Cross Posting a Rant

Ok, this weblog has been pretty warm and fuzzy for quite a while. I suppose it is about time I posted a rant or something. Since I happened to have a rant this morning, I have decided (perhaps against my better judgement) to cross-post it here.

The topic of the rant is one of my pet peeves. My pet peeve is with esoteric Freemasons who refuse to divulge what the heck they mean when they say there is an esoteric meaning behind our ceremonies.

I do have numerous books that discuss esoteric aspects of Freemasonry (Leadbeater and Wilmhurst for example) but I find little illumination there. Leadbeater comes off like a mad and crazy nut. I do find him terribly amusing though, so I read him anyway. Wilmhurst comes off sounding very inspirational but whatever esoteric realms he is referring to go whiz over the top of my head.

There is a particular Freemason themed message forum on the Internet that has a whole section devoted to esoteric Freemasonry. It is filled with guys who talk about the 'energies' in the lodge, the astral realm, and all kinds of other sutff that I don't understand. Whenever I ask them to explain these concepts they invariably just say that it can't be described in words and if you can't experience it for yourself then it has no meaning. Personally, I find that a cop out.

I have had friends who were semi-frequently abducted by aliens who had no difficulty verbalizing their bizarre experiences. In fact, it brought great entertainment into my otherwise boring life to hear them verbalize their inner experiences.

Whenever I do question this sort of thing people jump on me as questioning my involvement in Freemasonry to begin with. This is not the case at all, but clearly there is a gulf of missunderstanding between us.

For the record, I am thrilled with Freemasonry and don't 'need' anything more out of it. That said, throughout history, a number of people have claimed that there is an 'esoteric' aspect to our ceremonies. Now, personally, I'm unsure of what 'esoteric' is even supposed to *mean*, but it does arouse my intellectual curiosity.

To the rank and file Freemasons there is little patience for any esoteric discussion of our work. I think this is probably quite fine and reasonable. We are not supposed to discuss religion in lodge and esoteric interpretations of ritual would clearly fall under that category. That is not to say that outside of lodge you can't discuss these sorts of things.

I am simply curious that if there is a model that suggests there is a greater, or deeper, meaning behind a particular ceremony or ritual, then I would enjoy discussing it at a philisophical level. That said, at no point am I willing to check my rational intellect at the door. While I may enjoy hearing the stories of my friends who were abducted by aliens that doesn't mean I adopt that particular reality tunnel for myself.

The following rant is taking completely out of context and may not make any particular sense. However, in the interest of posting something on this blog other than photographs and tepid commentary here it is in a raw an ugly form.

The section in 'quotes' are from the person who responded ot my original post.
-----------------------------------------------

"I fail to understand how, as you wrote, 'levitation, telekinesis, make stuff appear by magkic, and teleporting' are part of the Masonic ritual."

I fail to understand as well. It was a general question about 'magic'. What is is supposed to be about, or for? I don't know. Is it levitation, telekinesis, etc.? From what I have been reading, apparently not. It appears you have to be a magician on par with Jesus Christ to perform those kinds of miracles.

From what I have read it appears that ritual magic is supposed to facilitate contact with some sort of esoteric realms, energies, whatever, that are beyond my ability to experience. In other words, it serves purposes that I cannot grasp.

"There is a difference between what you give me to understand as you definition of magick and 'resemblances'. The 1st degree might 'resemble' any number of initiative practice around the world - such practices are after all rites of passage - but that is a far cry from levitation etc etc ..."

I agree. I don't think that magic has to do with such overt paranormal phenomena as these. Apparently it has to do with accessing 'energies' and other nebulous and fuzzy concepts that defy rational explanation and cannot be understood by anyone who does not also have these experiences as well.

"I take it by referring to 'it' you mean Freemasonry."

No, I did not mean Freemasonry. I'm thrilled with Freemasonry and love my involvement in it. By 'it' I was referring to the pursuit of 'esoteric' meaning in ritual.

"If you don't know 'why' you joined the Craft then I doubt anyone can help you."

Again, that wasn't the point of my conversation. My point is about certain people who claim that performing ritual magic has a legitimate purpose or meaning and how, or if, there is an intersection between Freemason ritual and these beliefs.

"But as you point out the fact that you are working at the ritual indicates that are investing time and energy - which has me perplexed as to why you are doing something but you don't know 'why' you're doing it."

A fair question; in fact, it is probably the thrust of my inquiry. I am making the investment because I find, for a reason that I cannot rationalize, that I enjoy it. When I first joined Freemasonry I had no interest in being involved in the ritual aspect of it. Instead I become involved in the various service related functions of the organization. Over time, I found that I learned ritual without even trying, simply through the process of endless repetition. Once I actually tried to learn a peice of ritual I found that, though it was incredibly hard to memorize, the performance of it in lodge was quite satisfying.

I also enjoy the friendship and brotherhood within my lodge. I am very happy with my involvement in Freemasonry and find more than enough satisfaction with it to make the investment and stay involved. That is not to say that I am not interested in pursuing further 'meaning' behind our ceremonies. Especially in light of that fact that so many people claim there *IS* a deeper meaning; one that, apparently, is beyond my ability to grasp.

"What about using your 'scientic method' here - why object to the Old Testament on moral grounds?"

Well, do I really need to go any deeper into this? If you find the OT to be a spiritually uplifting document, filled with glorious and inspirational material, good for you. When I read it, I learn of Gods genocides, his orders to send his warriors out to commit genocide; including killing every man, woman, child, and beast in the field while acquiring the gold for his glory. I read of great magical acts that destroy entire cities and I read of petty injustices met with furious and righteous anger. For example, the case where Gods appropriate punishment when some kids teased a bald man was to send two bears to rip 42 children limb from limb; a lovely bit of inspirational material.

I read of orders and edicts which include lovely platitudes as to how to treat your slaves and when it is appropriate to kill your child for back talking their parent.

These are the things I see when I read the OT. I don't know how the scientific method applies to any analysis of an ancient document written largely by ignorant and savage people; but there you have it.

"Maybe you might like to research this particular myth a little - there are a number of very good reasons why the myth survives."

I have researched it and it still makes no sense to me. It is presented as if were the absolute truth (it is not). As a dramatic narrative it isn't really all that deep. If it is symbolic, no one has ever elucidated the symbolism in a coherent fashion that I can digest. Instead we get platitudes as to how it has 'parallels' to the Osiris myth; pardon me if I don't find that very illuminating.

I enjoy the first and second degrees. I enjoy the portion of the 3rd degree lecture which focuses upon our duties and issues of morality. However, the narrative itself is not that exciting and, at face value, seems to teach only the lesson that it is better to die than betray a secret. Funny, but that is the same lesson taught in DeMolay in the ceremony depicting the death of this Knight Templar.

I am not inspired by a lesson that focuses on the death of an individual. I much prefer to be inspired by a story of how someone led their life. We are told that Hiram was a great and wonderful man, but given no examples. The only example we are given of how great and wonderful he was is that he would die rather than betray a secret.

In the DeMolay degree there is no example given as to why Jacques DeMolay was a man worthy of our respect and admiration, other than the fact that he died rather than betray a secret.

This theme runs throughout Freemasonry. I have a certain understanding behind that, based on a study of our history. For over a thousand years the Roman Catholic Church would torture and destroy anyone who came in its path. It takes these kinds of oaths of secrecy for men, enlightened men, to meet in secrecy and harbor such heretical beliefs as the scientific method.

So, I allow for it in the historical context. However, as a virtue, dying before betraying a secret doesn't impress upon me nearly as much as someone who lived a life which was worthy of our respect and admiration.

Don't tell me about how Jesus Christ died, or Hiram Abiff, or Jacques DeMolay, or some ancient Egyptian God. Tell me how they lived, and why their thoughts, words, and teachings were worthy of my admiration.

I have a lot of love and respect for Christians who focus on how Christ lived his life. It's the Christians obsessed with his death that worry me.

“John, I think what Russell is pointing out is that there are many things we, as humans, have yet to understand and some, many most likely, will not have ready made scientific explanation for them. Take Dark Matter - no one can proves it exists let alone observe it yet it has to exist in order to balance the whole universe. “

Science is a method; not a subject. Things are not a-priori ‘scientific’ above and beyond their ability to yield to this method. The scientific method has been wildly successful at understanding what we perceive of as the material world. In fact, it has been so wildly successful that it has managed to show that the material world is not, in fact, material. The last time I picked up a scientific rag they claimed it was vibratory super-strings in hyperspace.

I am a student of Robert Anton Wilson and I have a strong grasp of the difference between a hypothetical etic reality and the emic reality we all experience individually.

“Masonry is something similar - perhaps that is why you refer to the ritual as magick - the ritual possess qualities that are not scientically certifiable therefore you do see them. Perhaps that's the log jam in your mind - nothing in the ritual adds up in the way you might like it.”

Perhaps this is the case, or perhaps not. That is why I started the thread of discussion to begin with. I do not believe that things cannot be verbalized. I believe that is a cop out and , at times, an effort to make the individual feel more mysterious.

Let us take one example of an esoteric experience. I can use words and language to explain a dream I had. I grant that that this effort will be fraught with difficulties but I believe it can be done. Helen Keller, blind and deaf, ultimately managed to interact with reality to a certain extent. I do not accept the notion that those who have access to ‘esoteric’ realms cannot explain the process in rational language to those who are blinded to these experiences.

I used to hang out with so called ‘alien abductees’ (by ‘hang out’ I mean conversed with them on the internet) and they managed to explain their experiences with a great deal of elucidation. I have a friend who is one of the leading speakers on the subject of ‘near death experiences’. She speaks on this exotic topic with great clarity. I know of a series of New Age books which were allegedly written by a disincarnate entity (you and I might call it a ghost) that discusses a wide range of esoteric topics with great clarity and deep insight. All the while the entity admits to struggling with the limitations of human language (which has a seemingly unavoidable temporal and materialistic bias) he succeeds nontheless.

So, here I find myself in a forum devoted to the topic of esoteric thought but the contributors often fail to make the same effort as any of my other friends. To say that if you can’t access these esoteric realms then we can’t explain it, is a bit of a cop-out. We use the power of analogy and visual language to communicate, as best we can, portions of our inner experience with others.

“John, I don't know if you have ever taken a Myers-Briggs Personality Type Test –“

No, I have not. I’m fairly confident in the status of my own personality. It hasn’t been a concern.

However, out of curiosity, I typed this phrase into Google and immediately found an online version of this test. Now, I don’t know if this was completely valid, or typical, for one of these tests, but the test I found was one of the most stupid and idiotic things I have ever seen.

It presented a large series of yes/no questions when, in truth, not a single question would elicit either a 'yes' or a 'no' answer from anyone.

I cannot trust a personality test that suffers under some form of broken Aristotelian logic that tries to define a human being as a series of yes’s and no’s.

The answers to every question would be, ‘sometimes yes, and sometimes no’. Or ‘sort of but not exactly’, or "Doesn't apply to me at all, neither yes nor no." . I am far more complex than a series of yes’ and no’s.

“Me, for the records, I'm INFP. There are number of web sites where you can do the test on line - quite illuminating and might provide you with some useful insights. All of which may well answer you questions better than any of us here.”

As you saw from above, I did not find it illuminating; I found it juvenile and reductionist. I am not a reductionist personality; I am a complex being that uses a multi-model approach to reality assimilation and I don’t fit quite so easily into a skinner box.

I am a multi-model agnostic. If that isn't a personality type available on your test, let's just say we added it.


-- Yet more ranting... someone who was engaging in this conversation is apparently into Kaballah and took offense to my views on the OT. My response follows.


"To call the Isralites "ignorant and savage people" really shows a lack of respect for ALL ancient peoples."

You cannot by any stretch of the imagination be serious now can you? Let's not have this conversion devolve into a case of me quoting every horrific incident in the OT. And, the simple fact of the matter, is that these people were largely ignorant relative to modern standards. The enlightenment was called the enlightenment for a resason. I find it hard to believe that those who wrote the OT had a great understanding of relativity, evolution, biology, cosmology, DNA, newtonian physics, etc.? Somehow, I think not.

Let's just avoid this conversion because it would become very ugly. If you do not honestly believe the OT is filled with absolute horrific cases of savagery and brutality; one stacked on top of the other, and has been used to justify such acts for much of our history, then we will simply have to agree to disagree on this one.

"The OT is a history of a people as is, for example, the writings of Herodotus. . All history is a progression of man and his attempts to understand himself and his search for enlightenment."
What enlightenment comes from teachings that say that having two bears rip 42 children limb from limb is a reasonable response for teasing a bald man? How does Kaballah work that equation out?

" The search for our very being and what we are and who we are the way we are. To brush away the OT under the carpet simply because you find nothing of any significance is in itself ignorance. "

I hope you understand by now I didn't 'brush it away'. Instead I immersmed myself in a study of the OT, one might even say mired myself, and came out covered in the stench of atrocitiies. Sorry to say, but this faux Western Centric awe for the OT is hardly representative of the human culture as a whole. I am far more inspired by the teachings that come from the East.

"To say that the "vibratory super-string in hyperspace" explanation is a way of showing that scientist has found that the material world is not material is not new but simply an extention of Kabbalistic explanation. "

It's far better, and much more clearly, explained in Zen-Bhuddism. There is no need to resort to Kaballistic linguistic riddles. And, by the way, superstring theory is just mathametical masturbation. It has no concrete meaning and no predictive power. It is simply a form of advanced mathematical philosphy and says little about the world except that the further we devle into reality the less we can say we know for sure.

I find it poingant that in the year 2006 one of most advanced concepts in modern physics is termed the 'uncertainty' principle. You would think by now more people, especially scientists, would stop acting quite so certain all of the time.

Nevertheless, you have made a claim. Where does the OT say this? Is it before or after it tells me how I should treat my slave?

What Kabbalistic riddles are dervied from Leviticus and Deuteronomy?

"It is very confusing to try and make sense of how someone who practices ritual cannot understand that someone who is willing to sacrifice himself rather than divulge a secret appears non-sensical."

I said I understood it. I just don't think it is nearly as important as how someone leads their lives. How we die is not particularily important. How we live our lives is the key. I am not fond of death obsessed ideologies. I use a a case in point those in our culture obsessed with the rapture and other forms of eschatology.

"You say that DeMolay preffered to die than divulge his secret. Does that not say something about the character of the man ?"

Yes, it does. But it tells me nothing about the quality of his life. Many, many, many, men in the Mafia have died rather than betray a secret. How you choose to die does not in and of itself reveal everything about your life.

"If one is trusted with a secret, it is a moral duty not to divulge it. "

Within reason. In the Masonic ritual we swear an oath that we ill not reveal certain secrets that, personally, I would reveal in a heartbeat.

If I found out one my brethren was a child molestor I would report him in a split second to the authorities; even though I swore an oath that I would not. It's a shame the Roman Catholic Church doesn't think the same way.

"If DeMolay had divulged his "secret", you would probably condemn him for having done so and say that he was probably a savage unable to comprehend the word "duty" and the duty of one man to his brethren. "

Not at all. I would have the same empathy for him as I do for all of those who suffered under the moral outrage of the Inquisition.

"In this context, I can add Jesus. He went to his death willingly rather than submit to authority and thus showed many the value of scarifice."

This is mythology, not a piece of factual record. I do not acknowledge that such an event ever occurred.

"One does not have to believe in Jesus to admire his life and his sacrifice....surely that DOES say a lot about the man."

We know very litle about any historical Jesus. We have a series of ancient stories, myths, and nothing more.

"As for the Myers-Briggs Personality Test, it is only an Indicator and no more than that. It measures four bipolar dimensions: extraversion vs introversion; judging vs perceiving; sensing vs intuition and thinking vs feeling...."

The test I saw measured no such thing. This should be obvious from the simple fact that it was impossible for me to answer a single question 'correctly' since the choices it offered (Yes/No) were completely bogus.

"You have described yourself as : "a multi-model agnostic" because there seems to be a lack of belief in everything you have said and maybe you should really substitute agnostic with nihilistic."

That's rather amusing. You seem to think you know more about me than I do myself. A multi-model agnostic holds no beliefs. He merely assumes models, like a suit of clothing, and tries them on as seems to best fit any given situation at any time.

Things are not true and false, yes and no. They are 'mostly true' or 'sometimes true and sometimes false', or 'true under this condition and false under that one", or 'true when I think about it this way but not true if I think about it using a different model.'

Few, if any, answers to any of the questions on that test are 'always true' or 'always false'. I decline to submit myself to someone elses flawed ideology.

"You also say you are a complex being. Are we not all complex human being ?"

No doubt whatsoever. That is why we should all refuse to accept other people's programs, including personality tests that are full of meaningless questions.

As my friend Robert Anton Wilson says, every man and every woman is a Pope.