a few thoughts on the holiday: hail satan?
have adored halloween for as long as i can remember. even (and especially) as a younger lad when it was forbidden as the devil's holiday. i remember having sessions at friends' house on halloween night discussing--quite gravely--the origins of halloweeen as a pagan and evil celebration. the taboo afforded to the subject matter on those nights surely had much to do with ingraining the festival of the dead in my impressionable mind as something infinitely exciting. after all,most of us know, with or without the aid of high-faluten theory like bataille, the close association between prohibition and attraction.
the devil was always more attractive. christians, muslims, and jews all know that. if he wasn't, why go to such lengths to prohibit corhorting with him? similarly, we also know, most of us, without the aid of levi-strauss, that one scarcely need prohibit something that nobody desires. so, the question, to the one with no allegiance to god or the devil--myself, that is--would be, has halloween lost it's excitement? what do these images mean now, in the absence of that old framework? why do i still enjoy horror films about satanic cults as if i were still replaying the scene of the young spectator of demonic fascination?
well, the first answer would be, of course, i am simply replaying those scenes enjoying some residual effect of that former fascination. but these days, i grow fascinated with the notion of the devil. are we in the age of satan? metaphorically speaking, i think we are. satan never extolled evil-doing, drinking blood, --he was more a martyr to rebellion, to opposition and ultimately to the basic principles that have allowed the kind of progress that even the religious and the faithful now appreciate. he was the voice that said no to authority and to submission. he was, in a sense, a mythical galileo, the rosa parks of the bible.
the god of monotheism was a despot authoritarian. cruel, racist, sexist, sectarian, bloodthirsty, and imperialist. the clever interpreters of scripture in each tradition have spent centuries using the tools of rationality to apologize and essentially to rewrite this bastard in the sky as a nice guy. convenient that they use reason when it ameliorates their diety and forclose upon it when it indicts him.
the devil is attractive because he represents the things we love about living--freedom, the vitality of the sensual body, of the material world (the only world we have any genuine knowledge of). the kind of freedom of activity and thinking that he represents is what even the religious multitudes desire (after all, it is the countries where religion is mandated that it is largely rejected and in countries where it is repressed, it thrives). on a basic level, people don't like to be told what to do--even religious people.
god said bow to me and satan said no. he claimed equal rights--last time i checked, that was something we humans have come to value quite a bit. most christians elevate christ because he made the jewish tradition more open to women, the poor, the meek, etc. for this, the jews killed him. the jews knew very well what the god of abraham expected: worship, submission and belief without questioning.
when satan tempted christ on the cross, he performed the most reasonable human action--one that, in any other sphere of life today, we would applaud. 'if you're god, bring yourself down from the tree you're nailed to...' a perfectly reasonable request, can't we agree? evidence, my dear messiah. but jesus said it was essential that we choose to believe. proof would remove the leap of faith (that fail-safe device against epistemological questioning.) and, supposedly, with this, christ made faith a matter of free will. shall we now call science satanic, since it has shown that free will, effectively, does not exist? neuroscientists can prove that the brain makes a decision to act one fifth of a second before the conscious choice to act has been made. a strange thought, but science does now show that we live in a fairly deterministic world. if science is satanic, we must reject vaccinations against deadly disease and watch the human race perish. we all become calvinist christian scientists or admirers of satan--at least that's the way it seems to come down...
our values have changed since the religious texts were written. today, satan actually embodies the values we hold dear. yaweh, allah, whtever you call it (it's just a character anyway), embodies those characteristics that we dislike: he is vain, he wants to conquer and destroy those who don't like him: he runs a sort of cosmic big brother state, where all are watched, judged and where dissent and criticism are treason, punishable by torture. eternal torture, that is.
it's interesting the way horror films portray satan though. since the highest value at the time was obedience and satan embodied disobedience, the great philosophers of the abrahamic tradition then went on to read satan as he who is antithetical to all 'good' values, including death instead of life, promiscuity instead of chasitity, etc. this bloodthirtsy satan is not actually the satan of religion. satan was the great subversive, not the great threat to human life. satan tempted us to be materialists, tempted jesus to enjoy his life on earth and leave behind his platonic delusions. for this, he is is truly a hero.
real satanists, however, are silly. satanists begin with the world-wise track, claiming to be the spirit of the modern age--that they don't believe in magic or any of that. but follow up. most do play with magick (as they stupidly spell it to distinguish their fakeery from the fakery of streetside entertainers), even those in the satanic church. they are just as silly with their rites as a congrgation taking communion. the satanists of horror films represent the rewritten satan that hates the body left intact. he takes souls. satan, the materialist, should have took the piss out of the notion of the soul in galilee a few thousand years ago. not even those writing the villian in those ancient times could see that far ahead.
in fact, it should strike one as obvious that horror films, the bible, devils, and demons always associate these 'evils' with things that frightened and puzzled even pre-modern man. fire. the night time, when vision was impaired and survival was threatened. bad weather--thunderstorms and lightning, disease, the puncturing, dismembering of the body, etc. it should also come as no surprise then that originally, god was a creature of power, not love. a protector and benefactor, not one who asked you to turn the other cheek. this kind of thinking about love would come later and prove revolutionary enough--satanic enough--to have its fountainhead murdered.
horror films are, outside of a relic of my personal formative past, a great anthropolgical archeaological treasury of our myths, thriving today in popular culture. that films like 'the exorcist' still scare people is testament to an amazing phenomenon--that a desert god from mesopotamia has, by way of centuries of bloodshed and conquest, survived in the consciousness of a secular culture four thousand years its senior in both age and knowledge. sometimes i grow infuriated by the fact that i am watching religious propaganda. other times, i let the confluence of elements come together in a uniquely rich experience that allows me to confront (even revel in) my own fears about the violation of the body and of malevolent forces in my world, even if they aren't supernatural. even better, i'm finding, are these giallo films that make an orgiastic experience out of the body, both in it's sensuality and fragility. sex and violence to the nth degree can have such an effect.
but halloween isn't really satanic, it's pagan. which, for a culture that prized the 'regenerative forces' (as called in'wicker man') and the freedom of the body, we shouldn't be surprised that this also was placed in league with satan--conflated, really. the prohibitive god of monotheism had to eradicate those who celebrated their sexuality so. pagans also annoy me and i don't watch films like 'wicker man' with a total sympathy for the people of sumerisle. the film has such depth because one can sympathize with the inspector in that he despises the ignorance of sacrificing a human to make crops grow. silly way to approach agriculture in the modern age. but one can also sympathize with the uptight lawman burning for his foolish arrogance('king for a day'), absolute inability to do anything but condemn their way of life. and, his contempt for eroticism made tantamount to his religious belief is a disgusting result of the abrahamic tradition (which, i must say, only islam manages to repair this contempt for sexuality, though it is still riddled with all manner of sexual condemnations).
the horror film is often an homage to the ecstatic experience of old--of the body before the lies of plato. it is a vicarious testing ground where we can experience the skin--or lack thereof--in ways that social life and moral life prohibit. roll 'em... (the bones, that is).
halloween is the only holiday when people really have FUN. it's a favorite amongst the young, who are testing their bodies on a regular basis--seeing if it will survive another night of drugs. it's the time for sensual fun, still. it's not about family or thanksgiving. it's about mischief and transgression. it's about fucking your significant (or insignificant, whatever the case may be) other through their costume behind a barn after the hayride. it's not about sanctioned togetherness. it's about lying, masquerading, celebrating death, sex, intoxication, all those things that religion would have us forget, compartmentalize or deny ourselves. but there it lurks, a rupture in the fabric every october 31st. so, do i still love it? yes indeed...
the devil was always more attractive. christians, muslims, and jews all know that. if he wasn't, why go to such lengths to prohibit corhorting with him? similarly, we also know, most of us, without the aid of levi-strauss, that one scarcely need prohibit something that nobody desires. so, the question, to the one with no allegiance to god or the devil--myself, that is--would be, has halloween lost it's excitement? what do these images mean now, in the absence of that old framework? why do i still enjoy horror films about satanic cults as if i were still replaying the scene of the young spectator of demonic fascination?
well, the first answer would be, of course, i am simply replaying those scenes enjoying some residual effect of that former fascination. but these days, i grow fascinated with the notion of the devil. are we in the age of satan? metaphorically speaking, i think we are. satan never extolled evil-doing, drinking blood, --he was more a martyr to rebellion, to opposition and ultimately to the basic principles that have allowed the kind of progress that even the religious and the faithful now appreciate. he was the voice that said no to authority and to submission. he was, in a sense, a mythical galileo, the rosa parks of the bible.
the god of monotheism was a despot authoritarian. cruel, racist, sexist, sectarian, bloodthirsty, and imperialist. the clever interpreters of scripture in each tradition have spent centuries using the tools of rationality to apologize and essentially to rewrite this bastard in the sky as a nice guy. convenient that they use reason when it ameliorates their diety and forclose upon it when it indicts him.
the devil is attractive because he represents the things we love about living--freedom, the vitality of the sensual body, of the material world (the only world we have any genuine knowledge of). the kind of freedom of activity and thinking that he represents is what even the religious multitudes desire (after all, it is the countries where religion is mandated that it is largely rejected and in countries where it is repressed, it thrives). on a basic level, people don't like to be told what to do--even religious people.
god said bow to me and satan said no. he claimed equal rights--last time i checked, that was something we humans have come to value quite a bit. most christians elevate christ because he made the jewish tradition more open to women, the poor, the meek, etc. for this, the jews killed him. the jews knew very well what the god of abraham expected: worship, submission and belief without questioning.
when satan tempted christ on the cross, he performed the most reasonable human action--one that, in any other sphere of life today, we would applaud. 'if you're god, bring yourself down from the tree you're nailed to...' a perfectly reasonable request, can't we agree? evidence, my dear messiah. but jesus said it was essential that we choose to believe. proof would remove the leap of faith (that fail-safe device against epistemological questioning.) and, supposedly, with this, christ made faith a matter of free will. shall we now call science satanic, since it has shown that free will, effectively, does not exist? neuroscientists can prove that the brain makes a decision to act one fifth of a second before the conscious choice to act has been made. a strange thought, but science does now show that we live in a fairly deterministic world. if science is satanic, we must reject vaccinations against deadly disease and watch the human race perish. we all become calvinist christian scientists or admirers of satan--at least that's the way it seems to come down...
our values have changed since the religious texts were written. today, satan actually embodies the values we hold dear. yaweh, allah, whtever you call it (it's just a character anyway), embodies those characteristics that we dislike: he is vain, he wants to conquer and destroy those who don't like him: he runs a sort of cosmic big brother state, where all are watched, judged and where dissent and criticism are treason, punishable by torture. eternal torture, that is.
it's interesting the way horror films portray satan though. since the highest value at the time was obedience and satan embodied disobedience, the great philosophers of the abrahamic tradition then went on to read satan as he who is antithetical to all 'good' values, including death instead of life, promiscuity instead of chasitity, etc. this bloodthirtsy satan is not actually the satan of religion. satan was the great subversive, not the great threat to human life. satan tempted us to be materialists, tempted jesus to enjoy his life on earth and leave behind his platonic delusions. for this, he is is truly a hero.
real satanists, however, are silly. satanists begin with the world-wise track, claiming to be the spirit of the modern age--that they don't believe in magic or any of that. but follow up. most do play with magick (as they stupidly spell it to distinguish their fakeery from the fakery of streetside entertainers), even those in the satanic church. they are just as silly with their rites as a congrgation taking communion. the satanists of horror films represent the rewritten satan that hates the body left intact. he takes souls. satan, the materialist, should have took the piss out of the notion of the soul in galilee a few thousand years ago. not even those writing the villian in those ancient times could see that far ahead.
in fact, it should strike one as obvious that horror films, the bible, devils, and demons always associate these 'evils' with things that frightened and puzzled even pre-modern man. fire. the night time, when vision was impaired and survival was threatened. bad weather--thunderstorms and lightning, disease, the puncturing, dismembering of the body, etc. it should also come as no surprise then that originally, god was a creature of power, not love. a protector and benefactor, not one who asked you to turn the other cheek. this kind of thinking about love would come later and prove revolutionary enough--satanic enough--to have its fountainhead murdered.
horror films are, outside of a relic of my personal formative past, a great anthropolgical archeaological treasury of our myths, thriving today in popular culture. that films like 'the exorcist' still scare people is testament to an amazing phenomenon--that a desert god from mesopotamia has, by way of centuries of bloodshed and conquest, survived in the consciousness of a secular culture four thousand years its senior in both age and knowledge. sometimes i grow infuriated by the fact that i am watching religious propaganda. other times, i let the confluence of elements come together in a uniquely rich experience that allows me to confront (even revel in) my own fears about the violation of the body and of malevolent forces in my world, even if they aren't supernatural. even better, i'm finding, are these giallo films that make an orgiastic experience out of the body, both in it's sensuality and fragility. sex and violence to the nth degree can have such an effect.
but halloween isn't really satanic, it's pagan. which, for a culture that prized the 'regenerative forces' (as called in'wicker man') and the freedom of the body, we shouldn't be surprised that this also was placed in league with satan--conflated, really. the prohibitive god of monotheism had to eradicate those who celebrated their sexuality so. pagans also annoy me and i don't watch films like 'wicker man' with a total sympathy for the people of sumerisle. the film has such depth because one can sympathize with the inspector in that he despises the ignorance of sacrificing a human to make crops grow. silly way to approach agriculture in the modern age. but one can also sympathize with the uptight lawman burning for his foolish arrogance('king for a day'), absolute inability to do anything but condemn their way of life. and, his contempt for eroticism made tantamount to his religious belief is a disgusting result of the abrahamic tradition (which, i must say, only islam manages to repair this contempt for sexuality, though it is still riddled with all manner of sexual condemnations).
the horror film is often an homage to the ecstatic experience of old--of the body before the lies of plato. it is a vicarious testing ground where we can experience the skin--or lack thereof--in ways that social life and moral life prohibit. roll 'em... (the bones, that is).
halloween is the only holiday when people really have FUN. it's a favorite amongst the young, who are testing their bodies on a regular basis--seeing if it will survive another night of drugs. it's the time for sensual fun, still. it's not about family or thanksgiving. it's about mischief and transgression. it's about fucking your significant (or insignificant, whatever the case may be) other through their costume behind a barn after the hayride. it's not about sanctioned togetherness. it's about lying, masquerading, celebrating death, sex, intoxication, all those things that religion would have us forget, compartmentalize or deny ourselves. but there it lurks, a rupture in the fabric every october 31st. so, do i still love it? yes indeed...