- Care Frater Nagasiva, Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. ... Which, I suspect, plays more to Tom s point, really. After all, the part of hisMessage 1 of 31 , Sep 9, 2008View SourceCare Frater Nagasiva,
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
> I had thought that it [O.T.O.] refers to itselfAs had I. Didn't stop me from objecting to it. :: grin ::
> this way [as a secret society].
> so maybe the argument is better made that *someWhich, I suspect, plays more to Tom's point, really. After all, the
> portion of the governing bodies of the OTO* is
part of his statement I quoted which started this threadlet was him
saying, more or less, that he eschews any part of the secrety society
So the things done by O.T.O. which are similar to how a secret society
would do it would, logically, be the parts at which that particular
commplaint was aimed.
> yes, which is fine as long as those who administerThat, I think, is the crux of the argument in most of the personal
> and/or change the initiations are trustworthy.
debates I've seen over the years. Person A has come to the conclusion
that those in control of the process are not trustworthy, then argue
fervently that Person B should come to the same conclusion based on
their presentation of the same evidence.
Making the information available, including one's own conclusions, I say
again, is a perfectly acceptable - perhaps even desirable - activity.
Stuffing that presentation full of rhetoric or unsubstantiated claims
is, in my opinion, at the very least a demonstration of a lack of skill
in, or understanding of, critical analysis; at worst, it is a childish
or animalistic attempt to control the thoughts or actions of another
human being (this latter point of course the actual root of all evil).
As a side note, the more frequently I see one person spout the same
emotional vitriol within a single thread as a response to any countering
argument, the more I am apt to lean towards assessing it as the latter
rather than former. Not that this matters in any useful sense to anyone
but me, but there you have it.
> my usual dispute pertaining to the oaths/vows beingThen I would argue that their suitability (or at least their readiness)
> disclosed beforehand is on account of the circumstance
> to which initiates are put and their possible lack of
> ability to do this:
> > Initiator:
> > "Repeat after me: I solemnus swear to puncture my left
> > temple daily with a sharp knife"
> > Candidate: "No."
> > It's pretty simple, really.
> it is for some of us. there are slippery slopes and
> people without so strong or undaunting a will as us.
to tread this path is, in my humble but arrogant opinion, questionable.
And did I really type "solemnus" instead of "solemnly" up there?
Sheesh! Damn auto-pilot fingers...
> > ...I don't get that particular restriction.Touche'.
> I think i do. I think it serves as a hurdle of
> integrity to the group, and possibly a good one.
> if one is so ignorant that one would not care to
> preserve one's own will oneself and cannot in
> fact trust those who one is bonding to, then one
> may deserve, in a sense, to be unduly restricted
> should that be the character of the impression.
What is the corrective mechanism, though? I mean, other than the
rotting of the system from the inside should all this go awry?
Or, perhaps, that is the point. If we are not strong enough to survive,
we deserve to die. Or, more applicably, if we are too corrupt to teach
well, we deserve to fail to teach.
I'll have to mull on that a bit.
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]