Freemasonry and its shadow

[back to earth]

22 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

For me it would be a requisite to show that there is a secret inner circle before maintaining that they had secret oral traditions, so I can't really see you being able to make an argument in support of your position.

jmccr8

Its a secret argument .         

[back to earth]

29 minutes ago, No Solid Ground said:

Surely you don't believe that oral tradition died with the invention of publication ... particularly the transmission of inner / protected information and insight? 

... and I might add here , I am starting to notice that you, in some posts, have not responded to the points made from the posts that you quote, like above ,  and take one thing and turn it into something rather silly and then ask  about that one turned silly thing . 

Indicating a down turn or diversion in the discussion progression.

[back to earth]

25 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

LOL Your post appeared under No Solid Ground's and at first I thought you were addressing it to him. I was thinking, WTF? Now I see you're replyubg to my post in which I was hoping to avoid such stern punishment.

I remember the hot tub photo from the recently closed "Psychic Evidence" thread. It was highly disturbing there and only a little better here because it's smaller. But if you're now saying I must be punished by being squeezed into that hot tub, I immediately and humbly surrender.

Just as well you backed down buddy ... that punishment is followed by drinking the hot tub draught  !      (ie, the water left in the bottom -  it wont be much, due to 'displacement '       ) 

 

[Dhurfjooydig]

10 minutes ago, back to earth said:

Its a secret argument .         

It's a meta discussion. We're nowhere near argument yet.  

Edited May 8, 2017 by No Solid Ground

[back to earth]

18 minutes ago, No Solid Ground said:

This certainly wouldn't be inconceivable. As I posted earlier, secret societies strategically obfuscate, deceive, manipulate, and manage public perception of themselves. Publically proclaiming that only preformulated information is allowed / passed along (to low level initiates) is the perfect way to smokescreen private oral transmission of inner information among the ruling class initiates. Sort of like how neoliberal politicians perception manage the general public.

Its obscure whether you are talking about masonry or other groups in general , you seem to be  switching .

[back to earth]

It's a meta discussion. We're nowhere near argument yet.  

 

That was to J , he claimed argument .    

Thats meta   ^

Edited May 8, 2017 by back to earth

[Dhurfjooydig]

8 minutes ago, back to earth said:

... and I might add here , I am starting to notice that you, in some posts, have not responded to the points made from the posts that you quote, like above ,  and take one thing and turn it into something rather silly and then ask  about that one turned silly thing . 

Indicating a down turn or diversion in the discussion progression.

It indicates only that I'm using my phone for this discussion and am practicing an economy of words applied to the essential comments only. Pain in the katush typing on a phone.

[Dhurfjooydig]

46 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

For me it would be a requisite to show that there is a secret inner circle before maintaining that they had secret oral traditions, so I can't really see you being able to make an argument in support of your position.

jmccr8

It seems to me that determining if there is an inner circle would come after determining if there is a possibility that there might be an inner circle / why an inner circle might exist. 

[Dhurfjooydig]

1 hour ago, back to earth said:

I was referring to the fact that you have already dismissed comments from posters who are professional in their fields and have published books on the subjects that you seem to have limited views on.     Consider it a 'heads up ' for any further advice they may give you ... if they can now be bothered , or they may  have decided to simply ignore this all now due to previous statements .

Who did I dismiss ... who gave me advice? 

I haven't replied to all the many points in all your lengthy and sometimes winding posts that from time to time dart off in seemingly unrelated or tangential directions ... but I don't see that I dismissed anyone or ignored anyone's advice. Names? Post #?

[jmccr8]

20 minutes ago, No Solid Ground said:

It seems to me that determining if there is an inner circle would come after determining if there is a possibility that there might be an inner circle / why an inner circle might exist. 

Then the onus to show that you believe that is in your court otherwise there is nothing to discuss. One cannot have a secret oral tradition without first having a group that maintains it. So before you can aver that there is an oral tradition it is imperative to show who what and why you believe that there is a member group that exists covertly within another group. Until you have demonstrated the existence of the group having the oral tradition is meaningless.

jmccr8

[jmccr8]

4 minutes ago, No Solid Ground said:

Who did I dismiss ... who gave me advice? 

I haven't replied to all the many points in all your lengthy and sometimes winding posts that from time to time dart off in seemingly unrelated or tangential directions ... but I don't see that I dismissed anyone or ignored anyone's advice. Names? Post #?

Kenement for one

jmccr8

[Dhurfjooydig]

Just now, jmccr8 said:

Then the onus to show that you believe that is in your court otherwise there is nothing to discuss. One cannot have a secret oral tradition without first having a group that maintains it. So before you can aver that there is an oral tradition it is imperative to show who what and why you believe that there is a member group that exists covertly within another group. Until you have demonstrated the existence of the group having the oral tradition is meaningless.

jmccr8

Or I can postulate why there might be a secret oral tradition before looking for evidence of it. I'll then have a better idea what I'm looking for as I'm looking. 

[jmccr8]

3 minutes ago, No Solid Ground said:

Or I can postulate why there might be a secret oral tradition before looking for evidence of it. I'll then have a better idea what I'm looking for as I'm looking. 

And this tradition is self maintaining without membership?

jmccr8

[Dhurfjooydig]

6 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Kenement for one

jmccr8

Kenement's first post is a reply to a quoted Mr. Box post ... and his second post, immediately following the first, is addressed to no one in particular, and appears to be a follow up to his first post to Mr. Box. 

[jaylemurph]

5 hours ago, back to earth said:

Was that a quote from Ambrose Bierce  ?  Sound s abit like him. 

It is! It's from his Devil's Dictionary.

--Jaylemurph

[jmccr8]

Just now, No Solid Ground said:

Kenement's first post is a reply to a quoted Mr. Box post ... and his second post, immediately following the first, is addressed to no one in particular, and appears to be a follow up to his first post to Mr. Box. 

I see so it isn'the relative to the discussion is that it, I would think that even if directed to a specific poster that proposed a similar position as yours that it would still be relevant to what you are maintaining.

jmccr8

[Dhurfjooydig]

4 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

And this tradition is self maintaining without membership?

jmccr8

I didn't suggest that and don't understand how you arrived at the question. What does it have to do with postulating the possibility of a  secret oral tradition before looking for evidence of it?

[jaylemurph]

6 hours ago, No Solid Ground said:

First, to clarify, there is oral tradition and there is oral tradition used within secret societies ... by "mystery knowledge" I assume you're referring to its use by secret societies ... hence, your query cannot be answered by virtue of the fact that what is being preserved and passed on in secret societies is, well ... secret.

Re: your assertion about the human mind ... it certainly isn't the way the modern mind and society works, but ancient people depended on oral tradition for, among other things, survival ... and their oral traditions in some cases extended back thousands of years, even into the mists of time. Most of our oldest extant literature—The Iliad and The Odyssey, Beowulf, the Psalms, the pre-Islamic Muallaqat, the Edda, the Kalevala— derives from much older oral recitation, whose roots wind much deeper into the past than we imagine. For example, the (now printed) Authenticity of Open Awareness (from ancient northwestern Tibet) derives from an oral tradition thought to extend back 18,000 years by the tradition that preserves it.  The ancient oral roots of the gathas (songs) found in the Vendidad section of the Iranian Avesta may date to as early as 6000 BCE (according to Plutarch) and possibly much older. 

There are those who doubt that such large texts could have ever been memorized repeatedly and passed along for many thousands of years intact, yet even today in Somalia, which has been largely sheltered from modern technology, a large proportion of children memorizes the entire Qurʾan, and poets remain the carriers of information, reciting poems that are days in the telling. The Mwindo Epic of Congo, which is much longer than The Odyssey, is still recited by bards in special ceremonies. When Daniel Biebuyck first recorded it in the late sixties, it took three weeks of eight-hour-a-day sessions to complete the telling. In Europe, songs and stories were kept alive by wandering troubadours, who used instruments such as the lute and balalaika to accompany their songs. Troubadours were often political commentators as well as carriers of ancient history, and thus were viewed as threatening to the ruling classes. Stalin, in one of his least-documented but most horrendous massacres, liquidated the last of the troubadour class of kobzar in the mid-1930s, thus destroying a large segment of Ukrainian history. 

 

That's an awful circumlocution for a simple "no." I'm not asking can people remember a lot. I'm asking a very specific question about transmission fidelity of esoteric knowledge that this answer in no way addresses. I mean, in what way can you confirm any information/text handed down from an alleged 18,000 (!) years ago has any relationship to the original source material? 

You as much as admit here with your examples, that as "secret" knowledge you don't have access to it to check its fidelity, so you cannot prove that part of your allegation. It seem to me your latent premise is: secret knowledge is somehow totally different from mundane knowledge and has some manner of being perfectly stored and transmitted. I'm not sure how you'd make the distinction between to the two types of alleged information, but if you could separate the two kinds of knowledge, that would invalidate any comparison of the two. If one is an apple and one is an orange, then you can't compare the two as if they were both apples (or oranges).

So you can't make your point by comparison, you can't (don't/haven't/won't) provide a manner of divvying up these two kinds of knowledge your theory requires, and --and! -- the only way it's possible defies what we understand of information theory and human culture. That's hardly compelling.

--Jaylemurph

Edited May 8, 2017 by jaylemurph

[Dhurfjooydig]

Just now, jmccr8 said:

I see so it isn'the relative to the discussion is that it, I would think that even if directed to a specific poster that proposed a similar position as yours that it would still be relevant to what you are maintaining.

jmccr8

The post wasn't addressed to me ... and his comment about Hiram is unrelated to the point I've been making ... that is, whether their public history is historically accurate or not is irrelevant to the far more interesting question of whether they might have had a secret oral transmission tradition.

As an aside, I would expect that any secret society's public history would be a fabrication. 

[jmccr8]

9 minutes ago, No Solid Ground said:

The post wasn't addressed to me ... and his comment about Hiram is unrelated to the point I've been making ... that is, whether their public history is historically accurate or not is irrelevant to the far more interesting question of whether they might have had a secret oral transmission tradition.

As an aside, I would expect that any secret society's public history would be a fabrication. 

Well color me crazy, because this is a discussion forum the posts of members are relevant as they are part of a continuity and are of value but then that is just the way I interact here not saying that everyone should for the benefit of clarity.

By the way Kenemet is a lady and did state that she was a Rainbow girl so reading other people's post eliminates certain misconceptions.

jmccr8

 

[Dhurfjooydig]

49 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Well color me crazy, because this is a discussion forum the posts of members are relevant as they are part of a continuity and are of value but then that is just the way I interact here not saying that everyone should for the benefit of clarity.

By the way Kenemet is a lady and did state that she was a Rainbow girl so reading other people's post eliminates certain misconceptions.

jmccr8

 

I agree to a point ... but as I stated, her two posts were directed to Mr. Box, and her comment wasn't relevant to the theme / points I was discussing. It would have been weird to jump in there. 

Edited May 8, 2017 by No Solid Ground

[jmccr8]

3 minutes ago, No Solid Ground said:

I agree to a point ... but as I stated, her two posts were directed to Mr. Box, and her comment wasn't relevant to the theme I was discussing. It would have been weird to jump in there. 

I didn't suggest that you needed to jump in only to take into consideration what she provided as an informed poster with practical knowledge. As well both of you are proposing hidden agendas by an organization maybe not the same in context  but still delving into conspiratory aspects of an organization none the less so still relevant  to your position.

jmccr8

Edited May 8, 2017 by jmccr8
extending comment

[back to earth]

2 hours ago, No Solid Ground said:

It indicates only that I'm using my phone for this discussion and am practicing an economy of words applied to the essential comments only. Pain in the katush typing on a phone.

I keep hearing about all these probs peeps having  ....   " How did you post that picture ?"      etc . 

I dont have one of them there   'smart phones'     ..... also, I got no 'lectricity .     Do have a cheap lappy and a solar panel .....   and   'Old Doris '   here  . 

 

 

Since she been out I aint had no more trouble with them 'crop circles' . 

[back to earth]

1 hour ago, jaylemurph said:

It is! It's from his Devil's Dictionary.

--Jaylemurph

Of course !    I knew you would like Ambrose    

 

DOG, n. A kind of additional or subsidiary Deity designed to catch the overflow and surplus of the world's worship. This Divine Being in some of his smaller and silkier incarnations takes, in the affection of Woman, the place to which there is no human male aspirant. The Dog is a survival—an anachronism. He toils not, neither does he spin, yet Solomon in all his glory never lay upon a door-mat all day long, sun-soaked and fly-fed and fat, while his master worked for the means wherewith to purchase the idle wag of the Solomonic tail, seasoned with a look of tolerant recognition.

 

   

[Dhurfjooydig]

1 hour ago, jaylemurph said:

It seem to me your latent premise is: secret knowledge is somehow totally different from mundane knowledge and has some manner of being perfectly stored and transmitted

Yes ... (not very latent). It can be ... or it can be different yet compatible. 

For example, an ancient 'myth' may have been strategically constructed for easy comprehension by the common masses, with mnemonic structure and strong imagery ... and it may have included or been a part of a moral / social code that was designed to control behavior, cultivate household order, and manage society ... mundane concerns. Simultaneously, this same myth may have been multi-layered ... someone trained in the tradition (a member of the educated ruling class) would be privy to information / data that was allegorically or symbolically encoded into it. This deeper reading would be consistent and unified with the simple face value narrative and the obvious social / moral message, but would serve a different purpose to those who are trained at the highest level of the tradition or organization. The coded elements can be thought of as perceptual JavaScript rollover drawers that contain data, meaning, and references not available to the untrained reader ... or as perceptual programmer notes buried in a related piece of source code segment.

In other cases, inner information simply was never discussed with the public, the uninitiated, and lower initiates ... not unlike modern corporation's intel and perception management protocols.

Edited May 8, 2017 by No Solid Ground