The purpose of a narrative by those seeking to influence a chosen audience is often to create a metaphor, which is attractive to the human mind. What is superior about Lewis coming over to Europe with his father than coming over to Europe with a strange, unknown companion who appears to him to be an East Indian but turns out to be Persian but secretly is an emissary of the Rosicrucians in Toulouse? Why does Lewis
write a letter to his wife on August 13, 1909, as reported by "Pensator,” who writes an epilogue to
Pilgrim,
saying:
You remember my first experience about the R. & C. about a year ago. You recall my describing so many times since then the strange dark-complexioned man who was to meet me. You always laughed and said it was a vagary of my mind. Well, I met him in life on the boat and he gave me a paper, which has helped me to meet the people—the officials I wanted to meet. And he has followed me part way to Toulouse and his train was wrecked. I don't know if he was hurt or not. So he came into my life and out again. —»59
But after all this narrative, why does the mysterious stranger completely disappear in the
Restorer
story?Further, why does
Restorer
mention Count Bellcastle-Ligne in terms of the "official history of the Order”which might correctly refer to his name in the book,
Rosicrucians Questions and Answers
while, in fact, it seems to claim that this gentleman is mentioned inPilgrim,
which it is not? Why do these stories change so often and are modified in such a sloppy way?To me, Lewis' story is slowly morphing from a narrative that describes him an earnest, but naive seeker who finds the Truth to a man either descended from the founders of the original Rosicrucian Order in America or given the authority by a descendent of the Order in England that gave the American Order their authentic connection to the Rosicrucians.
Incidentally, his hereditary connection to the founders of the American Order eventually seems to disappear.
In
Pilgrim,
Lewis purposes in searching to become a Rosicrucian are sarcastically challenged by a professor and an art dealer whose role is downsized inRestorer
whereas the role of Count Bellcastle-Ligne is emphasized. From the naive, almost flounderingEarnest Seeker After Truth,
Lewis is changed in the 1929, 1971 andRestorer Version
to theWorthy Heir o f the Title o f American Rosicrucian Imperator.
The narrative switches from stressing his spiritual quest, his honesty, and his thirst for truth to either his "royal”Rosicrucian bloodline or the authority granted to him by a direct descendent of the English Order (which approved of the founding of the American Order), stressing also his authoritative experience in studying
occult matters, his access to historical documents by virtue of his descent or by authoritative proxy and his strong leadership capacities, as partially expressed by his business interests and occupations.
Now we understand that besides being different than each other, there may be a qualitative difference in the way the narratives affect the unconscious of the human mind, giving one narrative more cognitive persuasion than another—that is, more of a desire to believe and be influenced by a certain narrative.
Before we proceed to explain why narratives are preferred, let us go back to "The Fight and Flight"
syndrome we have discussed as being instinctive. Many times humans make decisions based on thought patterns that are governed by automatic responses to the brain based on unconscious processes that govern behavior unless the individual has sufficiently analyzed and deliberated on a response dictated by reason.
Lakoff calls the more automatic responses,
reflexive,
and the less automatic responses, ones based on careful and conscious reasoning,reflective.
He points out that Kahenman and Tversky, using a slightly different nomenclature regarding reasoning in economic circumstances, came to certain conclusions that have consequences for political behavior and, I believe, cult behavior as well.—These were:
I. People think in terms of gains and losses relative to a reference point.
An origin story is an important reference point for building the credibility of a religion or religious organization. Think of how critical the story of Moses’ birth and his experience with the burning bush are;
or how the birth of Jesus in the manger and the proclamation of his identity by John the Baptist are; or the provision of the Koran to Mohammed by an angel and his ascension to the seven heavens. Though these stories, speaking only of them as narratives, regardless of their accuracy or actual spiritual significance, they create a special signification to the protagonist. In the various stories of H. Spencer Lewis ascendency to the Imperator of AMORC, there is an evolution from a lowly and humble seeker who becomes an initiate of a secret order to a man chosen by destiny of birth or association by persons related by bloodline to the founders or sponsors of the founders of the first Rosicrucians in America. The evolution of the latter story is one providing greater power and authenticity to the Imperator.
Perhaps one of Lewis’ losses in the origin story is one that he relates in Rosicrucian
Questions and Answers.
Although there are a variety of setbacks and problems in Lewis' world, the one he truly discusses in detail in regards to the origin of AMORC is his first attempt to get his original charter signed, which was a failure. I believe it is for this reason that he gives an extensive account of his failure in the 6th Installment of ‘‘The Authentic and Complete History of the Ancient and Mystical Order Rosae Crucis” in the July 1916 edition of the American Rosae Crucis. He does this in order to set up a powerful narrative that explains his victory to follow.
Here is the account of his failure in his own words:
The Authentic and Complete History of the
Ancient and Mystical Order Rosae Crucis The 6th Installment
Compiled by H. SPENCER LEWIS, F. R. C.
Grand Master General and lmperator of the Order in the United States
In concluding this history I feel that I must speak of the establishment of the Order in America.
I did not realize at the time—possibly I do not thoroughly realize now—the great responsibility and tremendous importance of the undertaking. Daily I am more strongly impressed with its power for good in this country and what it will eventually mean to America and Americans.
As the founder, organizer if you will, I have most certainly made a few mistakes in matters important and trivial. With new and different conditions to meet and contend with, without precedence for many acts I was forced to permit or institute quickly, and with the war in Europe to prevent my rapid communication with the
Masters abroad, I know I have had to use discretion and judgment requiring more mature understanding than one of my age and experience possesses.
I would that I could undo some of the errors: I would remove from the hearts and souls of some the memory of anguish, disappointment and sorrow which I have caused. I shall sometime pay the penalty, however, and I trust that I may have the opportunity to do some kinder acts, sweeter deeds and more joyous matters to recompense those whom I have pained.
It was not until the fall of 1913 that I began my outward activities for the Order in this country and my first acts were a mistake.
My instructions plainly said that the Order was not to be made concrete until 1915.
Well I knew the year. The figures 1915 were blazoned in my mind; that was to be the
"great year" for America which many Rosaecrucian students had been looking forward to for many years.
But my instructions in weird, symbolical language requiring careful translation also stated that during the winter of 1914-1915, "between December 15th of 1914 and Easter of 1915,” I should make such preliminary announcements as would enable me to have my American Supreme Council selected by April 1 st and my Officers installed by not later than May of 1915. These instructions I had read many times during 1910, 1911, and 1912. During 1913 1 was devoted to the preparation of the necessary "first papers,” by the large, illuminated Charter to be signed by the selected Councilors, and the first '"Black Book” which I had to design, letter and bind myself, not being permitted to have any matter pass from my hands before the Order was established, Thus it was that as December of 1913 approached, the figures 1914 of the coming year seemed to stand forth boldly in my consciousness and my instructions I
misinterpreted as being between December 15th and Easter of 1913-1914 instead of 1914-1915.
My papers for the preliminary announcement were ready. I anxiously awaited December 15 and on or about that date I made my first mistake. I announced to some especially advanced members of the New York Institute for Psychical Research of which I was then President, that I would have them meet with me to prepare the way for the establishment of the Order Rosae Crucis in America.
A preliminary meeting was held during the winter of 1913-1914 and I was surprised to find no enthusiasm and little interest. Those whom I considered interested displayed no interest, but rather antipathy. I recall well the very rainy night when I wended my way home from a lady's home on Madison Avenue, near 34th Street, with my papers, charter and "Black Book” under my arm, dejected and puzzled or the twelve who had assembled (out of 20 invited). Not even one signed the preliminary organization paper.
"Was this an indication of what the R. C. would be in America?” was the question I tried to answer later that night in the stillness of my room.
Then light came. I discovered my mistake of dates and the morning's sunlight brought joy at the thought that no one had signed that paper nearly twelve months before it was time to be signed. The very weather, antipathy and disinterestedness of those there that night had prevented a grave error on my part. Truly a Rosaecrucian lesson!
(And, strange as it may seem, not one of those twenty supposedly interested men and women have to this day shown any interest whatever in the Order in this country.)—
III. People tend to choose frames that highlight gains rather than losses.
In the same installment, Lewis now transforms the historical embarrassment into a victory and, without mentioning names, brings in the character of Ms. May Banks-Stacey as a kind of
DeusExMachina,
coming tothe rescue.
However, the following winter I was even more ready and more prepared to carry out the preliminary work. During the fall of 1914 there came to me a grand old lady who had been a deep student of the occult for years. She had traveled much abroad in search for knowledge and had been initiated in many forms of our work. Being of royal descent and intimately acquainted with governmental and military authorities here and abroad, she had been entrusted with a special errand and mission connected with the Order. Thus on another rainy night in the month of November—on my own birthday in fact—she unceremoniously and reverently placed in my hands a few papers, a small packet, and a beautiful red rose! In addition to these she gave me a locket of gold set with stones in symbolical form, containing a rare and historical piece or mineral. The latter was a personal gift- to be worn in her remembrance and ever shall I remember the dear old soul whose days are numbered but who is sure of a sweet place in the hearts of my wife, my children, and myself. (S. of the C.!)
The papers I found to be some of those, which the Masters had explained to me in Europe in 1909 and which were promised to come to me when I needed them most, by special messenger. The packet contained a seal and an insignia. I was pleased, astounded, and now greatly fortified for my work.—
Considering what we know about frames and narratives, we note a continuous attempt by Lewis to perfect his narratives and this accounts for the inconsistency in his stories.
The mission of H. Spencer Lewis was very much directed to proving the existence, antiquity, and authenticity of the Order. To this end, he assiduously worked to create an organization called FUDOSI, which we have discussed elsewhere. Note that the point of this "Manifesto” from FUDOSI essentially makes the claim that AMORC in San Jose is the "only authorized sector of the ancient Fraternity of Rosicrucians perpetuating the true traditions of the R+C in North and South America, with authenticity recognized by all the ancient Initiatic Orders forming this Counsel International and Federation.”
• a U , tm Am0mm la M'YSSAX I W M lfttff
CONSE1L IN T ER N A T IO N A L
de» O R D R E S O R I E N T A U X PA I X — T O L E R A N C E - • U N I O N I
tee In iortz/1 J t ia &ec r t t h a l :
$inrt the / I HI l) IX <f i»itk i t i i # ^ fe
tKr ¥«llcvf o f Man Jo*rt (/alifernla. i s tl»r onlij autkoi
tee tor of til* a n r i r n t Vr a l r r n i l y of H o « i r r u r i * n 0 perpetuating
tKr true tr a d itio n * anfc prinrfplrs o f thr H + t f in ll o r t k a nb
£ o u tk .A m r r ir a .u jitH a u t k » n t i r U ^ rrrogfz«& by all tke anrirat Omtiatir Orber* ftrminq (hi# tfonrif !)wlrrn«tion»lan& i? rArratiia,
* # ^ ’'k rr«Fore, tMesetd£.S UsfmptrmtorJUviieml Mr 01 Tr*/rr&
JpoKerLtfinJ- f- C- / , sjed kit UntLsfary jm rn tn sb ti bi Ok u cL si* reprruntoii*aandSe*r CfftctrsftrJbrO>p»dSnrfMJ**rtou
**i the is ^ffiliaUd ewntrifS' of*U tM Jm /u /tt dhjtrs ump*iiagO»FUDOESi.
* Jk sm/Aerify b eaUMaA w/sJr m*cA Qndea
7 k t Strrre •e m tm n u n e m y e n + rjrlty - t f s f t k r J6 r (fix e r s 10theefmMtd eemfrtn
d*4ef0/*i efto rfim r h i* O rders tem p esvf M e ,/IW J /* /i/s b h rm * W ^ n r / W r * B ru ssels. d ~ -~ f (t» fJ k e fv s i /S * h /* •/* * * AQ> v d e tM td iy S e M m e f
V. People tend to think in terms of prototypical frames.
These would be conventional, typical frames that come to mind. I would say that both "ardent seeker finds the truth” is one example. The story of Gautama Buddha questioning the reason for death, disease, and old age and then finding enlightenment under the Bodhi tree is this kind of a success story, paralleling the
narrative the Lewis search for a Rosicrucian Order, ultimately taking him to the initiation in Toulouse. The other frame is based on authority being passed on by virtue of the royal blood of a descendant, which would be the story of most Kings and Queens gaining their position or by a spiritual authority delegating authority to a successor as Jesus did to Peter. Lewis stories of his succession are:
1) That he himself is a descendent of the Founding Fathers of the American Order.
2) That he is given authority by a descendent of the English Order that permitted the founding of the Order in America.
These are kind of a hybrid of sacred stories about the seeker thirsting for spiritual knowledge and gaining it and a man granted spiritual leadership by authority of his descendants or someone else’s—a variant of authority by the blood of royalty in one way or another, popular, well-known narratives historically or by legend or hearsay.
VI. People tend to adapt to a new state and take it as a new reference point.
This vulnerability of people accepting new frames and leaving others behind, not even really worth exploring, explains why AMORC can get away with rewriting their historical narratives. This was a lot easier before the Internet.
VII. People tend to substitute more “accessible” frames for more accurate but less accessible frames.
This is clearly related to the "new state” preference for frames. The new origin stories told by AMORC are much more accessible, particularly for entranced newcomers. You still have to do a lot of searching to find them, presuming you question these stories in the first place. This is why the organization of this material in this way is rather new. Perhaps it has been done before—that is, comparing these various narratives in
this way and analyzing them in terms of cognitive persuasion. But frankly, I could not find this kind of discussion in this way, and it was laborious to put it together.
This is maybe the most obvious reason that AMORC has worked so successfully to promote and maintain its exalted image. It is also why politicians and CEOs’ pasts are so often forgotten. They simply don’t investigate much of the frames they have accepted.
I don’t think simple laziness is the reason that people don’t check the central stories they believe in—stories about politics, religion, and business and why they seem so forgiving about the misdeeds that are quoted to them from time to time that challenge their beliefs. To some extent, perhaps it is a neurophysio logical nudge not to overload their pure, confused selves with too much investigation. Whatever the reason, most people do very little probing of an investigative nature into their core beliefs.
I believe this is why we are saddled with so much corruption in politics, religion, and business and why so much of our thinking, as members of the human race, is so often reflexive.
Reflective thinking involves hard, conscious work and certainly the acquisition of facts. That is why it is so much easier to believe, instead of to know.
In the case of AMORC, many of the facts that I am presenting here are buried in old documents, thankfully preserved, but in the recent past, difficult to obtain without the Internet and its capacity, a capacity fueled by people who have archival interests in preserving knowledge in manuscripts, books, and audio-video media, to increasingly catalog and restore some our recently lost knowledge. And it is for that reason, along with the help of a few researchers, we have been able to come closer to an appreciation of this most important reflexive function of our brains to challenge what we are told, to investigate and come to our own conclusions. Even in the Internet, most members of AMORC probably rarely use it to fact check or to see if they can challenge the official story. They are more inclined to accept what they believe and what they can easily access.