Post by jratcliff on Nov 5, 2006 16:46:56 GMT
"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.
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.