I see your point, and in some ways, I agree. For me it comes down to antinomianism, which is far more than just spiritual dissent. It goes back to the Gnostic idea of justification by gnosis, rather than by faith. While evangelical Christians will say that good works alone do not ensure eternal salvation, a classic antinomian will say that "evil" works alone do not ensure eternal damnation. Of course, this notion was never intended to justify unethical behaviors in and of themselves. Rather, an antinomian in the original sense believes that a true "pneumatic" or spiritual believer is incapable of doing anything that will compromise his or her ascension, simply by virtue of having gnosis. This contrasts with the "psychic" or purely intellectual believer, who has not had a direct experience of the higher spiritual realities, and who only accepts whatever he or she is instructed to believe. One might extrapolate this to say that from an antinomian perspective, a truly righteous person will do what is right for right's sake alone, without concern for reward or punishment - e.g., as opposed to worshiping a God to reach heaven or avoid hell, or not murdering someone just to avoid being jailed.
Set is exactly the god of disruption and of social disorder. Being Setian means to value this way over social standing.
I agree. "Social standing," while not entirely irrelevant, should be secondary to forward movement. But it's also true that "social standing" can be put to Machiavellian use.
However, Set is exactly the force breaking with laws, and that is what the myth of killing Osiris was about.
Indeed, Set's role in this tale would seem to suggest "breaking the law." But when we take into consideration the fact that Osiris' death led to his resurrection and the possibility of an afterlife for the common people (as opposed to just royalty), the "immoral" implications of Set's action become questionable. What would appear to be a grievous crime on the surface becomes a necessarily forceful part of the creative process. In fact, all of Set's "crimes" are actually instigations that force Creation to continue. (E.g., the larva must die for the beetle to take its place, one day must end for another to begin, etc.) By the conventional Late Period understanding, Set appears to be nothing more than an angry, loud-mouthed troublemaker whose sole purpose for existence, like Apep, is to promote
isfet. Yet the deeper implications of His role indicate that His actions actually
promote, rather than oppose,
ma'at, and that they oppose
isfet - which would render Creation inactive and stillborn if left unchecked. While it is clear that Set is not "a nice little child," He isn't what I would call a criminal either. IMO, He does the right thing that nobody else has the guts to do, even though He knows He'll be ostracized for it.
If you just want to play nice children, this will prevent you from becoming anything like Set. As long as you put your social standing within the herd so high, you will not quit being a part of said herd.
"Canst thou give unto thyself thy bad and thy good, and set up thy will as a law over thee? Canst thou be judge for thyself, and avenger of thy law?
Terrible is aloneness with the judge and avenger of one's own law. Thus is a star projected into desert space, and into the icy breath of aloneness." (Nietzsche, Zarathustra)
There is no abolute need to run around killing, of course. But a wolf obeing to the law of sheep will never become whom he was born to be.
I don't think it's a matter of "obeying" or even of "disobeying." I think that when the Temple of Set's leadership says membership will be denied "if you were charged and convicted of aggravated assault and have done nothing to remedy the facts" (to quote Sireal), it's really a matter of protecting the Temple's interests. Some amount of "social standing" might be a supplemental bonus for such caution (or even a shield against outside interference), but I doubt it's the point of central interest. If it were, Temple members probably wouldn't be using "inverted" pentagrams or the term "Prince of Darkness." Just using that symbol and that term is enough to get you written up in a book about "The Danger of Cults." But then again, I'm a lone outsider looking in, so I can't really speak for them. I can only say that if
I really wanted social acceptance, I'd probably be a Christian. (Or a Shirley MacLaine enthusiast, at the very least.)
