Secrecy
-
wow... the internet is almost frightening in its awesome information retrieval capabilities. I found it with a search on the 'bushman' phrase;
From Liber 777:
"All this secrecy is very silly. An indicible Arcanum is an arcanum that cannot be revealed. It is simply bad faith to swear a man to the most horrible penalties if he betray . . ., etc., and then take him mysteriously apart and confide the Hebrew Alphabet to his safe keeping.3 This is perhaps only ridiculous; but it is a wicked imposture to pretend to have received it from Rosicrucian manuscripts which are to be found in the British Museum. To obtain money on these grounds, as has been done by certain moderns, is clear (and, I trust, indictable) fraud. The secrets of Adepts are not to be revealed to men. We only wish they were. When a man comes to me and asks for the Truth, I go away and practice teaching the Differential Calculus to a Bushman; and I answer the former only when I have succeeded with the latter. But to withhold the Alphabet of Mysticism from the learner is the device of a selfish charlatan. That which can be taught shall be taught, and that which cannot be taught may at last be learnt." -
@Labyrinthus said
"I was reading one of Crowley's books last week and I recall him saying something to this effect.
(paraphrasing); ' I don't think all this secrecy is at all necessary since you can state outright, deep arcane knowledge in plain English and the average joe isn't going to have a clue what you are talking about. I would rather try to explain differential calculus to a bushman than teach the typical man on the street the inner secrets.'"
This presumes, of course, that that's the reason for the secrecy. Keeping genuinely useful information out of someone's hands is not the main goal in most cases.
I also assert that putting information into someone's hands that you know they are likely to misunderstand is sometimes harmful. Holding something back is one thing, but knowingly sending them down a wrong road borders on the criminal.
Our duty is to teach - to lead correctly - and therefore the approaches we select need to be consistent with that.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"2. If one has given one's word to keep something secret, then one's integrity and honor are on the line."
But what if the environment in which the tradition of secrecy was necessary has changed? can a rule not be updated to reflect the different relevant circumstances? a system that cannot evolve is counter-evolutionary, are we to be robots? or are we children not qualified to use our own discretion? in an exponentially changing and bifurcating noosphere? Which is more important the Spirit of the law or the letter of the Law?
-
@Tesla said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"2. If one has given one's word to keep something secret, then one's integrity and honor are on the line."But what if the environment in which the tradition of secrecy was necessary has changed? can a rule not be updated to reflect the different relevant circumstances?"
If (for example) one took an oath of secrecy to a particular Order, and that Order decided to change its policy, then its Chief(s) could, of course, release all members from that obligation.
" a system that cannot evolve is counter-evolutionary, are we to be robots? or are we children not qualified to use our own discretion? in an exponentially changing and bifurcating noosphere?"
I'm not quite sure what this rant is about, but I took the time to answer your main question above.
BTW, of course you're entitled to use your own discretion, except that if you have made a firm promise, then you've given up the right to behave differently: Your honor and integrity, and for that matter the integrity of your will, have been committed. There's no going back on a genuine magick pledge. (Read Crowley's chapter on the Wand in Book 4, Part 2 for a deeper discussion of this.)
"Which is more important the Spirit of the law or the letter of the Law?
"More important for what? (And why would you suspect that it's an either/or gambit?)
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Tesla said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"2. If one has given one's word to keep something secret, then one's integrity and honor are on the line."But what if the environment in which the tradition of secrecy was necessary has changed? can a rule not be updated to reflect the different relevant circumstances?"
If (for example) one took an oath of secrecy to a particular Order, and that Order decided to change its policy, then its Chief(s) could, of course, release all members from that obligation.
" a system that cannot evolve is counter-evolutionary, are we to be robots? or are we children not qualified to use our own discretion? in an exponentially changing and bifurcating noosphere?"
I'm not quite sure what this rant is about, but I took the time to answer your main question above."
You did answer part of the question; however when you go to a doctor for diagnosis; you tell him your issues and your concerns, and he himself encourages you to err in favour of excess as opposed to a lack of information when it concerns such vital an issue as personal health, he then weeds out the necessary information with his expertise, at least this is what the patient is counting on. I think this metaphor is pretty apt to describe the "rant", which is basically questioning how flexible any hypothetical structure should be that claims to help one follow the Tao as compared to the practical reality, I am basically asking for a theoretical consideration of the concept itself as it applies in today's world, since all theoretical formulas must be revised in light of new facts previously unknown, or where different conditions may apply. some of which any Chief for various reasons may ignore.
Did the founders of these structures give any time-line to say how long they thought the structure would last in it's present form or is it indefinite or purely "Aeonic"? Is the whole structure theoretically to remain unchanged for the whole "Aeon' or only an essential part of it?
"
"Which is more important the Spirit of the law or the letter of the Law? "More important for what? (And why would you suspect that it's an either/or gambit?)"
In a situation of an either /or gambit, in an apparent contradiction which does one follow?
-
@Tesla said
"Did the founders of these structures give any time-line to say how long they thought the structure would last in it's present form or is it indefinite or purely "Aeonic"? Is the whole structure theoretically to remain unchanged for the whole "Aeon' or only an essential part of it?"
The obligations are for life, but only the present life. Some of them originated in the last aeon, and some in this one.
Regardless, the issue (one this one little piece of it on which we've been focussing most recently) isn't even on whether the secrecy is a good idea. (That part was covered more by the other points in my first answer.) On this present point, the issue is that one gave one's word. Whether that was a smart or foolish thing to do, it's a thing one did. You break something in yourself if you break that word.
"
"
"Which is more important the Spirit of the law or the letter of the Law? "More important for what? (And why would you suspect that it's an either/or gambit?)"
In a situation of an either /or gambit, in an apparent contradiction which does one follow?
"I dispute the question. That's dualistic thinking, usually fuelled by emotions or by misperceived thought. Generally one must find a way to honor both.
-
"Your honor and integrity, and for that matter the integrity of your will, have been committed. There's no going back on a genuine magick pledge."
I think a more common reality that must be dealt with is the discovery that there is childish infighting and disagreement at the top of the organization, a lack of Spiritual maturity to compliment perhaps some demonstrated amount of psychic ability. Or even a misrepresentation of the nature of the organization. There could be a variety of these types of dilemmas.
But I am not familiar with the types of oaths made here. The masonic 'cut from ear to ear' stuff would be enough of a hint for me to walk away. The Sea-Org multi-million year pledge is... well, speaks for itself.
-
"i mean what is the argument for keeping information secret in this day and age? "
Thoughts become things.
If I have been let in on a secret, then I will think about it. I will dwell on it, I will give my energy. It will take form in my head, in my heart.
If I havent been properly instructed on how to think and feel , then I will most likely encourage the manifestion of something incorrectly.
It is important for the holder of the secret to discriminate who is capable of dealing with the secret, on all levels (physcially, mentally, emotionaly- chemically, spiritually) if the holder of the secret can not be asured that the secret will be safe, will sit well with a particular entity (ie a person) then the secret holder cannot reveal.
I want to teach my children the "secrets" I have been privy to.
If I attempted to do this with out discrimation, and just tell them everything all at once, it would not only be a waste of time, but most likely harmful to them, as they would not be capable of assimilating (key) the information, and being able to use discrimation themselves.There are millions of veils to be lifted, at the correct time for each.
While I too question the motives of some of these so called secret societies, and wonder too about the oaths, and initiations required. I would never pledge myself to some group if I was not able to see clearly where others had gone.Who really knows how old Mother is?
lol- isnt that the biggest secret.......
-
@Labyrinthus said
"I think a more common reality that must be dealt with is the discovery that there is childish infighting and disagreement at the top of the organization, a lack of Spiritual maturity to compliment perhaps some demonstrated amount of psychic ability. Or even a misrepresentation of the nature of the organization. There could be a variety of these types of dilemmas."
You keep putting the attention outside of yourself. What does any of the above have to do with the fact that you took a sacred pledge in a certain matter?
Except... for the issue of misrepresentation. It may be relevant if there was misrepresentation. OTOH, that may not actually be relevant to the nature of a genuine magical oath.
"But I am not familiar with the types of oaths made here. The masonic 'cut from ear to ear' stuff would be enough of a hint for me to walk away. The Sea-Org multi-million year pledge is... well, speaks for itself."
That's symbolic language, not literal. It is their way of using the oath to plant further symbols in subconsciousness. Rather crude IMHO, but I see what they're doing. (The Sea Org oath doesn't really speak for itself; one has to see through its particular trick. Last time I saw that oath, it began something like "I postulate..." and the whole oath was put in the context of one's postulations. Then, the first training one would take generally would be one on dubbing postulates in and out at will. The bizarre thing is that most people didn't get it! <g>)
-
I have not taken an oath to any organization thus far. Something about it strikes me as crossing the line in the 'control' department.
What I know of the masonic oath is from a description of the Mormon Temple rite which was said to be copied from the masons. I did not know that the Sea Org oath was openly available. That might be interesting to look up. I only know about it from a good friend who was fairly advanced in the Scientology work and he laughed at the Sea Org 'dedication' or fanaticism.
-
It isn't openly available AFAIK. I saw it on the wall of the LA Org library.
-
"
"
"Which is more important the Spirit of the law or the letter of the Law? "More important for what? (And why would you suspect that it's an either/or gambit?)"
In a situation of an either /or gambit, in an apparent contradiction which does one follow?
""I dispute the question. That's dualistic thinking, usually fuelled by emotions or by misperceived thought. Generally one must find a way to honor both."
in a situation where they don't contradict then i affirm that this is a natural law being somehow expressed, however not every man made law is universal and divinely inspired just because it has an official stamp on it, in such situations of doubt how does one tell? Logically one must go with the Spirit of the Law over the Letter
