Dear Tom, Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. You have surprised me, sir. Your first response on this thread was filled with a lot ofMessage 1 of 31 , Sep 7, 2008View SourceDear Tom,
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
You have surprised me, sir. Your first response on this thread was
filled with a lot of supposition and held a style in common to those
I've found who rely heavily on rhetoric.
And then this message, where you clearly showed your own awareness of
your stance and its effects. My compliments, sir.
> For me, I have rejected in fullness any 'secret society' format.I am always given pause when people refer to O.T.O. as a secret society.
Membership is known - and we are not encouraged to hide our membership
at all. Leastwise, I have not been.
The only things O.T.O. has made any effort to keep secret that I can see
are the Initiation Rituals themselves (which, unfortunately, to your
next point, currently also includes those oaths) and the mechanisms by
which we are supposed to confirm membership and degree with others.
I have found great value in the surprises which have sprung themselves
upon me at my Initiations. Looking back over them with the benefit of
20/20 hindsight, I realize I was unlikely to learn the lessons I'd
learned had those moments not been surprises.
At the very least, the depth of effect of those moments was certainly
enhanced by their unexpectedness.
So I find value in the secrecy of the one thing O.T.O. endeavors to keep
secret -- the Initiation rituals themselves.
I haven't found anything else in O.T.O. to be hidden or locked down for
any reasons other than occasional, prudent issues regarding privacy, or
from time to time the misunderstandings of policy on the part of the
I ran into a Brother who seemed to think the E.G.C. Confirmation ritual
was supposed to remain secret, though it is published for all to see.
I've run into many Brothers and Sisters who seem to think we're never
supposed to ask anyone their, or reveal our own, degree -- and some who
think we're not supposed to talk to anyone of a higher degree than
Being blessed with long-standing aquaintences with many folks who turned
out to be highly placed in O.T.O., I've confirmed all these things to be
incorrect -- but that doesn't change the perception for the newbie who
is told, quite earnestly, that these things are against the rules.
In the end, I have found nothing in O.T.O. to be secret but the
Initiation Rituals themselves. So I have a hard time calling it a
And, as I have said, the one thing it does try to keep secret has proven
repeatedly to be a source of value for its secrecy to me personally.
> I am a firm proponent full disclosure and fully informed consent.Interestingly, this is similar to my original reasons for NOT joining
O.T.O. I take oaths very seriously, and I was not permitted to see the
oaths before taking them.
That caused me to drag my feet for a VERY long time.
A potentially interesting side note: There was a time when O.T.O.
permitted people to read the oaths ahead of time. That practice was
withdrawn and it is once again now required that one go through the
ritual in order to discover the contents of the oaths at each degree.
I still don't fully understand why, but - for the moment - I accept that
I have only read a few chapters out of a ten-chapter book. Thus, I
accept the possibility that I may not be in a position to understand the
why of it. But I don't get that particular restriction.
Eventually, though, working with the local body for nearly a year, I
came to trust these people. Upon reflection, I came to realize that
everyone - oddly, not a single exception by that point in time -
absolutely everyone I'd ever dealt with in the Order had also earned my
respect in one form or another. Many of them before I even was aware
that any organization called O.T.O. still existed, so I could not have
been influenced by knowledge of their position as I did not know of it.
Your argument that we cannot trust others in the system to fully
understand the system (they too, after all, have only read a few
chapters of a ten-chapter book) is valid; however, at some point the
preponderance of evidence brings each of us to some kind of decision as
to whom to trust -- or whom to not trust.
Clearly, there are many for whom the result has been to NOT trust, and I
do not doubt their reasons are absolutely valid within the realm of
their experience. These people should not join the Order. Their path
clearly lies elsewhere, as the preponderance of evidence in their
experiences plainly demonstrates, at least to them -- and I would argue
that they are the ONLY party whose opinion matters.
My experiences, on the other hand, brought me to trust this group.
Eventually, they even proved their worth to me sufficiently to warrant
stepping into the ring -- a whole 'nother story not needed here.
In the end, each of us MUST follow what evidence we find before us on
our Path, and choose as best we may.
Proselytizing for or against membership in any Order by others, on the
other hand, is Projection, which I find to be one of the larger and more
common foes of the Magician.
And it is no small issue for me that proselytization is itself an action
directly counter to my interpretation of the Law of Thelema. Making
information available to others so they may make a more informed
decision -- solid gold.
But trying to sway their opinion for their own actions -- Danger, Will
Robinson. I advising bringing extra machetes for that trip, for I am
highly suspicious it will be off the Path cleared by the inertia of the
Love is the law, love under will.
Thelema93, Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. At one time, Carl Jung was a member of OTO. In those days, the organization and membership mustMessage 31 of 31 , Sep 27, 2008View SourceThelema93,
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
At one time, Carl Jung was a member of OTO.
In those days, the organization and membership
must have, out of necessity, been kept guarded.
In his biography; "Memories, Dreams, Reflections",
Jung's comments on his experience and
psychology of "Secret Societies":
"There is no better means of intensifying the
treasured feeling of individuality than the
possession of a secret which the individual
is pledged to guard. The very beginnings of
societal structures reveal the craving for
secret organizations. When no valid secrets
really exist, mysteries are invented or contrived
to which privileged initiates are admitted.
Such was the case with the Rosicrucian's and
many other societies. Among these pseudo-
secrets there are-ironically - real secrets of
which the initiates are entirely unaware -
as, for example, in those societies which
borrowed their 'secret' primarily from the
The need for ostentatious secrecy is of vital
importance on the primitive level, for the
shared secret serves as cement binding
the tribe together. Secrets on the tribal
level constitute a helpful compensation
for lack of cohesion in the individual
personality, which is constantly relapsing
into the original unconscious identity with
other members of the group. This is an
intermediary stage on the way to individuation.
The individual is still relying on a collective
organization to effect his differentiation; he
has not yet recognized that it is really the
individual's task to differentiate himself from
all the others and stand on his own feet.
All collective identities, memberships in
organizations, support of 'ism's' and so on,
interfere with the fulfillment of this task.
Such collective identities are crutches for
the lame, shields for the timid, beds for the
lazy, nurseries for the irresponsible; but they
are equally shelters for the poor and weak, a
home port for the shipwrecked, the bosom of
a family for orphans, a land of promise for
disillusioned vagrants and weary pilgrims, a
herd and safe fold for lost sheep, and a mother
providing nourishment and growth.
It would therefore be wrong to regard this
intermediary stage as a trap; on the contrary,
for a long time to come it will represent the only
possible form of existence for the individual, who
nowadays seems more than ever threatened
Collective organization is still so essential today
that many consider it to be the final goal, whereas
to call for further steps along the road to autonomy
appears like arrogance or hubris, fantastically, or
Like the initiate of a secret society who has broken
free from the undifferentiated collectivity, the
individual on his lonely path needs a secret which
for various reasons he may not or cannot reveal.
Such a secret reinforces him in the isolation of his
individual aims. A great many individuals cannot
bear this isolation. They are the neurotics, who
necessarily play hide-and-seek with others as well
as with themselves, without being able to take
the game really seriously. As a rule they end by
surrendering their individual goal to their craving
for collective conformity - a procedure with all the
opinions, beliefs, and ideals of their environment
encourage. Moreover, no rational arguments
prevail against the environment.
Only a secret which the individual cannot betray -
or cannot formulate in words, and which therefore
seems to belong to the category of crazy ideas - can
prevent the otherwise inevitable retrogression. The
secret may be so compelling that the individual finds
himself involved in ideas and actions for which he is
no longer responsible. He is being motivated neither
by caprice nor arrogance, but by a 'dira necessitas'
which he himself cannot comprehend. This necessity
comes down upon him with savage fatefulness, and
perhaps for the first time in his life demonstrates to
him 'ad oculos', the presence of something alien and
more powerful than himself in his own most personal
domain, where he though himself the master.
It is important to have a secret, a premonition of things
unknown. It fills life with something personal. A man
who has never experienced that has missed something
important. He must sense he lives in a mysterious
world; for me the world has been infinite and
I know things and must hint at things which others
apparently know nothing of, and for the most part,
do not want to know. Loneliness does not come from
having no people about one, but from being unable
to communicate the things that seem important to
oneself, or from holding certain views which other
find inadmissible. If a man knows more than others,
he becomes lonely. But loneliness is not inimical to
companionship. Loneliness thrives when each
individual forgets his individuality and authenticates
himself through others. In the end, man is an event
which cannot judge itself, but, for better or worse,
is left to the judgment of others. I myself am a
question which is addressed to the world, and I
must communicate my answer, for otherwise I
am dependent upon the world's answer.
Many excited in me a feeling of living humanity,
but only when they appeared within the magic
circle of psychology. For some people I was
continually present and close to them so long
as they were related to my inner world; but then
it might happen I was no longer with them.
Perhaps I might say: I need people to a higher
degree than others, and at the same time, much
less. I had to learn painfully that people continue
to exist even when they had nothing more to say
Love is the Law, Love under Will,
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]