Transparency or Secrecy, is it an either/or question?
Esoteric organizations face a daunting task in the future due to the changes in society. As societal norms change, individual expectations of organizations and the individuals in the organization change. This means that members, potential members and non-members alike will look at an organization and expect it to operate in a socially known way
( Read more... )
The actual point of my saying these things is with the qualifiers, like "I believe" and "seems". I would LOVE to be wrong. I deeply hope that my perceptions are way off, because I am a big cheerleader of OTO and especially our Lodge. But I can say this: people I know and respect sometimes seem to get the shaft based on capricious decisions by people who have no real accountability for their actions.
In such a state, people in the lower echelons (ie. the MoE) tend to feel powerless in the face of a seemingly arbitrary and inpenetrable system. One thing that is required for group cohesion is a reasonable sense of control within their environment. True, people have control of their own individual actions, but that is not an issue with group cohesion. The key is having a measure of control over group operations. Of course, we are a hierarchical and top-down organization. But in the face of that, I think we need MORE transparency than other groups that are structured in a more egalitarian organization. I sincerely hope we see a movement in this direction, for the good of the Order.
Reply
Reply
Being just a little above MOE level, I am sorry to say I see nothing encouraging on the horizon. I think your observation about the organization run on an ad hoc basis is very valid. The inconsistency of justice within the order is a prime example. One member order member violates a policy or rule and be minimally reprimanded whereas another could be expelled. Also when officers make decisions, there is no guarantee that the leadership will stand behind them. For instance, let’s assume I am a bodymaster and an out of town visitor acts inappropriately at an event and I expel them from the event. Later it comes to light that the visitor was a friend of a SGIG or the acting OHO or the GMG. All of a sudden a Grand Lodge is coming down on me for what I did when it was actually the right thing to do. Don’t think things like this do not happen, I know multiple instances where it has.
This kind of behavior does not encourage principled based leadership. Occasionally the officer is willing to go head on against the higher degree officer, but few are knowing that the order will not back them ultimately. Until the top down leadership clearly states principles to operate on, operates in a transparent manner to model the principle based leadership, people will continue to, as you say, get the shaft.
To me, that is not a good organization to cheerlead for, but we all have to make those kinds of decisions personally. I sincerely hope that changes though. Only time will tell.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Let me give you an example of what I mean. Let’s say the leader says we should paint the house red. The yes men may disagree about the shade of red but not the color in general. One wants a more pinkish color, another suggests a maroon. No one says “Red, are you crazy! Any shade of red is flat out wrong! ” So is there disagreement? Yes, but is the direction really changed or serious alternatives suggested, no. Those who are in the positions to cause change were put into those positions because they are safe and will not push change. Where are the revolutionaries? Look at Keith, he consistently challenged the leadership. Until people are advanced based on their capabilities and not because they are safe, then we can have serious discussion. Until then, it is just differences over the shade of red.
Reply
• what "red" is,
• what materials to use,
• what techniques to apply,
• who gets what precise tasks,
• how we train people or what skills we teach,
• how to correct people who screw up,
• any clear definition of quality,
• any guidelines to tell them when the job is done,
• what the benefits of helping paint are (see my recent post)
• or even any precise reason as to why we are painting in the first place.
Sure, there will be a lot of talk about how important it is to paint the house, and lodges will even conduct classes about the deeper meanings of the color red and the noble value of painting. But without all the rest, it's just going to be a mess. That's where we are now, I think.
The argument isn't about the color red. It's about how we do the job. If people in charge are using fish to paint with, then there needs to be a method for even a Minerval to say, "let me introduce you to a brush" and to also have a reasonable expectation that they might be listened to.
Reply
Personally, I have found that being initiated into the middle degrees tends to make boat rockers of many who would have never thought of it before. I think something happens in the course of the initiation where the initiate sees that the Order is just as much of an arbitrary construct as anything else, and that it's leadership is composed of flawed people who make unwise choices of how to use their authority (which only exists so long as others are willing to play along), who will often practice favoritism instead of justice, who will embarass themselves and the rest of us. There's a fine tradition of that going back to Mr. Aleister Crowley.
That does not excuse it, nor answer the criticism that the Order is often run on convenience, not principle. Which brings me full circle. I would have quit the OTO a couple of years ago out of frustration about these same issues, but I decided that to quit would be to choose the convenient way, not the principled way. For I have made Solemn bonds with this Order which cannot be broken while I live (and I suspect beyond). I will not be forsworn.
Secure in that principle, I'll speak up whenever I think necessary and reach out to those who share my point of view. Often we may not agree on any number of particulars, but we'll agree in principle. That should be a firm foundation for our straight walking with each other.
Reply
Now I know the first thing people will think is “AC wrote all this out.” Yes and no. AC wrote a lot and much of it is valid. But what he wrote is a large selection of prose. What I mean is a simple list of principles codified and clearly stated. When I was in Taiwan, Fo Guang Shan had large posters across from the meal hall that simply said “Our principles.” On it were about 15 principles listed in Chinese and English with a one sentence description. It was very clear regarding what they stood for. Whenever a situation came up and discussion ensued, the monastics would often refer to their principles and say things like “we can’t do that because it is against this principle.” They all knew the list, they knew the meaning and there was a consensus that the sated principles where what they operated on and what the expectations about those principles were. The OTO does not have that.
Another example is boy scouts; the scout creed (I think it is called the creed) is 12 principles. I have been out of scouting for 14 years but I can tell you a scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent. These were the principles a scout was judged on. A clear set of principles, accepted and codified. We currently lack this clear, succinct statement. If we had it, it could be the basis we judge actions by and could be the basis we set standards on. We are not there yet.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Absolutly, and brother, actions speak louder than words...
Reply
Leave a comment