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

To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick,alt.magick.order,alt.thelema,alt.religion.wicca,alt.pagan.magick
From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (nigris (333))
Subject: On Initiations and Oaths
Date: 20 Dec 1997 16:13:37 -0800

[orig-to: thelema93-l@hollyfeld.org]

49971206 aa2 Hail Satan! 

do what the fuck you want


Tim 'the Wizard' Maroney :
#># ...I _have_ had to act as if I agree with things I don't in order to 
#># proceed....

sitting and listening to a reading during a dramatic rite doesn't strike
me as 'acting as if I agree', though I can see why it might if one is
used to speaking out in response to that with which one does not agree.


#># ...The tension between freedom of thought and the revealed truth of
#># initiation is an interesting one and if anyone wants to share their 
#># thoughts on it here, it might prove a worthwhile thread.)

I find no tension inherent to these two elements of ritual initiation
where the rites are created by a Master, especially that being Thelemic.
the dissonance usually arises on account of poor studies, and this may
eventually be resolved through careful revisitation of the rite and
assimilation of its entire content (through participation in the rites
of others or studies of the scripts alone).

tension *may* arise through a distrust in ritual initiators (usually a
lack of familiarity) or some inherent misunderstanding on their parts
by which they make comment biasing the mind of the initiate in a manner
that predisposes to expectation.  it is this reason that I have expressed
serious concerns about the 'health' of the cOTO initiation system, and
while I can attest to the Thelemic character of the rites to which I have
subjected myself (0->II, 1991->1993 I think), I cannot be sure as to the 
degree which these may remain stable or the bias given them in off-handed 
commentary by the insensitive and foolish.

my own initiators have usually refrained from explaining even portions of
the rites (whether this be because of my attitude toward secrecy -- I do
not abide it and have made this clear to my Order several times -- or due
to their own admirable desire to encourage individual interpretation
without coloration of what is needed and received therein I cannot know).


uncited, probably Christeos Pir :
#> ...It is an interesting hurdle, to perceive that, in order to advance, 
#> you must/might have to break a previous oath.

indeed it would be.  I have not yet encountered this.  magical oaths are
unbreakable.  all others are of minor (usually social or self-disciplining
and thus temporary) importance.  those which unavoidably hamstring the 
individual for the benefit of an organization are not Thelemic by my measure.


Tim 'the Wizard' Maroney :
# ...Suppose an initiation tries to impress you with a philosophy in which 
# you don't believe? 

initiations don't have volition, though we might infer that their author
attempts this impression.  its rough character might imply it, and yet
by the variable nature of human psyches we shall come to different
impressions based on the nature of our mechanism.  

this question is very much like what I expressed my concern about regarding
post-mortem initiatory mythos within our OTO initiations.  you provided 
several alternative tactics in encountering particularly disagreeable ritual 
contents or elements and I thought it was an inspired response.  I'd 
reflect that back to you here.


Christeos Pir :
#># Personally, I wouldn't pretend to agree with things that I didn't, 
#># just to "proceed through the Man of Earth," and I wouldn't trust 
#># someone that did.

if one can suspend disbelief in order to enter into a dramatic rite, then 
the presumption that a ritual is 'Thelemic' of character is sufficient
to warrant a suspension of distrust in the author and the people who
are carrying it out.  diversity of thought is either respected therein,
presumed inconsequential to the drama and symbolism, or entirely
ignored as an anomaly and flaw (laughed at, blatantly disregarded, or,
as in the case specified by PCrumhorn, opposed and negated).  

I find it very difficult to trust those who accept whole-heartedly
a single philosophic expression.  Nagarjuna instructs of the logical
limitations of the Four Expressive Modes (X, -X, -X+X, -(-X+X)) and
Crowley chimes in with his 0=2 alchemical process.  

the intellectual litmus test is a conundrum and tar baby akin to the 
VSL.  it trips up and pacifies the weak of mind until they are able to 
transcend their limitations and accept a mature social diversity.


rose.dawn@ouroboros.org (Rose Dawn):
# What about my own aforementioned habit of trying to deconstruct things
# that appear at first glance to be squicky, to see if there's an interp
# one *does* agree with? It is what I do, and I've been satisfied with the
# results thus far....

this is the method of the liberated, especially within dramatic initiation 
in which such an interpretation is important or necessary.


# <...none of the meaning-tweeking has ever involved initiatory activity 
# in my own case>. I do recognize that there comes a point when one could 
# tweek any statement to mean just about anything, and am starting to 
# wonder if I've been guilty of that--and, ultimately, whether it really 
# matters as much as the 'results.'

lust for result is a serious problem.  be that as it may, this is probably 
the tension to which I referred above, since it may well arise in response
to the biased interpretations of your kindred.  in ritual drama, the
context is important, as in scripture, and yet symbolism is often quite
diverse as to implication, making hard and fast interpretations ridiculous
(no matter how the administration may apply this in terms of org rules
and the reasonable restriction of data regarding the initiation texts).
 

rose.dawn@ouroboros.org (Rose Dawn):
#> Hel ...[has] apparently revised his opinion [that the Thelemic Gnostic 
#> Mass Credo is not *his* Creed], through seeking deeper interpretations 
#> of some of the wording, and coming to conclusions that he feels represent 
#> his perceptions while remaining within the Credo-schtuff. 

again, this is the manner of the liberated.  coordinated will and contract
becomes of imperative value so as not to impede the free-flow of enthusiasm
through the entirety of life.  minimizing contract enables attention to the
health of relationship.


#> ...looking-beneath-beyond-between-befuddlement, in order to transform 
#> something that on-surface looks kinda freaky into something I feel I 
#> can say *and* mean, rather than simply parroting the required words. 

conscious deliberation on the elements of our habit-patterns and dedications
facilitates their coherency and clarity of purpose.  I have often found
parroting reprehensible where I engaged it.  some need it to begin with a
commitment, of course, like training wheels.  I agree with the Gnostics
and Satanists that this should not be forced upon one's children (it usually
has the opposite effect than intended or dissolves into facades anyway).


#> ...I could be engaging in mental-wank-fests in order to self-justify 
#> something....

what's the problem with self-pleasure or entertainment?  it was here that
I saw the greatest danger: that the rites could be manipulated such that
oaths were *too* specific, rendered no other logical alternative to 
interpretation to the initiate *than* submission and enslavement.  to be 
effective, Thelemic initiation rites must incorporate the signification of 
opportunity for both restrictive service to the society *and* liberative 
service to the self, set upon a fulcrum of expanded understanding.
 

Tim 'the Wizard' Maroney :
# ...When presented with material they disagree with as a precondition for 
# some desirable goal, some people will churn on the material until it comes 
# out in an acceptable form. For those who are honest enough to note and try 
# to deal with this dissonance, are they behaving well when they manage to 
# turn it into an agreeable form? 

'behaving well'?  that depends on who is making the assessment.  obviously
with such an individualist as myself (and perhaps also you) they are very
definitely achieving something to be admired.  to the traditionalist who
only has interest in social immersion and contractual obligation of course
they might be considered 'equivocating' or 'being insincere'.  

when oaths are not seen beforehand and taken within a context that implies
threat or includes disorientation, we cannot really expect that most initiates
will be able to reconcile their intellect immediately.  they may feel (as I 
have felt, with later change) that they have been misled or deceived about
the nature and/or content of the agreements required for membership, and the
coercive quality of dramatic rite tends to suspend rational filters unless 
the initiate be empowered and sovereign.
 

# ..."mental-wank-fest", that is, a sort of sophistry that contrives 
# and twists meanings for social purposes? How would one know that oneself 
# or another was practicing an enlightened form of meditative expansion of 
# possible meanings rather than engaging in a self-interested distortion?

squirming to deceive oneself into rectifying one's desires into conformity
with the constraints imposed by the herd?  it can be valuable, especially 
in the short-term, and yet I warn against such an activity long-term where 
the proffered agreement has no transcendant significance implying the
complete liberation of the individual.  those which omit this important
element are wholly corrupt and worthy of opposition.


# treat all the material as having a non-literal, mythologized intent, with 
# no set meaning. Then expanding one's range of possible interpretations to 
# cover equally those one does or does not agree with is a legitimate 
# practice, and one avoids the error of thinking that an emergent 
# interpretation that is aceptable to oneself is _the_ interpretation 
# (e.g., "the third chapter of the Book of the Law is really a veiled sex 
# magic instruction." Maybe that's true for you, but it's not _the_ 
# meaning.)

wonderful.  very much like the exploration of the significance of any
scripture, or indeed artwork of any depth and complexity.


# ...this approach fails when one is presented...  with simple declarative 
# statements. 

it seems we point toward the same kinds of restrictive statements,
characterized, perhaps, in different ways.  I wonder whether 'simplicity'
may not at times allow a greater diversity of meaning.  I sense that you
are talking about the 'dumbing-down' of meaning so as only to include a 
very limited set of possible interpretations.  if so, then I would agree 
but with the caveat that even a complex enslavement meme may not yield 
value, especially over time.


# Other responses are common as well when people are presented with 
# disagreeable initiatory material. Some people are so eager to be 
# indoctrinated that they repress all disagreeing thoughts that might 
# arise....

it seems that, probably based on our history, experience and character,
we have varying responses to initiation rites and make-believe or ritual
consciousness.  some of us become rebellious against certain elements
(such as the directive and/or oppressive or constraining), some of us 
become docile and impressionable in response to these same.  

what is the *purpose* of initiation?  this seems a monumentally difficult
question to answer, since it must vary in terms of motivation for the
initiate hirself and is probably answered differently by many initiators,
let alone those who might originate such rites themselves.  for some it
certainly includes a kind of readied acceptance of a New Program.  for
others it becomes a type of catalyst whereby we are inspired toward
transformation and empowerment.  some accept the seeds of what will later
become maturity.  others use the rite itself as a means of maturation.


# Typically these people will insist that this is the only honorable 
# approach -- the initiatory wisdom is of a higher order of truth than 
# their own lowly selves, after all, and it would be the rankest arrogance 
# for them to judge it. These people are not Thelemites and need not 
# concern us in the current discussion.

ha!  such certainty from the Wizard I hardly know how to respond! :>
indeed, they are not Thelemites?  so to call them such we would be
'doing wrong'?  :>  I characterize such individuals as fundamentalists
and tend to oppose them myself.  and yet when I see them so assessed
I cannot help but question the accuracy of the assertion.


# Many other people simply ignore disagreeable doctrines, picking the parts 
# they like and pretending the rest doesn't exist. Often they will deny 
# that anything they disagree with even exists as part of the system. 

this seems to be what Patrick Crumhorn was saying about Roman Catholics,
ignoring the org's political agenda on the one hand and supporting it
with money and words otherwise.  I think this is a VERY common practice,
and not just within initiations but generally.  

and I feel that in many cases this is the EXACT reason that objectionable 
material is included in social spheres: it divides up the will of the
individual, fragments it, dissociating one's certainty and dedication, 
making broken partialities of what they might otherwise become.

that said, within Thelemic society there is always an 'out', a means by
which one may come to an understanding which renders such social material
powerless, transformed in meaning to that which liberates the individual.
where this cannot be discovered I must assert it does not hold with the
Law of Thelema and is counter to the health and welfare of the individual
and, by extension, to all living, willful beings.


uncited, probably Christeos Pir  to the Wizard:
#> ...why do you continue in O.T.O. if you find philosophies with which 
#> you don't agree represented? Especially if the compromise makes you 
#> uncomfortable.

I've never found any organization completely comfortable, and those which
I valued most held a beauteous confluence of material with which I was
both extremely attuned and horridly opposed.  that is, they exhibited the
ability to contain and reconcile opposition in a harmonious manner.  


# ...I am content with my own native understanding -- which includes being 
# open to suggestions from others, but does not include treating others' 
# ideas as if they were appropriate for me to take passively into my mind 
# as indoctrination. Otherwise I would not be a Thelemite.

this is an important issue to me.  I am not sure that I can say that just
because a person feels it is important to them to passively take into their
psyche an imprint from an initiatory rite and organization that they are
therefore somehow 'not Thelemites'.  I'm not sure if this is what you were
saying.  perhaps you just meant that you would not be acting according to
your true will if *you* did so.  often I've heard people set limitations
on activities which 'real Thelemites' might engage, and yet I think it is
important to discern between activity and the relationship to the true will.


# Initiation is a form of ritual magic that many people report is highly 
# significant to them and so I am going through it as a 
# participant-observer in order to broaden my understanding of the field. 
# As Ronald Grimes wrote, "I was a virtual initiate in a subjunctive mode." 

lovely!  I am proceeding along similar but not identical lines: as a
personal assertion of trust in an organization that appears to include
a diversity of thought amongst its membership and a support for the
liberation of human beings.  note that I have temporarily suspended
this journey (indicating disconnection from initiators whom I feel
I can trust to protect my sovereignty -- this appears to run in cycles,
leading me to other Order bodies).


# So far the oaths have not required any great compromise. At the point 
# where they begin to do so, for instance an oath of martyrdom or an oath 
# of poverty, I would have to opt out. The small compromises so far have 
# paid for themselves in an increase in understanding, but not in any 
# perceptible kind of basic self-transformation. That's not what I'm 
# looking for.

I've never found oaths within magical rite valuable when they included 
compromise, at least not in the sense of constraining me to parameters
I didn't already support through my natural understanding.  I *have*
found that the vows I have undertaken (I'd distinguish these from the
oaths by virtue of their directive character, like targets toward which
I aim), inclusive of a vow of poverty, have been transformative and
deeply instructive.  

perhaps the significance of these terms (poverty, martyrdom) is what 
gives us different relation to them.  I have learned that poverty is
not a material affair but a 'right relation to resource', and that
martyrdom is adherence to my spiritual principles despite any known
and impending dangers that seem immanent (unto injury, even death).  

 
# ...these degrees ...are meant to appeal to an externalized salvific 
# desire which is not prominent in my own constitution; yet paradoxically 
# this is a kind of progress through initiation for me, as it helps me 
# understand both myself and others.

I sense within your words a meaning I can't reconcile with your other text
about freedom of speech, Thelemic principles and character.  I don't know
what you mean by "externalized salvific desire", but I have felt what I
would associate with the phrase in your words many times (I mean this as 
a *compliment*, btw).  perhaps I projected it there or simply misunderstand
your claim.


Tim 'the Wizard' Maroney asked PCrumhorn:
#> ...looking at a religious institution and deciding that your definition 
#> of it takes precedence over the definition the leaders would like to set. 
#> What makes the leaders' ideas superior to these people's?
 
Patrick Crumhorn :
# ...'cause the rules of the club are set up in such a way that you can be 
# kicked out of it (excommunicated, denied the sacraments, put on Bad 
# Report, etc.?) for not agreeing/conforming? 

yes, they are 'superior' in terms of practical freedom during membership
(those who enforce rules are not always required to abide them themselves).


# ...nothing prohibits you from either seeking out another (or starting your 
# own) order, organization, or affinity group.  Why would you want to be a 
# member of an organization that doesn't really want you or your ideas, 
# even if they're willing to take the cash you put in the plate? 

I don't think that I would.  in terms of the cOTO, I have consistently been
told by the best sources (most central to the org) that I *was* wanted,
that even if I were a spy and out to destroy the organization I would be
treated as kindred.  the discernment would be based on action, not on
intention or character.  action met with action.  there are certain rules
surrounding the elements of the membership process itself (namely the
retainment of the privacy of the initiatory rites) which, if broken, will
endanger my standing with the organization.  

this is reasonable and only speaks to the choices made concerning the 
weakness of the organization and its character.  it makes itself 
vulnerable in a manner that requires trust.  as this trust is maintained 
so it is a testimony to the health of the org.


# ...life is way too short to spend trying to make everyone in an established 
# group conform to my particular ideas.  Confrontation for its own sake seems 
# like a supreme waste of time and energy, that could be better spent with
# issues, actions, and people who I harmonize with, rather than oppose.

while I respect your choices I would suggest that there are a number of 
possible alternative motivations that prove quite rational for others.
these range from intentionally engaging an ostensibly 'liberal' organization
in conversation while promoting even greater liberal standards, to symbolizing
a greater ideal not yet imagined by the herd.  

if the org is a strong one this can have the benefit of shifting the envelope 
of social transformation the org is catalyzing toward greater capacity, 
effectively injecting a serum of greater consciousness and freedom into a body 
that is otherwise working toward these exact goals.

if the org is weak, then one can shine out as a pristine example of the
human spirit, as has been done by a variety of martyrs throughout human
history (Ghandi, MLKing Jr. come to my mind immediately).

perhaps it is not your true will to engage this type of conflict, to take on
these issues in quite this manner.  yet for others it *is* their role, their
destiny.  different approaches and attitudes, combined with the different
qualities of character, yield the glory which is the New Society.


Tim 'the Wizard' Maroney :
# I just don't share this idea that an organization is defined by or made 
# up of formal rules. It is a set of people that I am more inclined to look 
# at by the methods of sociology and psychology than by a charter. That is, 
# I am taking a naturalistic rather than an idealistic approach. Most of 
# the rules governing the behavior of a group of people are not written 
# down; many of the rules that are written down seem to be false; and all 
# the rules are made to be broken, that is, they are bound to change over 
# time and to get less than a 100% agreement from all the people affected 
# by them at any given time.

this seems a perspective more in conformity with anarchism and Satanism 
than with socialism and Islam. ;>


# ...[the people of the RCChurch] come for what they want and ignore the 
# silly and ever-changing doctrinal demands.

# ...Everyone I know sometimes violates supposed rules of the 
# workplace....  Sometimes the rules contradict themselves. Often they 
# weren't set up to apply to the current situation, or would impose 
# enormous costs to follow rather than bypass, or were put in just to make 
# the insurance company happy. No one really respects the rules....
# ...the rules are just something that someone wrote down. Written policy 
# is good but it's not gospel. (Neither is gospel!)

interestingly enough the New Testament says something similar.  shifting
from the set of codified laws to be found in what Christians have called
the Old Testament, the new contract with the divine centers around how
behaviors function within any given culture or group (church).  where it
serves the whole the rules are kept, where it becomes an obstacle the
rules (indeed any behaviors) are left behind.

unless backed by an authoritarian tyrant, a 'rule' is just a statement
of guidance that may be attended by cognizant consequence.  first it must
be established that the rule is broken (requiring an interest in some form
of maintenance), and second there must be sufficient will behind its
instatement that its consequence may be brought to bear.  beyond this 
we must call it a 'convention' or 'custom' regardless how it is commonly 
characterized.

some 'laws' are allowed a range of enforcement this way (as in Denmark,
apparently, where sexual services and some psychoactives are illegal
and yet these are 'permitted' within certain limitations).  'rules' are
sometimes selectively enforced this way also, often on the whim of those
in power or in protection of individual rights.  quite often these
disparities of overt restriction and covert liberality are used to
coerce the herd into conformity with corporate or political behaviors
or to serve some other interests of a reigning elite.


rose.dawn@ouroboros.org (Rose Dawn):
# ...Isn't starting with the material one *agrees* with & searching
# for other interpretations one of the "basics?" 

not necessarily.  context and practical application seem to have some
importance, as you say.  discerning the *intent* of a communication is 
sometimes more important than trying to interpret what we'd *like* it 
to mean.


# ...if something I disagreed with was said during an initiation, or some 
# other ritual, I wouldn't halt the ritual to pose a challenge, *unless* 
# it was something so personally important to me that I felt I couldn't 
# continue with the ritual. Even that's something I *hope* I'd have the 
# guts to do, but can't state positively that I absolutely *would*. I also 
# realize that for me, the energy, ambience, mood, of *any* ritual is 
# something I get caught up in at the time. In that case, I figure 
# bringing the matter up at the ritual's conclusion, and discussing it 
# with whomever else was present, would be my preferred response. 

this is fine as long as that which we let pass does not require our
overt assent.  I agree strongly that rituals can 'catch one up'.  this is
also my experience, and I am therefore very careful about what rituals I
engage where the director of its energies is not myself or a group of
people I know.  sometimes when I *know* the people it becomes even
more difficult if I have concerns about how they will perceive me, whether
they will understand what I'm doing, reject me, etc.  peer pressure comes
to bear in the seriousness with which many rituals are suffused.  this can
have horrible consequences if the group or individual directing it is so
thoroughly ignorant of the rite's content that they don't understand its
potentially disabling effect.  

again, alot depends on how deeply rites affect one's psyche.  sensitivity 
and vulnerability are sometimes very important states to bring to religious 
and mystery rites.  such states of consciousness can yield tremendous 
results in the right circumstances, where insensitivity and guardedness 
can short-circuit important opportunities for growth and discipline.


# ...The reason I keep init-ritual info confidential is partly because 
# I agree that it's more effective if one hasn't read the script, 

this is why I do so.


# and largely simply because I said I would do so....

whereas I did not say I would do so.  what some interpret as 'oaths of
secrecy' others may understand to be specifications on the limitations
of knowledge and certainty.


# ...I suspect that I *would* discontinue the ritual if something I 
# couldn't reconcile was brought forth as something I had to
# swear to. 

this is the true test, both of the initiate and of the initiators.


# ..."I heard it, don't like it, but derive benefits from much of the rest,
# so the fact that I disagree with parts of the system is less important
# to me than the fact that I agree with other parts & am obviously getting
# something valuable to me in return, or else I wouldn't be here?" Do you
# feel this is a form of repression? 

that depends entirely on what 'I disagree' means and to what 'parts'
they are referring.  if a person agrees that they have accepted an oath
of secrecy and later says that they 'no longer agree with it', then I
think they are repressing their fundamental disagreement with the org
which they have joined and might do best to reconcile through confession,
argumentation, and, if necessary, withdrawal from membership.  I'd call
it 'hypocrisy' rather than 'repression' unless the individual wasn't
really aware of their inconsistency.


# ...I feel that this reasoning is a lot more common among Thelemites 
# than simply deciding to ignore, or deliberately repressing, the 
# conflicting stuff. 

I'd call 'deliberate repression' DECEPTION and consider those who engaged
it a hazard to the organization.  it is very like those who, previous to
my initiations, would wish to speak of the contents of the rites with me, 
making mention of 'things to come' DESPITE their stated interpretation of 
the oaths of these initiations to include oaths of secrecy about these 
very materials.  

it was precisely this duplicity which concretized my opposition to secrecy
per se (the matter having become very clear to me in my youth when deception
on behalf of self-preservation and clique-establishment served to disrupt
so much honest and sincere interaction).  Crowley's support for freedom and
expression regarding the intimate matters of his life and his process of
mysticism inspired me to ignore this aspect of the cOTO (one which I think
it may outgrow during my lifetime).


# ...I wouldn't off the bartender who tells me they don't
# have any Courvoisier, on the grounds that I have the right to drink as I
# will! 

that is not prevention, it is a failure to serve.  it is one who actively
restrains, impedes my true will, that will suffer the Final Penalty.


# I have never *sworn* to anything I felt was beyond me or against my
# nature or present ethical system....

that is an admirable statement.  I have done so when I was young and later
regretted the act, but this was as I was learning the value in discernment
between inner truth and outer word.  I suspect you were specifically referring
to your cOTO initiation rites, and here I agree with you.  

the greatest hazard I can find with initiation rites, however, is when one 
is not allowed time to think about what one is saying prior to agreement.  
materials recited while being asked to trust the initiators as they request 
one "repeat after me" in brief three-to-four word fragments, for example, 
cannot possibly be considered beforehand (unless previewed) but must become 
either a supreme test of either thinking on one's feet and knowing when to 
intervene with the rite before one is compromised or a trust that the 
mythologized context and character of the initiators will protect one's
interests.

free love, right now!
__________________________________________________________________________
nigris (333) -- tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com -- http://www.hollyfeld.org/~tyagi/
-- 
(emailed replies may be posted); http://www.hollyfeld.org/~tyagi; 408/2-666-SLUG
  join the esoteric syncretism in alt.magick.tyagi; http://www.abyss.com/tokus