Post by jackson on Feb 29, 2012 18:56:06 GMT
Now wait wait waaaaaaait a minute...
First of all, isn't it expected of masonic authorities to take creative license with the information they present and also, do they not also make extensive use of sense objects? I know Pike did (and he even admits it in the prologue of his book Morals and Dogma and he even says why he did it and his reason was so that the folks reading his book would diligently search out the claims he makes). Also, did not the man who created the blueprint for the masonic lectures himself state that masonic knowledge come by degrees and not all at one time?
Therefore; it is my contention that in regards to sharing knowledge in masonic circles, there is a certain degree (depending on the person sharing said knowledge) of creative license that the lecturers, masters, and various other lodge brothers use when they share information with one another. For me, an example of this is the various interpretations of the letter G; some say it means "Geometry", others say "God", others interpret it have a sexual interpretation, and other say it represents "Gibbium" or something like that.
Of course, then there's always those answers that go from "it means 'this' or 'that'" to "it can mean whatever you want it to mean." In regards to this, my question is, if it can mean whatever you want it to mean, then why don't you just say that instead of pontificating on a certain definition of it or lump all the definitions together and say that they basically mean the same thing? Also, if the letter G isn't really that important at all, then why is it featured in many masonic images or portraits, inside the masonic temple, and if memory serves, is located within the holy of holies? Now I think that many masons know (or at least are supposed to be inculcated with the notion) that the Holy of Holy is...well, different from anywhere else. It's an area of the masonic temple that's supposed to be MOST HOLY!
So...if the letter G is in the holiest of holies, how can you relegate it to the level of something so insignificant? No mason that I know of would go around and say that the masonic rituals are a trifling matter and so insignificant that you can interpret the signs, seals, and tokens however you please!
Going further though, I also believe that this is but one example of the creative license level many take within the lodge (despite all the oath taking that goes on in the lodge concerning every lodge brother dealing truthfully with his neighbor and fellow lodge brothers); unfortunately, at every level of the masonic degrees, you are misinformed and at times lied to about the symbols and knowledge that you receive within each degree (and it doesn't just happen in the blue degrees). For the very nature of Freemasonry is mystery and once mystery is revealed, the uniqueness becomes something mundane; not only that, it is how Freemasonry exudes its silent control over those who follow her.
Now you may strongly disagree with me on the latter point; however, the man who drew up the very documents that became the blueprint for the masonic lectures alluded to this himself when he basically asked the question; does not mystery have an enchanting affect on people? The unknown, the freshness of thought, and the excitement that comes from discovering something new and different has a way of drawing many people into itself.
Now in regards to Mr. Crowley's sainthood; if we study his life for any length of time, I think we can safely conclude that he lived out his miserable existence as the devil's chief of staff and did his best to flaunt this kind of lifestyle to the rest of the world. Hey, at least I'm being honest; I think he may have had some genuine "revelations" (although I definitely don't think many of them were very good) and to some degree, he was quite an influential person as well (which doesn't say anything about his character).
Of course, if you can show me at least three good things Crowley did or was, I'm all ears because I have a very dim view of him.
First of all, isn't it expected of masonic authorities to take creative license with the information they present and also, do they not also make extensive use of sense objects? I know Pike did (and he even admits it in the prologue of his book Morals and Dogma and he even says why he did it and his reason was so that the folks reading his book would diligently search out the claims he makes). Also, did not the man who created the blueprint for the masonic lectures himself state that masonic knowledge come by degrees and not all at one time?
Therefore; it is my contention that in regards to sharing knowledge in masonic circles, there is a certain degree (depending on the person sharing said knowledge) of creative license that the lecturers, masters, and various other lodge brothers use when they share information with one another. For me, an example of this is the various interpretations of the letter G; some say it means "Geometry", others say "God", others interpret it have a sexual interpretation, and other say it represents "Gibbium" or something like that.
Of course, then there's always those answers that go from "it means 'this' or 'that'" to "it can mean whatever you want it to mean." In regards to this, my question is, if it can mean whatever you want it to mean, then why don't you just say that instead of pontificating on a certain definition of it or lump all the definitions together and say that they basically mean the same thing? Also, if the letter G isn't really that important at all, then why is it featured in many masonic images or portraits, inside the masonic temple, and if memory serves, is located within the holy of holies? Now I think that many masons know (or at least are supposed to be inculcated with the notion) that the Holy of Holy is...well, different from anywhere else. It's an area of the masonic temple that's supposed to be MOST HOLY!
So...if the letter G is in the holiest of holies, how can you relegate it to the level of something so insignificant? No mason that I know of would go around and say that the masonic rituals are a trifling matter and so insignificant that you can interpret the signs, seals, and tokens however you please!
Going further though, I also believe that this is but one example of the creative license level many take within the lodge (despite all the oath taking that goes on in the lodge concerning every lodge brother dealing truthfully with his neighbor and fellow lodge brothers); unfortunately, at every level of the masonic degrees, you are misinformed and at times lied to about the symbols and knowledge that you receive within each degree (and it doesn't just happen in the blue degrees). For the very nature of Freemasonry is mystery and once mystery is revealed, the uniqueness becomes something mundane; not only that, it is how Freemasonry exudes its silent control over those who follow her.
Now you may strongly disagree with me on the latter point; however, the man who drew up the very documents that became the blueprint for the masonic lectures alluded to this himself when he basically asked the question; does not mystery have an enchanting affect on people? The unknown, the freshness of thought, and the excitement that comes from discovering something new and different has a way of drawing many people into itself.
Now in regards to Mr. Crowley's sainthood; if we study his life for any length of time, I think we can safely conclude that he lived out his miserable existence as the devil's chief of staff and did his best to flaunt this kind of lifestyle to the rest of the world. Hey, at least I'm being honest; I think he may have had some genuine "revelations" (although I definitely don't think many of them were very good) and to some degree, he was quite an influential person as well (which doesn't say anything about his character).
Of course, if you can show me at least three good things Crowley did or was, I'm all ears because I have a very dim view of him.