The Message And Its Messenger
Can the two be separated? Should they?
Over the past few days I’ve been thinking quite a lot about messages and messengers. Specifically, I suppose, along the lines of:
Does the messenger always color our perception of the message?
As Freemasons we don’t discuss politics in Lodge, and I don’t want to do so here, but as an example that every Freemason anywhere should be able to recognize:
If Barack Obama and Donald Trump were to say the exact same thing, using the exact same words, would we perceive the statement differently based upon which man said it?
Moving from theory to reality, and choosing the most extreme example I can think of in order to encourage discussion, I want to illustrate my question with Aleister Crowley, the Book of the Law, and Thelema.
It is my view that Aleister Crowley was a very interesting guy. A very smart guy in some ways. A really not smart guy in other ways. A super accomplished guy in some areas. A failure in other areas. Overall, not a good person. But certainly a fascinating person. That’s my view of the guy. But I know other Masons who have views of him different from my own. I know Masons who believe that he was truly and fundamentally evil. I know other Masons who hold him in high admiration. I guess I’m in the murky middle somewhere, I take the good and recognize the bad.
But he came up with (I’m not going to say wrote, and I don’t think he would claim to have written) a book.
The Book of the Law, or Liber AL vel Legis
As I understand it, Crowley claimed that over a period of three days, he was visited three times by a supernatural entity who dictated the book to him in three chapters. It is considered, again as I understand it, to be the primary holy book of those who pursue Thelema in a religious context or form.
I have no way of knowing how he came up with the book, and neither does anyone else. Was he visited by a supernatural entity as he believed? Was that entity of the light or darkness? Was it a figment of his imagination? Was it fueled by the use of drugs? A break from rationality? Something else? We have no way of knowing.
But it stands apart.
In his view, he did not write it. The words were dictated to him, he simply served as a scribe.
It seems to me that one is a Thelemite (no matter if one sees Thelema as a religion, philosophy, system, or &c.) if one accepts the Book of the Law and its tenets, probably most specifically:
I-40: Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
I-57: Love is the law, love under will.
I-3: Every man and every woman is a star.
But Crowley was a writer.
An extremely prolific writer.
He wrote mountains of material, some about the Book of the Law, much more about other subjects, including a great deal about topics considered a part of the occult, and from those writings he created or further developed three orders. The A:.A:., an educational order; the OTO, a fraternal order; and the EGC, a religious order. But all three of those organizations are based on his own writings, some deriving from the Book of the Law, some exploring concepts and ideas that to my knowledge are nowhere to be found within it.
But if one reads the writings of Thelemites, it becomes quickly evident that a great many believe there to be no separation between the Book of the Law and many of his other writings. That instructions or suggestions in his other writings are just as important to the practice or observance of Thelema as those things contained within the Book of the Law.
There is clearly, at least for some, no separation. And I have to wonder, should there be? Can one accept the Book of the Law while disregarding all else Crowley wrote? Indeed Crowley himself?
And of course there is a much broader picture.
Looking at things from the outside, the question becomes:
Can we accept a fundamentally moral message, if it comes to us from someone whom we believe to be immoral?
I can accept the three tenets listed above. Taken together I find them correct and moral. I do not find in them an encouragement towards licentiousness, in fact I find the opposite. I can also accept the Book of the Law as an allegorical text striving to explain the unexplainable, in just the same way as I see similarly situated texts as allegorical.
But can I accept that knowing that it came to us from or through Crowley, with all his myriad of failings? Can we? Should we?
And if we can not, at what level of perfection do we demand those delivering us a message of hope hold? How much badness or perceived badness is too much?
Can we separate the message from the messenger as a person, and all of the messenger’s other work?
Can we read this work for what it is, accept that which we find of value within it, and disregard all of the complexity added by the man’s other work and character?
Should we?
I don’t have the answers, today I have only questions.
Leaving Crowley and his works aside, we can bring this much closer to home.
It’s no secret that I’m a huge fan of Albert Pike. It is my view that he is the greatest and brightest Masonic thinker our Craft in America has ever produced.
But I know that other Masons view Pike with contempt. Some of them due to choices he made in the American Civil War.
So again with Pike we may have to, based on our own values and beliefs, separate the message from the messenger. Can we do so if we view his act of putting on a confederate uniform truly abhorrent? If we can, should we?
But if we can not, to what standard of perfection do we insist our Masonic leaders, writers, and thinkers hold?
I don’t know the answers. The best I can give are questions worthy of consideration.
The full text of the Book of the Law can be found here:
Cameron, this topic angers me to no end.
I’ve run across so many people, after I mention to them a good idea, they confirm it’s a good idea, but once they find out where I got the idea from, all of a sudden it’s a bad idea.
It has gotten to the point where I am reticent when someone asks me where I got an idea from, particularly when I reveal that it was someone else’s idea. As per a lesson in a York Rite degree, I do mention that I received an idea from someone else, and if I did come up with an idea on my own (like those times you wake up at 2:00 AM with that light bulb moment) then I’ll not volunteer it, but tell them the truth if asked. But there are times where people, whether it be Masonic Brothers, family members, or even business customers, will ask for where I got information, an idea, or a concept, and I know the person doesn’t see eye to eye with the person I was talking with earlier. And at times I’ll call out that person.
“Where did you hear that idea?”
“I’d tell you, but I know you’ll change your mind if I tell you…”
“Just tell me!”
“Okay, it was so-and-so.”
“You mean that butthead? He’s more full of crap than a Christmas goose! That’s a dumb idea, don’t listen to him!”
“But you just said it was a good idea a few minutes ago…”
And then the person gets really mad after that. And it shouldn’t be that way. Just because you don’t agree or like a person doesn’t mean they can’t come up with a nugget of wisdom.
This problem is WAAAAAY too common. And even further, we really need to look in the mirror to ensure that we ourselves are not part of the problem. Or to admonish our Brothers who we find making such judgements. Yet another way that Freemasonry can help our good men become better through iron sharpening iron (Proverbs 27:17).
Messages, in and of themselves, are only information. For me, the validity of a message is weighed upon the messenger. If I feel the messenger lacks integrity, I’ll look at the message more critically. It doesn’t mean the message isn’t important or that something can’t be learned. We should read books like The Book of Laws if we hope to have coherent conversations about controversial topics such as this. I’ve not read the book, and to be honest, don’t believe I’d heard of it until today. I have heard of AC and so, if I were to read it, I would do so with a critical eye, hoping to learn something or at least be able to talk about it.