- Joined
- Aug 17, 2026
- Messages
- 2
- Reaction score
- 1
what’s ur personal opinion on the back ground/history of anticosmic satanism
Self-reinforcing severe depression masquerading as metaphysics.what’s ur personal opinion on the back ground/history of anticosmic satanism
Nah, I just remembered Dave Mustaine. I take back that last part.What interests me about anti-cosmic Satanism is that it seems to be asking a different question than most other forms of Satanism.
I don't think it has to mean that pleasure, beauty or good things don't exist. Obviously they do. The question is whether their existence automatically makes the cosmic order itself something good. And I don't really see it as simple nihilism. The basic idea seems pretty clear to me: the cosmos means order, limitation, conditioning; chaos is supposed to be something prior to, or outside, all of that. Whether that actually makes sense is another question.
Same with the gnostic element. I wouldn't claim MLO is some direct continuation of ancient gnosticism, because it clearly isn't. But it obviously takes a bunch of gnostic themes and rebuilds them into something modern. I suppose a lot of the disagreement comes down to what "liberation" is supposed to mean in the first place. Living freely in the world? Or getting beyond the conditions of that world altogether? Neither definition strikes me as self-evident.
And as a general rule, none of this seems to require a shotgun.
Also, the catholic church attracts pedophiles; it doesn't spawn them in some basement under the Vatican. I suspect anti-cosmic stuff can work the same way. A worldview like this is probably going to attract some people who were already inclined to make spectacularly bad decisions. That doesn't necessarily mean the philosophy manufactured them from scratch.
Anyway, I miss Dissection and The Devil's Blood. I would've preferred it if they'd become evangelicals.
Yeah, the point is that it's rather untrue. There is nothing more limiting than disorder (not chaos, by the way, chaos is a form of order).The basic idea seems pretty clear to me: the cosmos means order, limitation, conditioning; chaos is supposed to be something prior to, or outside, all of that.
That's fair. I was using "chaos" in the way the anti-cosmic current itself uses the word, rather than meaning simple disorder or randomness.Yeah, the point is that it's rather untrue. There is nothing more limiting than disorder (not chaos, by the way, chaos is a form of order).
I mean, it goes down to the real definition of chaos. Chaotic systems are at least in certain respects unpredictable while still adhering to strict laws. Weather and smoke patterns, most of biology, even - though subtly - the motions of celestial bodies are chaotic.That's fair. I was using "chaos" in the way the anti-cosmic current itself uses the word, rather than meaning simple disorder or randomness.
And I agree that disorder isn't necessarily freedom at all. In practical terms it can be incredibly limiting.
Actually, your point makes the terminology more interesting, because if chaos itself still implies some kind of structure or order, then the whole cosmos/order vs chaos distinction becomes a lot less straightforward than it first appears.