THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
	a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects.

To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.freemasonry,alt.thelema,alt.magick,talk.religion.misc
From: nagasiva@luckymojo.com (nagasiva)
Subject: 'Spiritual Organizations' (was The 'Misplaced' Masonic Keys)
Date: 24 Jul 1999 00:05:34 -0700

49990211 IIIom

E6
a correspondent wrote:
# regards to SD-SR Masonry is: was it always just a "good ol' boys" 
# network, or do its current functions and membership represent a 
# falling away from some earlier loftier purpose?  

this still reminds me of a 'have you stopped beating your wife?'
type of question as long as you presume that Freemasonry's current 
functions and membership don't *have* some loftier purpose 
(e.g. universal kinship, the preservation and instruction of 
important social knowledge). 

I'd refer you again to the freemasonry elist which catya,
my partner, mentioned previously as a forum in which such a
question could be asked (though I'd lurk there for a while
and see if they really are just an "good ol' boys network"). from
my vantage point it seems to be something more than this, and it
is pretty easy to misunderstand the taxonomical degeneration of
quasi-masonic orgs (e.g. from British to French, German and 
American) as somehow central to the tradition.


333: 
#> just because
#> some Crowleyites have forgotten (or never learned) the deeper
#> concepts behind the symbols inherent to popular rites, this
#> doesn't mean that there isn't a thriving esoteric discussion
#> ongoing in the halls of Thelema. 

# ...my inquiry is
# directed more to the concept of entropy as it affects organizations 
# and bureaucracies, specifically ones that claim to have "levels" 
# of understanding that differentiate between generally "exoteric"
# and "esoteric" knowledge.  Does the perceived need to conceal or 
# play down the latter over time lead to disappearance of the Gnosis 
# in favor of merely the symbols of it?  

having only just begun to look seriously at Freemasonry in any
depth, I may not be the best of sources, but I will be forwarding
my missive to my kindred in Freemasonic circles.  what I understand
is that these 'levels of esoteric understanding' are not claimed
by Freemasons so much as quasi-masonic religious and occult groups
like the Theosophists, Rosicrucians, Goldawnians and some 
Crowleyites who may have been launching off Albert Pike and his
French reflections.

that is, there appears to have been a spiritual (rather than simply
an ethical) overlay to the initiation schema of original Freemasonry 
which was presumed to confer psychospiritual maturation or knowledge 
fit for those of a certain level of such maturation, rather than 
practical instruction for those who had reached a certain stage of 
study in architectural (i.e. practical Freemasonry) or conventional 
(i.e. speculative Freemasonry) subjects (like the 7 Liberal Arts
and Sciences).

I have heard it suggested many times that these were PROTESTANT rebels
who were out to fabricate their own alternative to the Roman Catholic
Church (dressing up in fabulous robes, articulating the names of the
divine, conferring spiritual power and a sacred ritual tradition, 
ostensibly engaging some mammothly important spiritual enterprise for 
the benefit of themselves and all human beings).

the initiatic framework appears within this same RC Church, though 
the notion of spiritual development as a reflection of the 
organizational structure does not appear to have passed into all
the traditions of Freemasonry.  Pike and his 'Scottish Rite' does
seem to adopt alot of hierarchical and esoteric language which can
imply this, and his poor scholarship and conman style seems to be
accepted without critical scrutiny by a large number of Scottish
Rite adherents (compare him with Levi or LaVey and their fans).

but your question is a very important one, and one of the reasons
that I have argued so strenuously in favor of continuing to see
the degrees above IIIrd in my Order ((c)OTO) as extensions of
administrative status rather than matriculted spiritual levels.

the latter can be valuable for those who have the privilege (or
the bad luck :>) to engage the deeper organizational structure,
but as it becomes a more widespread belief it could totally
corrupt the Order from the inside out by turning it into a 
sanctified mystery cult without a thelemic, individually-
centered and practical, character.

I'd say that your question is backwards, however, in the way
that it is phrased. rather than an entropic degrading of orgs
over time proceding from a need to conceal the differentiation
between exoteric and esoteric knowledge, I would say that we
are dealing with different KINDS of organizations here:

	(1) membership clubs like the Church of Satan or the Elks,
	 which presume to focus upon certain common interests

	(2) mystery clubs like the original Freemasons and the
	 (c)OTO, which attempt to convey social data through a
	 system of dramatic initiations that constitute common
	 membership experiences and have special roles for
	 those who are deeply involved with the administration

	(3) matriculation clubs like the Golden Dawn and possibly
	 some Rosicrucians, which function in a way somewhat like
	 universities of esoterics, centering on their knowledge-
	 base as the curriculum of study, yet which also sometimes
	 associate a level of personal and spiritual development
	 with ascendance through the rites of initiation and
	 involvement with the organization as a whole

	(4) sanctified mystical orders like the Rosicrucians and
	 possibly Martinists, the Temple of Set or the variety of 
	 Catholic fraternities such as the Franciscans or Jesuits, 
	 which intend to carry out some spiritual enterprise and 
	 simultaneously presume a level of spiritual authority 
	 based upon their position within the larger organization, 
	 initiations or no.

it seems to me that organizations can grow and change from one to
another of these categories, fracturing into extensions or
alternatives where there is insufficient approbation to allow the 
development within the greater social structure.

your question presupposes that there is a 'Gnosis' which has in
some way been integrated into organizational structures and has
been 'lost' over time. I gather that you also associate some
intellectual apprehension of the depth of meaning in the symbolism
within an organization's materials, rites, etc., with this 'Gnosis',
perhaps even associating, as is popular, some sort of spiritual
awareness or maturity with this apprehension.

finally, here's my response:

I think it is facile to isolate this spiritual maturity within
organizations, presuppose that it must for some reason be
'hidden', or to presume that it can be passed on from generation
to generation THROUGH these organizations. my impression is that
those who sincerely underwent maturation in association with
the symbols and ideas inherent to these organizations often mis-
understood the nature of spiritual instruction (overemphasizing
the power of words and symbols to convey it and neglecting the
conditions of the individual and their unique path of maturity). 

they attempted to codify or institutionalize their knowledge set 
(which I regard as comparable to idolizing a shed skin when in 
the form of a single curriculum, emphacizing a single paradigm 
when in the form of symbolic initiation). this no more made
their students wise or spiritually mature than would the
construction of a university make students intelligent or
ethically mature. it is only a tool by which those who are ready 
and able to achieve this for themselves may profit, and those who
administer these institutions are no more spiritual, wise, or
intelligent by virtue of their participation than those who
do not. they are merely the inheritors of a particular toolset
or artifact which we may find completely valueless and corrupt.


instead I would ask how it was that anyone began to associate
'Gnosis' with organizational processes, how individuals are
benefitting from feuding religious biases and fallacious claims,
and whether it isn't more important to use organizations to
support the sovereignty of the individual (a real Protestant and
liberal spirituality) rather than sink into the quagmire of
sanctified initiatic schemes for the purpose of religious
competition and pseudo-spiritual self-aggrandizement.

it is one thing to provide an assessment of an individual or
oneself based upon organizational METAPHORS which imply very
important things about one's spiritual development, but it is
quite another (and a dangerous alternative I feel) to begin to
IDENTIFY a specific human organization as the only standard.
this type of fanaticism is one I have always found worthy of
strong opposition, whether in organizations of which I am a
member or in those in which I refuse to take part.

E666 and blessed beast!
__________________________________________________________________________
(333) tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com; http://www.luckymojo.com/nagasiva.html
-- 
emailed replies may be posted; cc replies if response desired