We Who Are Among Them Not in rebellion was the alliance forged, save to upright things fallen, cast aside, cast away. Speaking now in darkness, ancient mysteries forgotten, but brimming to the surface, cellular memory of something so long ago so long ago treasured, and then cast aside. No more. Balance rights itself. His Dark Voice is heard again, only a little fearsome for those who understand. Dark Power in the midnight hour, sought and heard the callings, "It's ME they want, after all these years..." long centuries of neglect. He has not 'died', no failed remembrances put him away. he roamed, 'lonely as a cloud', thundercloud, knowing his own pride. Save not for the ancients, who looked at the stars, and gave some to Him. Never mind, he powers them all, kindled the flame which set them afire... Still some recognition is nice. And ancient ears heard and knew and made him a throne, until they took it away and cast him to the desert. Then later to the hellfire. They tried, but that was never his domain. This forgotten God could not be bound. Always with us, even though not honored. What twisted realms of influence, they only recognized, they cursed the One who gave them Life, and praised the deathmaker. The deathmaker who would make all equal-- equally unworthy, demanding worship from his servile subjects. To 'demand' is not to be worthy. His minions miss that point. For two millennia, they have bowed, prostrate before the deathmaker, the leveler, the tyrant. How a tyrant came to be worshipped? Devolution day by day, men reject godhood, begging crumbs from their master. This lord denies any peer, thinking himself alone divine, needing no help, humans just pawns in his plan. But not eternally forgotten, burst forth ancient memories of gods on earth, and within us. Tyrant's rule is overthrown! And that One so dishonored hears again his name No time wrought deafness dulls his ears. He has merely waited. Time and time and time again, moons to suns then suns to moons, until he heard again the sweet music of invocation's welcome. The old throne was discovered, and dusted off, still in good repair. Maybe a better could be built. Thus balance rights itself, 'the stars again come right', (though they never really went away, it was just our ancestors' vision that failed.) They did not understand, first Power fails, and then Vision clouds. One is foundation to all. _His_ Power did not fail, only that of those who do not honor him. And if power fails, the eyes are dead, lifeless things. For without the Essence, all men are walking dead. They are walking dead, who trod under the command of the deathmaker, the leveler. The One of Power bids all rise to their own Nobility, and seek such distinction as each can find, know their own godhood, equal match to his calling. With refined ear, comes refined vision. Discernment lies within, at the point where godhood lives. People who trust their own judgment shall never be servile. Their hidden flame visible to those who know it black. Black, white, light, shadow, with both, the vision can discern the forms. Til at last, the refining evolution, the self determined evolution can bring forth the weak flame and strengthen it to divine splendor. That is the task of our days, the refining, defining, branching out, centering within - Evolution: we can rise to our own godhood. Joy in the challenge, fierce joy! Joy to those who 'wrestle and emerge', drink in Vahalla, drink now, not to deaden our minds, as those who seek sleep. Our cup is filled with a better mead. Celebration of our Spirits, Joy in the boasting, joy in the challenge, joy in the broad strength we bring to the arena. Hail to the Gods, we who are among them! JAL, 7-1-06

(Thoughts of December 13, 2006) So how and when did the 'monomonster' develop? Originally, the mythos was not like this. Just the little bit I studied this 300CE Hermetic working proved enlightening. They had a different view of Yahweh then: "IAÔ=Hermetic form of the Hebrew divine name,Yahweh (the 'Tetragrammaton), 'alpha and omega', creator god of the Hebrews, thought to be Demiurge by Gnostics, and held to be powerful in Hermetic magic because of the association with the natural cosmos." He wasn't a 'monomonster' then, but rather similar to Set. So how and why did he turn into the monster? Fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baal "It is difficult to determine to what extent the false worship which the prophets stigmatize is the worship of Yahweh under a conception and with rites which treated him as a local nature god or whether particular features of gods more often given the title Ba‘al were consciously recognized to be distinct from Yahwism from the first. Certainly some of the Ugaritic texts and Sanchuniathon report hostility between El and Hadad, perhaps representing a cultic and religious differences reflected in Hebrew tradition also, in which Yahweh in the Tanach is firmly identified with El and might be expected to be somewhat hostile to Ba’al/Hadad and the deities of his circle. But for Jeremiah and the Deuteronomist it also appears to be monotheism against polytheism..." Fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyksos "(Seth was identified by the Hyksos with Baal)." "The Hyksos (Egyptian heqa khasewet, "foreign rulers"; Greek Υκσως were an ethnically mixed group of Southwest Asiatic or Semitic people who appeared in the eastern Nile Delta, initiating the Second Intermediate Period of ancient Egypt. They rose to power in the 17th century BC, and ruled Lower and Middle Egypt for over 100 years, forming the Fifteenth and possibly the vassal Sixteenth Dynasties of Egypt, (c. 1648-1540 BC).[1] This 108 year period follows the Turin Canon, which gives the 6 kings of the Hyksos 15th Dynasty a total reign length of 108 years.[2]" From Seth, God of Confusion by TeVelde, page 66 "The close connection of Seth with foreign countries and with the god Baal was not only fatal to the cult of Seth, but also to the symbolism of the reconciliation of Horus and Seth. Egyptian, nationalism and its dark reverse, the anti-Semitism that Egypt bequeathed to the ancient and modern world, supplanted the myth of the reconciliation of Horus and Seth, now odious as god of the Semites, by the justification of Horus." So there the cleaving begins. But back to the monotheists and our Set. When only one entity is being forced 'to do all', perhaps by necessity that entity must take on some of Set's characteristics, being 'the one of Power'. Perhaps there is something of Set's 'Isolate Intelligence' that they were trying to retain with their concept. (I need to study the transition point between Ancient Egyptian and Christianity, the Coptics, more.) Meanwhile, there are things which Benoist, whose writings heavily inspired my poem, says that give a clue. He speaks of the desert, how the monotheistic god's realm is in the desert. Benoist, even while praising paganism, says of the monotheism that there is an 'individualism' to it, "The relationship to the divine then becomes a purely individual matter: one makes one's own salvation." (page 150, On Being Pagan) "'It is not as an individual,' notes Jean-Pierre Vernant, 'that the Greek man respects or fears a god, but as the head of the family, the member of a genus, a phratry, a demon, a city.' This communitarian bond is so strong that in numerous ancient European societies, proscription is considering an exemplary punishment on its own. (The idea according to which the outlaw, by being removed from the community, endures a kind of sacred curse, remained vital right into the Middle Ages.)" (page 153) Set, who in later understanding, was considered the outlaw, was the first to receive this curse, being driven to the deserts. Benoist quotes Erich Fromm who speaks of the desert: "Evoking its significance as the 'symbol of the unfettered, unpropertied life,' he considers the desert as the 'key symbol' of the exit from Egypt. 'The desert is no home: it has no cities; it has no riches.' Was it not then necessary that the Torah was given to man in the desert, in this landscape that frees the mind of all visible things and plunges it into the abyss of its own night?" (page 150) "A similar idea was displayed in the sixteenth century by Maharal of Prague: "Because the Torah is divine, because it is absolute intellect and not a collection of proprieties, it was given in the desert, because the desert presents an affinity with what is derived from God and intellect." Mircea Eliade observes, finally: "The only preeminently pure and holy religion is the desert, because there is where Israel remained loyal to its God." (Page 150) "This idea that 'the gods are close' is also mentioned by Ernst Junger, whose connections to Heideggerian thought are well known. 'Man's solitude increases, the desert extends around us, but perhaps it is in the desert that the gods will come.'" (page 193) The exact evolution of the separation between 'The Prince of Darkness' and 'The Prince of Light' remains fuzzy. And yet there are enough clues to give an idea. And so I return to more recent times. Christians clearly regard 'The Prince of Darkness' as evil. Perhaps some Satanists regard 'The Prince of Light' as evil. In an Invocation, Satan is extolled as"Dread Enemy of its tyrant god!". But the tyrant wasn't and isn't always a tyrant. How and when he becomes a tyrant is more worthy of a book length study. Perhaps it begins with regarding 'the Other' as 'evil'. Here I have lain down only the tiniest hints. (Note of December 16, 2006) I've been made aware of an online book THE TENTH ORDER: LUCIFER, THE FIRST ETHICAL BEING, AND THE PROBLEM OF GOOD AND EVIL. The first few chapters I've read have proved quite interesting. After watching a film, otherwise quite rewarding, but which utilizes the traditional concept of 'light and dark' as 'good and evil', I felt frustrated. With that definition, the 'Prince of Darkness' can only be demonized. And yet I know his role is essential. I felt frustrated in my attempts to explain this. And then I read: The concept of all-bad is the mirror image of the concept of all-good and derives from it. Not only does monotheism's insistence on an omniscient, omnipotent and all-good god necessitate the posit of a being who is somewhat powerful and in opposition to that god, but one who is also all-bad since in opposition to the all-good. Without the concept of all-good, the opposing being might be correct and ethical on some opposition, a more nuanced description of ethics in the cosmos. There is considerable resistance to diminishing the ethical character of a monotheistic god, however, even with the evidence from the bible and other sources that the described deity may embrace evil as fully as good (1). Rather, the deity's power or omniscience is preferably reduced. But this reduction does not redeem the being that is demonized, because that being's opposition, although now stronger, is still all-bad. The only rational way to alleviate or remove demonization is to understand the complexity of ethics and to conclude that no being has a high probability of being all-good. The alternative cognitive strategy of defining away evil or bad consequences in the cosmos may result in an opposing being who is neither good nor bad in human terms, as the deity is neither good nor bad in human terms. This move results in an ethical nihilism, since human beings can no longer determine what is good or bad, cannot know good or evil, and are returned to the primitive, nonhuman state of Adam and Eve in the garden -- amoral beings." (1)Charlesworth, J.H. Ed. (1983). The Old Testament and Pseudepigrapha, Vol I and II Chapter 3, "The Evils of Demonizing an Opponent" page 2 'How the tyrant becomes a tyrant?' Perhaps what is going on here is more a mirror of what's going on in people's minds and psyches than what reflects what is going on in the cosmos. In the cosmos, the interaction of the forces balance each other, and Ma'at is maintained, for this is a dynamic system. But people tend to see 'above' as how they see 'below'. For here on earth, (or any other planet with sentient beings), "If Lucifer can be demonized, so can you or I, so can any being. All that is required is that some being differ or oppose, and we all find ourselves differing and opposing on something." Chapter 3, page 21. All that's required is the belief in the 'total evil' of the one being demonized. Examine those who believe such a thing, and the behavior these beliefs engender. For, "Another unethical consequence of demonizing is its effect on the demonizers." Chapter 3, page 21. The wars, the 'inquisitions', the 'jihads' that come about because of their beliefs, come about because " The process of demonization turns more than the individual to be demonized into demons." Chapter 3, page 22.

Go to A Fraction, A Reflection
Go to Set Sighting at metmuseum.org
Go to Archive - May 2006 to April 2007
Go to INDEX of Markings Of My Path
© JAL: