The Freemasons

[victor]

CCR is a Templar now? When did that happen? And what's with all this Illuminati crap?

 

[Wooz]

Dude, didn't you hear about the Mormon Templars?

Sheesh.
They have cool powers just like the Protoss templars in Starcraft. And when a lot of them converge in one place, they amass and fusion into a greater being, a giant naked Smith with a blue halo around it, with small naked 12 year old boys rotating like electrons.

Plus, it has a magic hat from which he can pull Words of Wisdom out of God's ass. Or so he claims.

 

[Elissar]

Holy fucking shit...

 

[victor]

Sorry, I just thought CCR read the Da Vinci code and thought he paid admission to the Templar sect by buying the book. Reading that book and finding it to be good is about as retarded, so why not?

 

[John Uskglass]

Sorry, I just thought CCR read the Da Vinci code and thought he paid admission to the Templar sect by buying the book. Reading that book and finding it to be good is about as retarded, so why not?

OMG
OMG
OMG!


The DaVinci code is poison. Focault's Pendulumn by Umberto Eco is the shiznitzky.

And great post wooz.

 

[Wooz]

Damn, I was expecting outrage and Holy Rage from you.

):

 

[victor]

Yes, I too, was rather disappointed. And that avatar is really making me angry, CCR.

 

[Brother None]

Jahbulon is about as Christian as anything that has been touched by a Unitarian.

Freemasonry is essentially a pantheistic and mystical doctrine if you view it as a religion. It's a Christain Ba'hai faith or Christain Sufism, only with a lot of politics and weird science.

And I guess you are more an Illuminati person.

Illuminati, me? HAH!

How about this, I'm more the "I don't need to be part of a group to validate my selfworth as an individual"-type person.

Though I'm a member of several student unions/fraternaties/whatever. Not the expensive annoying type, though, just one for Russian stuff, one for sports and one for seminars on international politics and the like.

I fucking hate those idiots, don't say that again.

Why not? The only reason half the people who know what templars are even vaguely know that much right now is because of the Da Vinci Stupidity...uh...Code.

Untrue in every possible way. Anti-Jewishness stems much more from attempts by the Feudal classes to assert control over the banking sector, and the Burgher class in general. Both the Church and the Templars respected other faiths, and generally allowed for others to practice their religion. Need I remind you that the Templars allowed for Muslims to worship in their own way in disputed holy sites, and when they came back where persecuted for being too tolerant?

May I remind you that Tsarist Russia's most significant population after Orthodox Christians were muslims and that the tolerance of many tsars and Russians towards these muslims is well-documented. May I also remind you that anti-semitism, on the other hand, has always been significant in Russia.

In other words, tolerance of one thing doesn't mean tolerance of the other. Allowing muslims to worship on your ground doesn't equate not using some healthy anti-semitism to wipe the Jews off the market.

Hell, if the Templars didn't, they're a bunch of idiots. It's healthy economics. How the hell else could they siddle into a market satiated by Jews? Use the time-old solution; just kill 'em.

We had to change, yes.

Oh good, here's my time to note something.

John, I honestly mean no offense, but if pre-university teenagers are the standard type of Templar of the modern age, I really, *really* don't think Templars are anything ANYONE has to worry about anymore.

Seriously.

 

[welsh]

Didn't Eco write in Focault's Pendulum that if someone talks seriously about the Templars you should run away since the person is obviously insane.

(I got to reread that book).

From what I know of the Freemasons-

If you are curious about joining, they don't really recruit, but you kind of look into them. Apparently the reference rules are less applicable. Key is that you believe in a supreme being (God) and that are free and of sound mind.

Once you apply they interview you and you have to pass the interview. Then they vote you in or out. I have heard that you have to be responsible for yourself (financially independent and self-supporting) but I am not sure if that's true.

There are three intro degrees, and then you are a master mason. But then there are apparently 30 more degrees and then perhaps more- but I am not sure about that.

Different degrees involve the departing of knowledge, much of it old testatment stuff. Secrecy is kept to keep revelations interesting.

Serious masons don't think of it as a means to get jobs or to network, but from what I have heard, that's nonsense. The masons think of themsevles as a brotherhood so naturally they will look out for each other adn do business with each other.

People are talking about masons because of films like National Treasure or Kingdom of Heaven where the masons and templars figure prominently. Whatever. There is also the whole, Jesus and Mary had a kid that went to France.....

That's about all I know about the masons. Like Kharn, I'm not much of a "group-think" kind of person and some of their Christian mysticism and history seems a bit hookey to me.

More here- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry

Or you could always stop by your local Freemason lodge.

Honestly I think this all comes down to the fundamental problem of mankind- existential angst and the desire to surpass the limits of your mortality. If that kind of thing works for you.

 

[John Uskglass]

Didn't Eco write in Focault's Pendulum that if someone talks seriously about the Templars you should run away since the person is obviously insane.

I ain't serious. And the entire book deals with sanity in a typical Eco postmodern way, in that the line ain't only blurred, it ain't there.

Great book. One of my favorites. I was trying my best to do a Comte de Saint Germain impression.

 

[Brother None]

Great book my gaping behind.

Eco is typically the kind of arrogant eloquent writer that sets pseudo-intellectuals adrooling because they can expand their vocabulary with a single page from his books.

Quality writing, though? No.

Eco is shit. If I rewrote Name of the Rose without all the expensive words, it'd be a kitchen novel at best.

At. Best.

 

[John Uskglass]

I'm 17 Kharn, give me a fucking break.

And frankly that's the first time I have ever heard that about Eco. Ever. And I've read a lot of things about him and by him.

.......vocabulary? I'd think your problem with it would be that he's kind of a snoddy Nick Hornby, in that half of everything he writes is some elaborate referance to Dante, Bulgakov or some out there Italian singer.

 

[Brother None]

And frankly that's the first time I have ever heard that about Eco. Ever. And I've read a lot of things about him and by him.

No doubt, no doubt. And all of the things you've read are a part of the (semi-)intellectual circle that slobbers about Eco because reading (and comprehending) him is the ultimate proof that they can count themselves amongst the snobby elitist upperclass. Great for them, see if I care.

Disgusting, really. Don't expect him to be remembered, a hundred years from now, by anyone but a bunch of obscurists...you guessed it...snobs.

I can pull greater writers from my ass. And there ain't a lot of room up my ass. Again, think about it, subtract the vocabulary (and the references, if you will) from his "novels" (if they can be called that), and see if there's any lasting literary quality left. Since a big vocabulary isn't actually a lasting literary quality and knowing stuff about loads of important people from the world's history also isn't, his books could be a lot of things, but not literary masterpieces.

.......vocabulary? I'd think your problem with it would be that he's kind of a snoddy Nick Hornby, in that half of everything he writes is some elaborate referance to Dante, Bulgakov or some out there Italian singer.

Ah, that too, very true. But, unlike his failing and horrible writing style, I can't crticise this in the broadest sense possible. Because those reference, like standing on the shoulders of giants and all that, actually can work.

And they do, in many books.

Not with Eco, though

 

[welsh]

Kharn, you are harsh.

I admit that when I picked up Eco's books I have had trouble getting through it. They take a lot of time.

But then, what makes for good fiction? My favorite recent reads- The Quiet American by Greene, A Flag for Sunrise by Stone. I am reading horror short stories by Connolly (and enjoying it).

That said, I like what I have read from Eco (the Name of the Rose, Focault's Pendulum) for the same reasons I like Kundera (though I find he tends to crap out near the end). Interesting ideas for stories that take you someplace different and raise some good ideas. Good fiction isn't just about being entertaining, but expanding perceptions and expectations and stimulating the mind to think about new things long after the book is done.

Yes, boil out the vacubular and a lot of the intellectual babble, and you might have a kitchen read. Or a movie like National Treasure- which was crap. But doing so you'd miss half the fun. And while it may be that Eco will be forgotten in a hundred years, I think most contemporary fiction will suffer the same fate. How many penny dreadfuls of 70 years ago survive today?

 

[Brother None]

Kharn, you are harsh.

I always am when other peple laud the writer with undue praise. Same goes for Tolstoy.

I admit that when I picked up Eco's books I have had trouble getting through it. They take a lot of time.

Time and effort has little to do with the quality of the book. A book can be hard to read but brilliantly written. A book can also be hard to read because it's badly written, which is true for Eco and also for, for example, Tolkien's Silmarillion.

Less so for the Silmarillion, though.

That said, I like what I have read from Eco (the Name of the Rose, Focault's Pendulum) for the same reasons I like Kundera (though I find he tends to crap out near the end). Interesting ideas for stories that take you someplace different and raise some good ideas. Good fiction isn't just about being entertaining, but expanding perceptions and expectations and stimulating the mind to think about new things long after the book is done.

Actually, the Name of the Rose gave me roughly nothing in particular to think about. Hell, the Da Vinci Code loads you with more information than the Rose, I wouldn't call that a great book either.

The storyline is unoriginal. The ideas, also, are nothing special and hardly clung to me beyond the last page.

Yes, boil out the vacubular and a lot of the intellectual babble, and you might have a kitchen read. Or a movie like National Treasure- which was crap. But doing so you'd miss half the fun. And while it may be that Eco will be forgotten in a hundred years, I think most contemporary fiction will suffer the same fate. How many penny dreadfuls of 70 years ago survive today?

The problem is that everyone knew the penny dreadfuls were penny dreadfuls.

Whereas Eco remains floating on the bubble of intellectual arrogance.

Which ires me.

 

[John Uskglass]

I'm somewhat surprised by the hostility Kharn. You seem to almost hate Eco.

However, I have to say, even if I *do* understand where you are coming from (I do, and I've probably read more Eco then you), that some of it is unwarranted. He might not be the best author alive, or in your opinion a vastly overrated author, but I don't think it is fair to call anyone who likes Eco 'psedointellectuals' or that his massive vocabulary simply helps people intellectually jerk off. A lot of his work is inventive and unique (Baudolino being my favorite, as it is probably the least pretentious, has the best developed characters and it's somewhat zany), even if in your opinion that is not a good thing.

And, to be honest, I'm a psedointellectual in that I am not an intellectual yet want to be one, so I don't really think that even if Eco is for psedointellectuals that it is wrong for *me* to like his writing.

 

[Brother None]

I'm somewhat surprised by the hostility Kharn. You seem to almost hate Eco.

Hate? No. I don't waste energy hating people.

He ires me, though. His status as the baby snob genius of the 20th century is as annoying as the fact that Tolstoy is considered the greatest Russian novelist of all times because that's what the frikkin' communists thought.

(I do, and I've probably read more Eco then you)

I would hope so.

He might not be the best author alive, or in your opinion a vastly overrated author

The fact that he's overrated is what ires me about him. If he wasn't so vastly praised by...ahm...certain people I'd hardly waste energy on dragging him through the mud.

Besides which, I always think it's somewhat silly to praise non-prolific writers into high heavens. Dead Souls might be vastly greater than War and Peace, but that does not make Nikolaj Gogol' a better writer than Lev Tolstoj.

ut I don't think it is fair to call anyone who likes Eco 'psedointellectuals' or that his massive vocabulary simply helps people intellectually jerk off.

Fair? No. But for a large part it's true. His popularity, the fact that you even know who he is, stems from the fact that his books are basically brain-porn.

A lot of his work is inventive and unique (Baudolino being my favorite, as it is probably the least pretentious, has the best developed characters and it's somewhat zany), even if in your opinion that is not a good thing.

Never read Baudolino.

I never criticised his inventiveness or uniqueness. I criticised his ability to float on intellectual arrogance and his shoddy, low-quality writing style/talent.

Though I'm curious as to what should be considered inventive or unique in a book such as Name of the Rose. I see nothing unique in it, save one of the most boring descriptions of sex I have ever seen.

And, to be honest, I'm a psedointellectual in that I am not an intellectual yet want to be one, so I don't really think that even if Eco is for psedointellectuals that it is wrong for *me* to like his writing.

Protointellectual would be a better term for you, then.

Intellectual is an arbitrary, Renaissance term anyway. I'm not a big fan of it, not in a modern-day setting when the last Homo Universalis has been long-buried and such labels have become useless to determine one's qualities as a human being.

 

[Montez]

He ires me, though. His status as the baby snob genius of the 20th century is as annoying as the fact that Tolstoy is considered the greatest Russian novelist of all times because that's what the frikkin' communists thought.

If it soothes you any, I am (or used to be at least) a pretty big literature snob and I've never heard Eco mentioned as anything other than a mystery writer (I think mystery at least, been a long time and I've never read anything by him) - not a genius or a "must read", just another name in a pretty big pile of authors. I don't think he's really highly regarded by anyone who takes literature seriously.

And just out of curiosity, don't most people consider Dostoevsky the greatest russian novelist of all time?

 

[Brother None]

If it soothes you any, I am (or used to be at least) a pretty big literature snob and I've never heard Eco mentioned as anything other than a mystery writer (I think mystery at least, been a long time and I've never read anything by him) - not a genius or a "must read", just another name in a pretty big pile of authors. I don't think he's really highly regarded by anyone who takes literature seriously.

Maybe in the States this is so. He's considered a great writer in Europe. Must be 'cause he's European. Judging by the literary list, literature is yet another thing in which the US has a knack for staying inside its own borders and pretend the rest doesn't exist.

And just out of curiosity, don't most people consider Dostoevsky the greatest russian novelist of all time?

If only 't were so, but no. The European literary tradition has a pretty strong anti-Dostoevskij sentiment. He's one of the Great Troika of Tolstoj, Dostoevskij and Turgenev, but those three are usually counted in that order,

Like I said, it's related to the Soviet critical school, which doomed the old anti-communists like Dostoevskij and praised anarachists like Tolstoj and other mostly-non-political figures like Pushkin.

 

[John Uskglass]

Maybe in the States this is so. He's considered a great writer in Europe. Must be 'cause he's European. Judging by the literary list, literature is yet another thing in which the US has a knack for staying inside its own borders and pretend the rest doesn't exist.

Dude. No.

The worst we could be accused of is Anglophilia in terms of literature. A LOT of people read Russian and some German literature, however.

If only 't were so, but no. The European literary tradition has a pretty strong anti-Dostoevskij sentiment. He's one of the Great Troika of Tolstoj, Dostoevskij and Turgenev, but those three are usually counted in that order,

o rly?

Can't say I knew that. Have not read any Turgenev.

Like I said, it's related to the Soviet critical school, which doomed the old anti-communists like Dostoevskij and praised anarachists like Tolstoj and other mostly-non-political figures like Pushkin.

Humph. Interesting. I can see how someone could edit Tolstoy pretty easily to make it seem almost pro-communist (in Anna Karenina especially, as there are real honest to goddness Communist in it).

I am curious Kharn, what is your opinion of Bulgakov? Just finished Master and Margarita.