Serve No Abstractions | Forum

I have entertained similar concepts from time to time. I resolve it to existing as part of a structured system. You may exist alongside the woodland beasts if you choose(also state regulated to some degree, depending) and perhaps may enjoy more freedoms while at the same time sacrificing the convenience of a highly structured system.

So as part of a system the individual entity is obviously not the only consideration as the integrity of the greater must be maintained with its' rules and regulations.

Systems may have their excess but it is what it is and given my preferred lifestyle at this stage of the game I choose the system and its' accommodation over unbounded freedoms.

Of course there is also the tempering of the freedoms with respect to the rules within it which can be a bit sketchy at times.

However, if I didn't like, want, or benefit from the kind of life that being law-abiding and system-compliant makes possible, I would immediately start looking for alternatives, and if I found any, I would choose from among them and then reset my lifestyle accordingly.

I don't obey the law because the law is a cosmic good. I don't comply with the systems of technology and infrastructure because these systems are a cosmic good. I obey and comply because these things have utility in my life. They bring me pleasure, security, freedom, and capability. I value them because I value myself. But I do value them.

I spent my early years in self-deceit. I thought I was wired to serve the bigger whole, but I really wasn't.

Humans aren't ants. However, humans are capable of almost unlimited self-deceit. Every animal's experience of reality is a construct of  the brain, but a human's brain is more powerful than any other animal's. Our constructs can be amazingly abstract. We can even build constructs more suited for ants than for humans.

 
My gradual Satanic awakening has been the continual dismantling of the construct I built in my early years. What I built had some decidedly ant-like characteristics. By dismantling it, I've become less and less of a hive-dwelling insect and more of a human being.  

As a human, I give and I take. The reason I give is so I can take. If I could take without giving, I would.

Satanism's contribution is that it draws attention to the construct and encourages us to dismantle it.

Satan is Id and Ego putting Superego to death in defiance of Superego's social supports.

So with an individual acting true to themselves the Id and the superego would be equal which apparently renders the filtering unnecessary.

It's mostly about conformance with society and presenting oneself accordingly.

I use the same concepts but a little differently. I see Superego (the morality principle) as something to be dismantled. I also see Id and Ego as needing to be in balance. Pleasure needs to sometimes give way to reality, but reality sometimes needs to give way (be transformed) in service to pleasure.

Freud's Three:

Id is the pleasure principle.

Ego is the reality principle.

Superego is the morality principle.

Wolfie’s Three:

Satan is Id and Ego putting Superego to death in defiance of Superego’s social supports.

Satan is Id and Ego working out a mutually satisfactory balance of power.

Satan is affirmation of life and denial of all that is antilife or meta-life.

I reject categorically any service to any abstraction, regardless whether society would applaud or abhor my service. My passions, and my passions alone, drive me, as mediated by the constraints of reality.

I reject categorically any service to any abstraction, regardless whether society would applaud or abhor my service. My passions, and my passions alone, drive me, as mediated by the constraints of reality.

Since no thing defines its' own creation it cannot be held responsible for its' nature, and then of course there are choices which may or may not align with this 'true nature'.

I don't believe there's any consequence for our actions other than societal. The powers that be defined us, so to condemn that would be to condemn itself.

I was fairly evil as a teenager although I have evolved beyond that without being influenced by any external factors.

There may be no reward for this less destructive path I've arrived, but still, it is what it is. 

I reject the morality principle, reject my childhood indoctrination, and reject society as an internal factor.

Since I'm not insane, I don't reject the reality principle, don't reject objective reality, and don't reject the need to adapt to society as an external factor.

I don't allow my passions to be constrained by anything except objective reality.

The smallest ant and the great complex divine both share a universal trait, the own point of view. 

In both instances is the question "to what end"? 
And there is no universal answer to it. 

I agree with pretty much everything you wrote. I would just dispute the existence of a "great complex divine."

Meanwhile, if the smallest ant were able to ask me the question, "to what end?" - I would answer, "to your greatest gratification as constrained by reality." But the ant already knows that, so it wouldn't ask the question, even if it could. In fact, as it turns out, it was I who asked the ant, and the spider and the bee, and all the wild denizens of the woodland, quite some time ago. They answered me not with words but with actions. I observed them and I learned.