One day we decided that there wouldn't be any more space for the concept of ‘competition' or ‘dispute' in our Site. Let's see, then, some ‘good reasons' for contrasting any impulse of belligerence.
The first good reason is extended from a principle:
‘When, among initiates, there is an exchange of fixed, and therefore unchangeable, principles, there cannot be a dispute, but only edification of ideas, where each initiate brings his own stone, sensitive and perceptive, angled by his own intellectual abilities. This building is the Temple , symbol of the search for knowledge and truth, which is the philosophical Abode of every initiate.'
Verbal controversies are anything but ‘edifying'. The ‘ Disputationes ' originated in the ancient University of Sorbonne, in France, with the fashion of dialectic exercise, where the victory was awarded for the polemic dissolution of the adversary, rather than for the deep conviction of the assembly.
But ‘dialectic contests' were opposed by great orators such as Saint Bernard of Clairvaux , founder and compiler of the Templar Rule .
On several occasions, Bernard was able to fix with oratory ability the schisms between opposing popes of the Church of Rome; he had the custom of calling ‘ flatus vocis ' the inconsistency of the discursive practice, the ‘ Disputationes ', indeed.
In actual fact, dialecticians were and still are only polemicists, repetitive notionists, at best sophists, unable to equal only with verbosity the criteria of true intellectualism.
A historical icon of polemics was Pico della Mirandola . The young prince Pico della Mirandola was a courtier protected by Lorenzo the Magnificent, ruler of Florence; he went to test his talent with the rhetoricians of the Sorbonne, where he became another champion of ‘ Disputationes '.
Fortified by his preparation as a polemist, Pico della Mirandola chose to venture against the many contradictions of the principles of the Roman Church, proposing to the Congregation of Faith (see Holy Office or Holy Inquisition) ninety-nine ‘ Disputationes ' (which, if I remember correctly, ended up becoming one hundred and three), which cost him a sentence to the stake. He only avoided it by fleeing to France , thanks to the good influence of the Ruler of Florence, who always protected him. This sentence, though, remained hanging over his head, even when Mirandola, exemplary in his incoherence, despite his acute dissertations on the contradictions of the Church, asked to become a monk and when he died, after two weeks of agony, because of a poison administered to him through his skin.
For many reasons, not last the bellicosity which is always a very bad companion, disputes are not considered as a true intellectual activity. Rather, they are more suitable to people who practice propaganda, such as political or religious; or for those attracted by ideologies.
Whoever feels attracted by the search for knowledge, especially the search for truthful conclusions, avoids ‘much talking' and prefers ‘much thinking', which is a much more suitable activity for an Initiate.
And with this we get to popular traditions and One Tradition.
There has always been a lot of talk about Tradition, with people trying to bring grist to their own mill, i.e. to the Order or organization or association that considers itself the only depositary of the ‘truth'.
On the other hand, the idea that I have matured is another: no initiatory organization is the only depositary of the truth. This is what I tried to demonstrate in the series of articles: The Lost Sacralization (see: Part 1 , Part 2 , Part 3 , Part 4 , Part 5 and Part 6 ). Here I try and illustrate how the uniqueness of the initiatory Principle has been shattered and divided into two branches, a Mysteric and a Mystic one. There is not much use in owning a key, if you are missing the other.
The initiatory principle must be re-joined in order to be re-activated, lighting the conscience of the Initiate, as it is symbolized in the Flaming Pentalpha . The re-joining of the two handles of the circle reveals the Initiate. All the rest is useless ostentation of verbosity.
A rule says:
a) The answer is at the center of the ‘well structured' question; therefore it must be found in the center (depth) of a latent reality.
b) Each argument is never exhaustive by itself; indeed, because of the eternal connection ‘of the part with the whole', unveiled by the analogy, every well put reasoning is liable to development, whose limits are only those given by the relativity of the thinker.
In this case, the ‘brick' that I would like to add to the construction is: Logic and intuition are the masculine and feminine aspects of the mind.
I think that whoever wishes to venture in the ‘new', must be able to abandon first, at least for some time, the ‘certainties' kept in the concrete mind (reason) and let himself be guided by the ability of intuition. He must know, though, how to distinguish between intuition (creative aspect of the intellect) and instinct (ability to survive).
From this first concept we can deduct that no innovative idea can be subjected to rational control , except in the stage that starts its planning realization. Only at this point the intuitive idea is examined by logic which, by itself, determines the procedures for its concretization. At this point, in order to set the ‘practical calendar' of realization, reason intervenes. The latter is never independent , but it should always be, although unfortunately it is not, subordinated to logic like the logic plan must always remain subordinated to the idea.
The metaphysical lightness of the idea transported by intuition , by subjective reason (reason) is perceived as an ‘uncertain form' that can, through the analysis of logic, take the shape of reasonable expectation that becomes concrete in a finite concept, word or fact.
This mental technicality (see bridge of conscience) veils another abstraction, which hermeticism formulates in the metaphor of masculine and feminine . They don't correspond, like someone believes, to the gender of the individual, but to the two mental aspects of his physical and metaphysical nature. From the marriage between physical and metaphysical nature originates the axiom of science (logic) and conscience (intuition).
The two cerebral lobes work in such a different way that in a non-advanced personality it can become a conflict , whilst in the Initiate who works on the ‘ middle path ' (another metaphor for the human psyche) their work becomes complementary . That is, the two differences sum up in a third aspect that synthesizes only its ‘advantages'.
In a short article we can only touch the subject of ‘cerebral language (input)' from which, gradually, the various psychological ‘tints' originate. We will only consider that masculine and feminine represent the two psycho-energetic pillars of the human being and the metaphor of psychic ‘tints' through which the activity of the two cerebral lobes is manifested. The right one, receptive and introflexed , supports the ‘feminine pillar' (left side) of the psycho-energetic human structure. The left lobe, analytical and extroflexed, supports the ‘masculine pillar' (right side).
From their eccentricities originate the practices of different cultural views.
For example, from the ‘masculine and extroflexed' tint originated the mysteric view of initiation later converged into the concept of scientific ‘ratio'. From the ‘feminine and introflexed' tint, on the other hand, originated the mystic view of initiation , later reduced into cults of popular devotion.
But the initiate knows that to linger on only one of the two views (mysteric and mystic) means to learn to know only half the heavens. And to recognize only the concept of half the heavens leads to the clouding of every Idea and the overshadowing of the truth, which is the third aspect that arises from the ‘comm-ùnion' of the first two.
The initiate follows the Three Pillars of the Sephirotic Tree on the Floor of the Temple , and this reminds him of the presence of a third aspect. The central pillar, which from Malkuth (the Outer Guard) goes up to Kether ( the Delta placed upon the Chair of the Worshipful Master ) is the Third Pillar, invisible because metaphysical or spiritual.
But the initiate, despite being a beginner, must be able to distinguish between reality and metaphor.
Because legend, myth and metaphor have been simple methods to communicate higher realities to minds which are not so advanced yet. Therefore we could say that they are the lesser of two evils, in comparison to the superstition and ignorance that clouded those minds.
The adept must be able to find the real dimensions of the meanings ‘guarded' in the symbol and metaphor, returning them to their scientific and initiatory configuration.
On condition that the meaning of initiation is, as it is for us, the inner building of an intellectual dome (heaven) and perhaps a metaphysical and spiritual dome, not the mere principle of careerism that crowds the Pillars of the Temple.