselves on practicality, on common sense, and on material
interests. If they are involved in religion at all, it is only as a means for social or political
influence, as in Rousseau’s contemptuously-advocated “civil religion” - or in order to “scratch
the itch” [with as little intellectual bother as possible] of the sublimated feeling that there just
might be something more to the universe than their bourgeois materialism.
2. The Non-Natural Approach to the Objective Universe
If one assumes that one is an independent entity moving about in the OU, and that one
cannot merge one’s consciousness with it - that all attempts to do so are mere illusions and
delusions - then one approaches the OU as a tool to be used for personal satisfaction. Natural/
objective religionists are regarded as irrational, and natural/ objective atheists are regarded as
ignorant.
The non-natural/objectivist makes a careful study of the OU from his self-realized external
perspective, and he includes in that study consideration for the subjective, metaphysical forces
that influence human disposition and behavior (i.e. others’ SUs). He then applies his knowledge
to entities and events in the OU and through this medium to others’ SUs, to control or at least
influence events and perceptions in accordance with his will. This is defined by the Temple of Set
as Lesser Black Magic (LBM). 77
It will be understood that competence in this art gives the practitioner enormous power to
affect situations in ways that could scarcely be understood by those involved, even if they were
aware of the various forces being brought to bear on them. It thus follows that rigorous
education in ethics is an absolute necessity for would-be Black Magicians - else through
ignorance, immaturity, or impulsiveness they bring about unjustified or even unnecessary
damage or destruction. As has been noted, the OU is in a state of natural equilibrium, and
any adjustment to it risks disrupting that equilibrium. Some adjustments are tolerable, and some
are even beneficial. But some which seem positive at first glance may be harmful in a larger
77 For a detailed study of LBM techniques and how they may be applied to the reduction, if not complete elimination
of human warfare, see Michael A Aquino, MindWar (2016).
- 181 -
perspective, as in the extermination of “harmful” mountain lions which ultimately results in
overpopulation and mass starvation of their natural prey.
The adept practitioner of LBM is thus not a crude predator; he is an adjustor, a
manipulator, a metaphysician. He does not practice his art for petty egotism, but rather for the
greater satisfaction he derives in the experience and exercise of his wisdom - which as a by-
product invariably satisfies whatever material goals he may deem appropriate to the situation.
A second non-natural approach to the OU is actually a simplified, directed application of
Greater Black Magic (GBM) [see discussion below] towards the solving of problems or
adjustment of situations in the OU. This special application, bridging the gap between GBM and
LBM, is called Medial Black Magic (MBM). It is discussed in Chapter #21.
3. The Natural Approach to the Subjective Universe
The atheistic natural/objectivist, as stated above, regards subjective impressions as unreal
and unimportant save as escapist entertainment. This is the realm of science-fiction and fantasy
writers, of escapist movies, of commercially-driven artists and musicians. Their litany - an
invariable identifier - is that their work has no usefulness apart from the emotional pleasure it
brings and such allegorical references as it makes to “realities” in the OU. The occasional writer,
artist, philosopher, or musician who refuses to disclaim the more “disturbing” aspects of his
work as mere entertainment - as in the case of Wagner, Crowley, von Stroheim, Nietzsche - is
liable to be dismissed as an eccentric at best or condemned as a madman at worst. Profane
society fears few things more than recognized genius which is not directed towards
“safe, predetermined” goals.
The religious natural/objectivist, who creates subjective experiences for himself to reinforce
his sense of inclusion in the OU, accepts the reality of the SU only insofar as his sensations of it
provide that reinforcement. When these do not, they are labeled heresy, fantasy, or mental
disease. Once again the determining factor is the relevant religious dogma, against which all
subjective experiences are measured and evaluated.
The common factor in both natural/objectivist approaches to the SU is that it is rigidly
regarded as insubstantial, impotent, and unreal. It can thus be cynically endorsed and even cited
as authority when convenient [as the more successful conventional religions have done]; and it
can just as easily be ignored when inconvenient or unprofitable. It is a plaything. Except to the
extent that they have fallen victim to their own artificially-induced delusions, religious leaders/
white magicians comfortably ignore their “gods” whenever it suits their purposes to do so. Or, if
in a position to “interpret” said gods, they do so with a calculated eye to their own comfort and
advantage.
It is one of the great oddities of human civilization that such transparent frauds attract any
adherents at all, much less worldwide followings. John Fowles has suggested that it results from
mankind’s psychological starvation for mystery. “If no one will write new detective stories,” he
observes in his The Aristos, “then people will still read the old ones.”
4. The Non-Natural Approach to the Subjective Universe
The individual with a basic non-natural (“Satanic”) sense of self-awareness need not
confront the SU directly. He may be content to use it symbolically, as a device for emphasizing
and formalizing his LBM goals. This was the approach of the vast majority of
those who affiliated
with the Church of Satan from 1966 to 1975. Many of the Church’s most exotic - and seemingly
literal - rituals are thus correctly understood as LBM psychodramas. As such they could be
startlingly effective.
- 182 -
But what had begun as a somewhat tongue-in-cheek exercise in monster-movie theatrics
and social satire gradually evolved into an increasingly more focused search for the principles
behind such effectiveness. It was this search which culminated in the metamorphosis of the
Church of Satan into the Temple of Set in 1975 - minus those who were unable or unwilling to
see past the original psychodramatic concept.
The theory and practice of non-natural interaction with the SU is defined as Greater
Black Magic (GBM). It involves first the exploration of one’s SU, other SUs which may be
involved, and relevant portions of the OU to their conceptual frontiers [if not limits]. There
follows a precise, coherent, and deliberate focusing of the will of the creative self to adjust
features of the SUs (personal and others’) to the desired state, which may or may not be “real” in
the OU.
The concept of magic postulates that there is a continuous “linkage” - generally referred to
as the Magical Link (ML) - between the OU and SUs. Hence a change occurring in one will
have at least a partially similar effect in the other.
It is easy to explain why the OU should influence the SU, but explaining the reverse
influence is rather more subtle and complex. It is the active application of the ML conceptualized
by Fichte, through which application the concentrated energies of the ego create “patterns” in
the over-reaching mean essence, which patterns in turn create related, if not completely identical
“patterns” in the non-ego part of the mental essence - which is that which defines and binds
together the laws of consistency in the OU. [If you are intimidated by Fichte, go see the original
(now “Episode IV”) Star Wars film and you’ll get the general idea.]
GBM is difficult to conceptualize, difficult to master theoretically, and difficult to practice
reliably - but it does work. It may take effect in greater or lesser degree, but in any given case it