Comments on: Secrecy in the Occult

By: Tim Boucher

Tim Boucher — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 23:56:28 +0000

Well, to go back to Masonry, I don’t think it really is trying to promise enlightenment. And I don’t think that’s even remotely a motivating factor for most people who join it, but I could be wrong.

By: human?

human? — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 23:41:14 +0000

but isnt it some power hungry idiot who think that his knowledge is the end all be all… and he doesnt share… except with those worthy…

i feel like whatever height has been reached we can go further as one. there will be new events & new things to be learned.

we are so young, as if enlightenment is the end… lol

one
human?

By: Tim Boucher

Tim Boucher — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 22:50:15 +0000

Good point Alistair. It’s called the Zeigarnik effect:

The Zeigarnik effect states that people remember uncompleted or interrupted tasks better than completed ones.

Russian psychologist Bluma Zeigarnik first studied the phenomenon after noticing that waiters seemed to remember orders only so long as the order was in the process of being served.

By: alistair

alistair — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 22:39:44 +0000

it keeps one`s attention as well. we put a book down early if we know the end. who watches any but the rarest sporting event if you know the final score? i life of spiritual certainty would be like tea with the vicar. pleasant but univentful.

By: Tim Boucher

Tim Boucher — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:23:53 +0000

Best… explanation… ever!

By: J. Puma

J. Puma — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:12:45 +0000

yeah um here’s my thing on the whole ’secrecy’ bit– in many cases, it’s simply because the idea is to let people uncover the secrets for themselves, thus making the experiences genuine. if you’re interested in some kind of initiatory system and are simply told everything about it, it won’t be a genuine experience– it’ll only be intellectual. s’like playing some awesome video game and figuring it all out for yourself versus using the walkthrough the whole time, or skipping ahead to the end of a detective novel. sure you’ll know, intellectually, but will you really KNOW? that’s the best argument i can think of for keeping secrets.

no skipping ahead to enlightenment, please!

By: Pop Occulture » Spiritual Elitism

Pop Occulture » Spiritual Elitism — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:23:50 +0000

[...]

Spiritual Elitism

In our recent conversations about secrecy in the occult, one of the most common battles cries against it seems [...]

By: prunesquallori

prunesquallori — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 14:23:28 +0000

A lot of esoteric ideas sound blasphemous or crazy if you aren’t living in a worldview that can properly situate them. If they are interpreted from the correct standpoint, they are seen to illustrate difficult truths. The “secrecy” is necessitated because an exoteric “man on the street” reading of the tropes of the organization will get you nowhere. Real magic/mystic/what-have-you stuff cannot really be put into words. This is the best filter I’ve found for weeding out the junk.

At least, that was supposedly the way it was back in the day. Now, most initiatory organizations have only the temporal echos of rites that actually meant something to someone a long time ago.

By: alistair

alistair — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 12:30:10 +0000

it`s not outside the realm of possibility that you are right. i take some solace in the fact that i don`t need to get through to that particular person. i imagine greater souls than me have tried. i would like to think he didn`t have so much discomfort but i`m not his therapist and he`s perfectly fine being the way he is. there are ways to communicate to anyone. the simplist is to pace his behaviour until he`s comfortable enough to stop being defensive, but i`ll be fucked if i`m going to act like jabba the hut just to build rapport with this agressive, angry guy. i fail to see the point. there has to be some middle ground. my clients come to me willingly, this guy just happens to be in a spot where i find myself in amongst people i enjoy talking with. actually, he`s a particularly ignorant person who deliberately acts offensively in the hopes of getting a reaction. an adult six year-old.
i get you in that he is essentially good and wants to learn and grow. the quiet voice inside him is shouted down by his will to resentment. i see that. unfortunately, if he was a dog he would have bitten someone by now and would have been destroyed.
taking the responsibility for realising those behaviours are destructive to himself would take him a great distance toward allowing others some ability to be more tolerant toward him. cutting down on the burping while others are talking would help too.

By: human?

human? — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 03:32:26 +0000

ahhh, but perhaps its you who hasnt learned HOW to tell them yet….

i agree though somewhat, and that was why i said its hard to argue… and my only argument really is a gut feeling that human beings are essentially good and want to learn and grow… even if we dont act like it most the time….

By: alistair

alistair — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 03:12:34 +0000

casting pearls before swine. too true. there is a bloke in the group of coffee suckers where i end up at times who likes to remind people occasionally that what i have to say is bullshit. his presence is a test to me. a gift of tolerance.(bullshit. i`d like to cut his heart out and feed it to him while he still lives.) i realise that he is suffering and is incapable of recieving positive messages.(my patience does wear thin with the man).
houston smith talks about the gnosics not wanting to share knowledge with the uninitiated. i don`t think it is a secrecy issue so much as it being necessary to have some basic awareness of the higher order of metaphysics. a good grounding in meditation, physical and mental self-control and an expanded sense of spirituality.
there are no secrets, in my opinion. it`s simply that you can tell some people until you`re blue in the face and they will say bullshit. those people aren`t good for your buzz.

By: albion

albion — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 02:32:10 +0000

the effects are out in the open, its the design & intent that’s hidden.

By: Tim Boucher

Tim Boucher — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 02:26:30 +0000

but i do think that most evil occurs in secret.

Haha, just look around… all the worst shit’s right out in the open.

By: albion

albion — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 02:06:58 +0000

imo, the abuse of secrecy is far more common than its good use. i don’t think everything secret is evil but i do think that most evil occurs in secret. in my experience any system or method (or anything) that can’t stand on its own without an ambience of secrecy and mystification to shroud it, probably isn’t worth a damn to begin with. i don’t know much about masonry but what little i’ve read about the architecture & geometry stuff seems pretty cool to me, and i don’t see any reason why it shouldn’t be available to anybody, except for elitism.

By: human?

human? — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 01:57:35 +0000

quite frankly, im pretty sure that after all the pomp and circumstance, reading your blog is a much better access to occult knowledge than the Blue lodges of Masonry.

what i meant here by pomp and circumstance, is masonry’s elaborate rituals, costumes, temples & its air of mysticism….

i for one prefer reading a blog than exchanging handshakes and wearing one pant leg up.

although, when im in a crowd (particularly on the subway) i do have fun standing like a Mason with my feet making a right angle, and im ready with my traveler question when the time comes….. just to see how far i can BS my way to prove my point….

ive definitly been tempted, through study & having people asking me to join up… ive walked past the lodges, and the ones in manhattan in particular are quite alluring… but ive always had a gut instinct that its not the right way for me… i like to share.. with everybody

one
human?

By: Tim Boucher

Tim Boucher — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 01:45:16 +0000

i would die for my close loved ones in a heartbeatâ€¦

Well, that was all I was trying to say.

By: human?

human? — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 01:41:04 +0000

actually, strike the probably nonsense.

i wouldnt feel comfortable existing if i wasnt ready to die….

i suppose thats where i would see the “evil”…. to selectivly pick and choose who deserves what….. especially when it comes to knowledge…. and more especially when it comes to putting people in jail and things of that sort, life and death….

By: human?

human? — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 01:36:56 +0000

see, i wouldnt swear a blood oath, because IMO, love IS a blood oath….

without the blood and oath part.

i would die for my close loved ones in a heartbeat… (shit, id probably die for people ive never met if the circumstances demand)

By: human?

human? — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 01:35:16 +0000

oh no worries, im pretty sure a dude like you is actually the Masons worst nightmare.

quite frankly, im pretty sure that after all the pomp and circumstance, reading your blog is a much better access to occult knowledge than the Blue lodges of Masonry.

i truly feel that we can all initiate ourselves nowadays.

By: Tim Boucher

Tim Boucher — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 01:33:45 +0000

which is exactly why i will never sbject myself to the bondage of a blood oathâ€¦

I would swear blood oaths to the people I know and care about in a second.

By: Tim Boucher

Tim Boucher — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 01:32:14 +0000

Obviously I agree with you about simple, open and honest communication beating everything or none of us would even be talking at all. We wouldn’t have this forum to discuss. I’m just saying that I can see reasons for it if I change my perspective. I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with the reasons or the practices. I find it intriguing and the way I explore these things is often by way of devil’s advocate.

I’m simply trying to advocate that we give people the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they get something from it, and maybe it’s something worthwhile, even if I don’t understand it totally.

By: human?

human? — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 01:31:00 +0000

above all, i honestly think that the biggest secret of them all is that they dont actually know shit, and that the whole secrecy thing is a con job, used to sap people of their individal power to make change….. essentially funneling that power to a “power elite” who disasterous mismanagement of society can be seen and felt worldwide…… by those of course, by and large, who havent sworn a blood oath….

By: human?

human? — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 01:24:04 +0000

1. Whether its good or its bad, its simply effective. Unfortunately, the nature of secrecy, being secret and all, prevents us from making that distinction…

2. I dont really see that as secrecy, so much as simply communicating in another fashion. there are things that CANT simply be said.

3. Well, #3 would be IMO my argument against secrecy. its power by 1, denying information to people & 2, by convincing others to submit their power to you in exchange for your “powerfull” secrets…

4. Personal Privacy sure, but Masonry is a organization that effects society and how people are treated in many respects… from speeding tickets, to business deals, to zoning regulations. its not a issue of personal privacy when the Judge is a Mason.

5. i just disagree. i dont like secrets at all. i much prefer love and respect for building bonds.

it seems as if the main argument for secrecy, thats hard to aruge against, is casting pearls before swine, aka your #1. i just honestly disagree with that mode of thinking. i still have faith in people, and their ability to grasp concepts and effectively impliment them for the well being of the entire race….. IMO, its this secrecy thing that actally is sed to keep people in the dark, never helping them achieve the knowledge that will help us all grow and become that which we are destined to acheive.

i agree with power belongs to those who claim it, which is exactly why i will never sbject myself to the bondage of a blood oath…

one
human?

By: james

james — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 01:12:22 +0000

Have you ever read the libretto for Mozart’s “The Magic Flute”? It’s a Masonic work, for sure. Many scholars believe that Masonic tenets influenced the libretto that Mozart created for the opera. In the fabric of the story is a character named Papageno, depicted as wearing a bird headress– he is loutish, undisciplined, carnal. He is presented as comic relief, but sympathetically. Still, one gets the feeling that his role in the opera is one of counterpoint against the protagonist, who embraces the rituals and passes all the trials he is put through. The protagonist is the Masonic man, papageno is the rest of the world– deserving of our pity but unenlightened.

Gotta go. Have a nice weekend. And thanks for the provocative topics today.

By: james

james — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 01:07:25 +0000

Yeah, but what power do the Masons actually possess? It’s an interesting paradox: if they actually do possess power, then their secrecy is something to be feared. If they don’t possess any power, then their secrecy actually makes some sense: maybe they don’t want to be embarrassed by outside attitudes.

By: Tim Boucher

Tim Boucher — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 01:03:53 +0000

I am on the Penn & Teller side: I want to de-mystify the things that are not mystical.

I think I’m more on the side that wants to mystify things that aren’t considered mystical.

For them to parade around like they possess some sort of power when they have none is (in my opinion) akin to the Wizard of Oz hiding behind his curtain.

Power belongs to those who claim it. Zac just did an awesome post on this.

By: james

james — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 01:00:15 +0000

I think the only real good that comes from secrecy is the learned ability to actually keep a secret. We all know at least one person who can’t, for the life of them, keep their lips sealed about anything. These people are often times undisciplined and unfocused, but they end up being pigeonholed as “untrustworthy”.

People who can keep things to themselves have a certain air or aura about them. Others will confide in them, because they feel like the information will never be divulged for any reason.

I think of lovers in the bedroom: the loutish man who brags to his buddies about what his girl did for him last night; the introspective female who resents the man’s willingness to reveal their intimacy for the sake of boasting…

I disagree about #2, though: there’s no secret to music or dance. However, in some circles, it’s considered “bad form” to give away the tricks of the trade. If I reveal that Jimmy Page uses open G tunings on half of his songs with Led Zeppelin, it de-mystifies the music. Likewise, Penn & Teller (whom I dig) get a lot of flak for revealing the secrets behind their “magic” tricks, but their point is that it’s all illusion anyway.

I am on the Penn & Teller side: I want to de-mystify the things that are not mystical. Masons use mystical imagery, but other than that they possess no real “magic” other than the ability to keep a secret. For them to parade around like they possess some sort of power when they have none is (in my opinion) akin to the Wizard of Oz hiding behind his curtain.