Distinctions serve to increase understanding, provided they are adequately explained. One such distinction I would like to look at is the difference between values and tactics using the practice of “antinomianism.”
Values represent the principles by which individuals or groups dictate their behaviors and determine what goals are worth pursuing. Most people hold what can be considered a “ground” or “fundamental” value that acts as the foundation for their other values. These values, in turn, become the basis for their goals or outcomes. The plans for getting to these goals or outcomes are best thought of as their strategies. The action taken within a given moment or incident represents tactics. What is applied within a given tactic can be considered a technique.
This model creates a sequence, with values forming the most important aspects while technique being the least consequential. Ideally, these things should be harmonious and thus in line with each other. If one’s strategic outcomes are at odds with your values, then your values are meaning- less, and your tactics will be unsound.
Antinomianism has Greek roots, combining ἀντί [anti] “against” and νόμος [nomos] “law” or “custom.” This later concept of nomostends to create the most confusion. Nomos had the original implication of custom in the sense that the peoples of one area would have different customs than another. This was considered obvious to the Greeks. This difference was reflected in the cultures of the major cities and settlements in their lands. It would be foolish to think the people of Athens would behave as the people of Sparta. As Christianity emerged within a largely Greco- Roman world, nomos became more associated with the idea of “law” and especially the Mosaic Laws of the Hebrews. In this context, discussing why Christianity could ignore the Mosaic Laws, the term «antinomianism» emerged. It continued to be used in the realm of Religious Studies. Here it was used to describe spiritual movements that embraced actions against either the customs of their time or the laws of their culture.
The term entered wide use within Setian discourse through Dr. Stephen Edred Flowers’s massively influential Lords of the Left-Hand Path. In that work, he described two critical factors of practitioners of the left-hand path, that of seeking self- deification and the practice of antinomianism. In the over 25 years since Lords of the Left-Hand Path was published, the idea of antinomianism as being synonymous with left-hand path Initiation has become widespread. Indeed, it would seem at times that it was the only idea of the numerous ones suggested by Dr. Flowers to have gained acceptance and implementation beyond the Temple of Set.
It has often been assumed that antinomianism represents a fundamental value of the Temple of Set. This surprised our founding Magus, Dr. Michael A. Aquino, who never particularly resonated with the term or idea. This can be seen in several of his posts on the Temple’s internal forums. He rightly identified that the Temple of Set’s fundamental value, which all other values grow from, is Xeper. More specifically, this fundamental value form of Xeper is the transformation and evolution of the Will from a human to a divine state of being — by deliberate, conscious, individual force of mind.
Rather than a core value, antinomianism represents a tactic or array of tactics within a given situation to be employed by the Setian. This needs to be done in congruence with Xeper and thus needs to be both willed and in alignment with your emerging state of being. You may find that in your pursuit of Xeper that there are customs from your background or present circumstances that are hindering your willed transformation. In those moments, tactics to free you from customary constraints are needed.
Assuming antinomianism is a core value and thus needs to be done in any and all situations creates nothing and leads nowhere. Mere reactionary antinomianism leads to mindlessness, inverting everything just for inversion’s sake. The tactical circumstances can lead to fatal outcomes, whether subjective or objective in origin. Knowing when to cut against the grain and when to cut with it is critical towards shaping meaningful outcomes congruent with Xeper.
Setemheb 