● First and foremost, this encyclopedia is specialized, which implies a more in-depth and exhaustive treatment of the subject matter than in generalist encyclopedias, a specialization all the more important in the subjects that concern us since they require, beyond shared qualities with all sectors of knowledge, specific dispositions to approach them effectively.

● Then, being smaller in size and directed by only a handful of people, our project can benefit from greater flexibility, reactivity, and the use of modern techniques. Moreover, we emphasize principles of pedagogy, synthesis, hierarchization, coherence, and transversality in the presentation and organization of knowledge, which we also try to make original. This is to facilitate memorization. These qualities are impossible to combine simultaneously in both classically structured encyclopedias and those with a participatory model.

● We allow ourselves, beyond accumulating and distributing knowledge, to enrich it also with new analyses and comments. In general, encyclopedias describe and explain, they do not propose interpretations. This would be very difficult in contexts where the mechanical increase of information, hierarchical or militant pressure, or popular consensus, more or less legitimate, would intervene, as can be the case in participatory encyclopedias. These factors influence the quality of articles in these encyclopedias in several ways, making their content, quality, and orientation generally fluid.

● We are therefore embarking on a project that seems to us a good compromise between the exhaustiveness and rigor of an elitist university or initiatory approach and the accessibility and pedagogy of popular democratization, between a scientific encyclopedic approach and an artistic and creative one, which appears to us as the only possible and valid approach in the context of the subject that concerns us.

● Wikimedia projects, in particular, are free and open-source, and contribute directly or indirectly to preserving the ephemeral information of the internet. Their ethical intentions are thus in phase with those of our project. Many anonymous individuals choose Commons to make their work available; we ourselves use it to retrieve resources. Regarding the themes that interest us, Wikipedia, as a generalist site of immense size with many different contributors, possesses the inherent qualities and flaws of such a platform.

↳ Moreover, regardless of the domain addressed, there is no universal consensus, and the same subject can be viewed from diverse perspectives, more or less dominant depending on the currents of thought, fields of expertise, and eras. All of these perspectives convey a conglomeration of mentalities, representations, and knowledge. Our notes, of course, cannot substitute for in-depth research or reflection, as they cannot simultaneously present all viewpoints and levels of depth. Therefore, although we strive to provide external documentation, our notes imply critical practice and invite it through their form.

● An encyclopedia that aims to be universal in its accessibility and exhaustive in its presentation of data, to an unreasonable extent, could only produce diluted content, tedious to read, and with a lukewarm impact, ultimately leading to laborious memorization and a patronizing attitude towards its readership. These texts are thus meant to be re-read, not just consumed - or even skimmed - mechanically.

● We regret, however, that you may find certain texts too difficult or perhaps even abstruse, and we stand at your disposal to rectify our mistake if you need it. If numerous feedback suggests this, we will consider the possibility of providing a detailed version of the incriminated articles or even simplifying the syntax and vocabulary.

● Firstly, we believe that knowledge, by its very nature, belongs to humanity; it cannot and should not be associated with a person or organization, except for purely archival purposes. Wanting to compartmentalize it is necessarily going against its essence and thus harming it. Moreover, the know-how consisting of extracting information from the deep web and various specialized bibliographies, organizing this information, synthesizing it, and maintaining an informational watch, must be shared freely to bear fruit.

● Secondly, we ourselves rely on the work of others, and without them, we would not have been able to offer this encyclopedia, or at least it would have been diminished.

● Finally, we believe that a mercantile approach to culture can only harm it.
As we suggest in S.8, outside of commercial purposes, the fact that our work is copied, reworked, or inspiring is for us a source of honor and not discontent. Moreover, the pursuit of personal ambitions and the search for notoriety do not motivate our project.

● Finally, we should add that the source of knowledge is inexhaustible and that, whatever happens, we will always have the opportunity to make our contribution to the edifice.

● Firstly, the knowledge we aim to disseminate through ORAEDES can be apprehended as gnosis. Although it appears that each individual comes into contact with gnosis through forms that seem appealing to them, we nonetheless wager that knowledge, whether intellectual or emotional, is one of the primary initiatory vehicles. Indeed, knowledge, like the marvelous, has an inciting effect. We estimate that its enlightened exploitation can generate a virtuous circle in the individual seeking spirituality. By giving this knowledge a pedagogical and aesthetic form, we propose to make it as attractive and digestible as possible. Pursuing this idea, it is not only the duty of the esotericist but also in their interest to synthesize and sublimate the knowledge of those who have trodden this path before them, if only to transmit what is transmissible and to make what becomes transmissible for them.

● Secondly, from the perspective of personal enrichment, it must be added that the acquisition of knowledge harmoniously balances the approach of one who seeks to elevate themselves to mysticism. Moreover, as humanity amplifies nature and vice versa, spirituality blossoms in a more elaborate and aesthetic manner when it is borne and matured by a rich and marked context. We consequently add that it is thus receivable that, within the framework of a universal and eschatological soteriology, esotericism is of a higher degree than mysticism.

● Finally, we estimate that if, at first glance, knowledge and imagination cannot be the starting point of spirituality and may even prove to be hindering factors, it nonetheless remains that they must be, in form, the crowning achievement, and in essence, an indispensable springboard. As we have already shown, for example, through the Humanists or the Brethren of Purity, encyclopedism is first a useful and elegant feint, then a valuable companion that proves to be little dispensable. More prosaically, we add in conclusion that who can do more can do less, and one only masters correctly what one surveys. For all these reasons, who is more legitimate than an esotericist to concern themselves with esoterology?

● We estimate that our approach will be the most productive for the majority of individuals interested in the subjects that occupy us, and who represent, more than those who are external or specialized, the heart of our editorial target. It is fundamental to take note that the objectives we have defined in E.1, are more associated with a journalistic and archival approach than with an esoteric or academic approach. Although our position does not exclude hermeneutics and scholarly developments, and although the actors in both domains are indispensable to us in our research, both positions, if practiced exclusively, seem too personal, closed, or confidential to allow us to carry out our project. As this project advances, and as the inventory work appears to have reached a reasonable threshold for having an overall view, we will likely broaden and deepen the exercise of both aforementioned aspects.