Guarding the entrance: the "wisdom keepers"

Existential Challenge of "The Other" (Part #8)

Perhaps the most curious feature of the open secret is the manner in which it is guarded. Given the above selection of examples from different cultures and traditions, a fundamental question might be how "jealously" it is guarded and to what end? In the case of the twin dragons, the "secret" is widely and frequently publicized in dragon dance ceremonies -- notably in rural communities. Symbolic twin columns, with appropriately symbolic beasts as guardians, are admired as characteristic of many temple-like designs. As noted above, such columns are a characteristic feature of masonic temples and initiation ceremonies -- and of common heraldic devices.

It would seem that there are various possibilities:

that the knowledge of meaningful access to any intermediary way is effectively lost
that the architectural and symbolic representations are accepted as having ceased to perform any genuine role as psychoactive reminders or catalysts of insight and merely serve decorative ceremonial purposes -- echoing (nostalgically) what might have been and what (longingly) might come to be (cf Connie Zweig, The Holy Longing: the hidden power of spiritual yearning, 2003).
that claims to the knowledge (whether real or illusory) are indeed jealously guarded as secret because of the power that so doing is held to offer, if only with respect to those seeking to acquire access
that the nature of the secret, to the extent that it is understood, is mistakenly understood in some way
that the very nature of the secret lies in the difficulty in communicating such subtly intimate knowledge, whatever the motivation to do so

One interesting, if tragic, example is that of the traditional "wisdom keepers" of indigenous cultures. In addition to their values having been well-disparaged by the currently dominant world culture, well-meaning efforts to position and promote their insights might themselves be seen to be counterproductive. Sadly it might be said of the Wisdom Keepers assembled on the occasion of the Earth Summit (Rio de Janeiro, 1992) that they were indeed the most effective of those gathered there in achieving their apparent objectives. Not a trace of their wisdom emerged. Or is that the very nature of wisdom -- that its expression should leave no "traces"? Or is it that its nature lies in how it is comprehended by others -- if at all?

A quite different example is that of freemasonry, given the degree to which the eminent and powerful are in some way secretly complicit in its processes at the highest level of leadership (cf Global Strategic Implications of the "Unsaid", 2003) . To the extent that freemasonry, as noted above, indeed holds and enables such profound insights amongst its members, it might be asked how (or why) such insights have failed to imbue global leadership with greater wisdom -- whether through intergovernmental institutions or the various world councils of the wise (see discussion in Emergence of a Global Misleadership Council: misleading as vital to governance of the future? 2007) . Or is it the case that the problematic nature of the dysfunctional dynamics of the times are in some way integral to the sustainability of the holding pattern that the wise consider appropriate? What is it that they are allowing (not) to happen and why? (cf The Deafening Silence of Those Who Know Nothing, 1998).

As with the purported ideal of classic imperial China, is it the case that the secret of governance at the highest level is a form of inaction -- however mysterious? (cf The Quest for the Socio-Economics of Non-Action, 1993; The Art of Non-Decision-Making and the manipulation of categories, 1997). Is this how the wise view their relationship to what the Club of Rome has named as the problematique -- without being able to give significant content to the corresponding resolutique? (Council of the Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution, 1991, edited by Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider).

Is it this secret:

that is held to absolve those at the very highest level of being called to account for problematic initiatives for which they have been responsible, or with which they have been complicit -- including those triggering calls for their indictment?
that is the basis for the "creative accounting" of which they are so often accused -- perhaps justified by a correspondingly dubious "creative ethic"?
that offers those "in the know" the necessary "wiggle room" to navigate these problematic times with effective impunity -- however criminal their actions may appear to others?

How many "in the know" have indeed been complicit in the Iraq debacle, and are complicit (at the time of writing) in the build-up to a nuclear strike on Iran -- in preference to providing effective aid to those in dire straits (Dafur, etc) ?

On the other hand, it might presumably be imagined that those "in the know" consider the level of tragic fatalities and suffering in today's civilization to be necessary and appropriate (despite their skillfully publicized "sincere" regrets) to sustaining the psychodynamics of the system. They may even consider it appropriate occasionally to fine tune the level of fatalities with any of the instruments of the Four Horsemen -- as a means of "assisting God's work". The logic of such a perspective was explored in the notorious Report from Iron Mountain -- possibly to be considered a precursor to that of the UN's Global Compact and that of the European Economic Forum (cf "Globalization": the UN's "Safe Haven" for the World's Marginalized -- the Global Compact with Multinational Corporations as the UN's "Final Solution", 2001)