Mithraic Magazine

Author: Azazel Ra

Abstract:

This essay explores the philosophical and metaphysical dimensions of rebellion within the context of Setian and Left-Hand Path (LHP) philosophy. Drawing from the mythological archetype of Set, the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche, Don Webb, and the broader LHP tradition, the paper argues that rebellion is not merely a moral option but an ethical imperative for the self-aware, individuated consciousness. It examines rebellion as an act of
creation, a defense of sovereignty, and a necessary vehicle for the realization of the Self.

I. Introduction

In the spiritual systems of the Left-Hand Path, rebellion occupies a central role. It is not an accident of temperament or a youthful phase but a foundational principle in the pursuit of becoming. The Setian tradition, in particular, exalts rebellion as a sacred act: a defiant stand against entropy, dogma, and external control. The central question arises — is rebellion
simply one option among many for the seeker of truth, or is it an ethical imperative?

The thesis of this essay is clear: rebellion, properly understood, is not merely permissible but necessary for ethical individuation. In the Setian view, rebellion is the lifeblood of Xeper — the process of coming into being, of becoming more than what one is. Through myth, philosophy, and praxis, this paper explores rebellion as a sacred responsibility.

II. Rebellion as Creative Act

Rebellion is often mischaracterized as nihilistic or destructive. However, in the Setian current, rebellion is not an end but a beginning. The Egyptian deity Set, the namesake and spiritual archetype of the Temple of Set, is not a force of evil but of isolation, consciousness, and self-generated order. As Don Webb notes in Uncle Setnakt’s Essential Guide to the Left Hand Path, “Set is not the destroyer of order, but the one who provides an alternative to
imposed structure” (Webb, 1999, p. 12).

To rebel, then, is not to tear down for its own sake, but to refuse that which is unchosen and to begin the process of self-authorship. In this sense, rebellion aligns with Nietzsche’s concept of the “revaluation of all values” — the rejection of herd morality in favor of values born from the individual’s will to power (Nietzsche, 1887/1967, On the Genealogy of Morals).

III. Sovereignty and the Ethics of Refusal

The ethics of rebellion must be grounded in the principle of sovereignty. For the Setian, the Self is the ultimate moral authority. Obedience to external systems — religious, cultural, or even biological — without scrutiny is an abdication of responsibility. As Michael Aquino wrote in The Temple of Set, “The Black Magician does not accept the cosmos as given. He insists on shaping it” (Aquino, 2014, p. 33).

This insistence is not a mere preference but an ethical stance. If one’s purpose is to Xeper — to become — then one must oppose all that hinders that process. Thus, rebellion becomes not only a right but a duty. The refusal to rebel in the face of soul-crushing conformity is, in this framework, an ethical failure.

IV. Archetypes of Sacred Rebellion

The figure of Set is but one in a long line of mythic rebels: Prometheus who brought fire to man; Lucifer who chose knowledge over obedience; Cain who defied divine favoritism. These figures are not praised in conventional morality — they are demonized. But from a Setian perspective, they are not villains but sacred prototypes of the individuated will.

Webb observes that these archetypes “encode an inner journey that each magician must take — a breaking away from imposed identity toward an individuated soul” (Webb, 1999, p. 46). The mythic rebel, then, functions as both mirror and map: reflecting the inner defiance of the seeker and guiding them toward deeper awakening.

V. Rebellion Versus Nihilism

One must draw a sharp line between sacred rebellion and nihilism. The former is purposeful; the latter, chaotic. In rejecting imposed values, the Setian does not reject value itself. Rather, the magician constructs new values in alignment with personal will and vision. As Nietzsche warned, the danger of killing God is not freedom, but the vacuum left behind (The Gay Science, 1882/1974).

Setian rebellion avoids this vacuum through the practice of Xeper, which provides a teleological structure to becoming. Each act of rebellion is in service of individuation — not destruction for its own sake, but metamorphosis. The ethical imperative lies not in the act of negation, but in the conscious intention to create from that space.

VI. Conclusion: The Mandate of the Isolate Self

In a world increasingly dominated by algorithmic thinking, passive consumption, and herd ideologies, the imperative to rebel has never been more vital. Rebellion is not a luxury for the Left-Hand Path walker — it is the crucible in which the Black Flame is kindled. It is through conscious opposition that one defines the contours of the Self.

As Setians, we are not called to comfort. We are called to confrontation — not with others, but with the great tides of conformity within and without. Rebellion is not the end of the journey, but the threshold. To cross it is to accept the burden of godhood.

Thus, rebellion is not only ethical — it is sacred.

References:

Aquino, M. A. (2014). The Temple of Set. MindStar Books.

Nietzsche, F. (1967). On the Genealogy of Morals (W. Kaufmann & R. J. Hollingdale, Trans.). Vintage Books. (Original work published 1887)

Nietzsche, F. (1974). The Gay Science (W. Kaufmann, Trans.). Vintage Books. (Original work published 1882)

Webb, D. (1999). Uncle Setnakt’s Essential Guide to the Left Hand Path. Llewellyn Publications.