imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Mar 26, 2007 13:19:26 GMT
Y'know, Bro. Bill, I think you've hit on it with the latter observation. It hadn't occurred to me. But, y'know, I think you're right. The fear I've observed, in general, was the basis for my question to MP. But this observation of yours . . . I've also observed this but it didn't click with me that it had anything to do with the fear I've been encountering. But, y'know, those Malecraft Masons who've responded to me, personally, in fear, when I've been able to probe further (for most don't talk rationally but, instead, act like elephants startled by a . . . ;D ), it soon becomes clear they think Co-Masons WILL interfere with their traditions and their Masonry. This response has always puzzled me. Why would I do any such thing? I mean, let's say, thru some oversight, that UGLE forgot to recognize the GL of Vermont (itty bitty state in the north eastern US). My guess is if they were to discover their oversite, the UGLE would go and fire off whatever it is they'd need to fire off to grant Vermont it's recognition and that'd be that. There'd be no drama, no worry t'all that Vermont would interfere with the UGLE's traditions or their Masonry. And vice versa. But, for some reason, there does seem to be that fear with Co-Masonry. Why should this be? I can't imagine we'd be any more interested in them mucking with our traditions than they'd want us to mess with their's. I would think there'd be a mutual understanding of "hands off". And a further bit of ponder. . . if I thought they *would* want to do so . . . yeah. . . y'know, I think I *would* respond a bit emotionally (though I would hope not so sillily and hysterically as I've witnessed) if I honestly thought they would force my lodge to segregate. But, then again, I did mention, earlier, how force can destroy harmony in a lodge. Apparently it takes only the unfounded suspicion of force to destroy amity between GLs before it's even established. I will bear this in mind. Thanks Bill (edited to change "question to Bill" to "question to MP")
|
|
|
Post by lihin on Mar 26, 2007 14:36:59 GMT
Greetings Sisters and Brethren,
What makes some of the contributors to this thread feel that those not practising co-Freemasonry are afraid of it?
This is neither the case with yours truly nor with any Brother he knows. Never has he heard or felt any Brother express such a fear.
Yours truly's view is that co-Freemasonry, in view of the initiatic purpose of the Order, is suboptimal for both females and males. There are several other authentic traditions, even exoteric ones like Judaism, Islam and even Christianity in cloisters, that avoid ritual mixity.
|
|
|
Post by a on Mar 26, 2007 15:57:39 GMT
What makes some of the contributors to this thread feel that those not practising co-Freemasonry are afraid of it? That would be Middlepillar and his observations about English Freemasons. See his last post above. Equally, from the perspective of finding what is lost, you simply have to learn to balance internally, and this includes balancing the inner male and female energies. This is extremely hard to do and takes a lot of work as you Craft yourself. Now while this is an individual thing, I can only imagine that it is easier for a mixed lodge to help this process (other things being equal) than a single sexed lodge. Certainly in the "real" world, it is my experience that women can provide enourmous levels of assitance that men simply are either unable or unwilling to give. I guess it depends on how much help you want form your lodge as you travel.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Mar 26, 2007 16:25:19 GMT
Its seems to me that it comes close to the territorial requirements of recognition, as regards UGLE. If you dont fit into a pigean hole then they dont know where to put you.
Personally I think all freemasonry would be better off by acceptnace of all groups by each other, based upon geographic restrctions.
But then internal politics comes into play. We recently ran an article in the Lodgeroom Magazine on Prince Hall Freemasonry with the permission and guidance from a GM of Prince Hall, we then receive a complaint from a Prince Hall Grand Officer, we go back to the origin of the article to find the individual did not know of the existance of the latter. So if you cant get Prince Hall to agree with itself how on earth do you get Co-Masonry - Female a Male Craft to agree.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Mar 26, 2007 16:32:57 GMT
I promise you in England, Most do not know [about comasonry], most do not like it when they know and I am afraid that this ignorance is the reason for the fear which is the reason for the resounding No. And what is considered to be one of the Ruffians? - Ignorance. And another Ruffian, is commonly known as Fear, Perhaps some Freemasons in England need to work a bit harder at tackling those Ruffians? ALBERT G. MACKEY In the author's ENCYCLOPEDIA OF FREEMASONRY, for your edification, check out his articles on "Jubela-o-um", and then go to "Ruffians: Giblim." It is stated that: Gebal is a city in ancient Phonecia. Inhabitants of the city were called Giblites or Giblimites and they were "stone-squarers." See 1st Kings 18. The three (3) names were originally one (1) name for a 'fellowcraft, a leader in the conspiracy against Hiram Abif, and that the names were corrupted names of Giblimite. It is suggested that later writers gave them the a, the o and um to prove their "conspiracy" point. Giblim was corrupted to Masters Word or three (3) syllables or spelled another way, Masters Word. The French spelling took Giblim and went to Jiblime, then to Jibulum to Jabulum (See RAM). The same type corruption was evident with Pythagoras, as the French spelled it Pytagore, and in Masonic lore it became Peter Gower combining English and French. Let us follow this trial of corruption: Ghiblim-Giblim-Gibalim-Chibbelum-Jiblime-Jibelum-Jabelum and finally to Jubellum. Consequently, the words are not names but titles of one (1) fellow-craft 'Jubrlum' and with the a and the o added, bibgo, we have three (3) ruffians. Later writers gave the names to the sun, rising in the East, following a Southerly course and setting in the West (See the Three Gates, same book.) Consider the three (3) stations in a Lodge as well as why there is no gate in the North.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 26, 2007 21:23:39 GMT
Tamrin Good morning, I see the absolute passion in your writing, and also the anger/frutration when someone doesnt see things the same way. Please ask your self why is someone seeing what I am not writing? Because if someone is then it can only be from what you have written. I do not see why you are getting so angry with karen, I am reading the thread and seeing a 90 % agreement between yopu, why are you so determined to force the other 10%? (And if you are not, ask yourself why do I think you are?) This is an exceptionally good thread, please take a 'time out' and then come back with more. Bro. MiddlepillarAs you requested, I have taken some ‘time out,’ although I would rather have dealt with the issue in a timelier manner. Having slept on the matter, I can now say that any ‘anger / frustration’ is not due to any basic disagreement with Karen (having actively pursued the issue of women and Freemasonry since the 1980’s, I am very used to disagreement). Rather my concern is about MISREPRESENTATION. If I simply let Karen’s misrepresentation of what I have said pass, then I may well have it come back to haunt me, as with—“Well we know where you stand regarding Co-Masonry.” This is all the more disappointing coming from Karen as last year we had an almost identical conversation on another forum about the theosophical influences in Co-Masonry being a matter of fact and preference but NOT being unmasonic, nor being any more serious than other influences in other Obediences. I had thought any misunderstanding she may have about my position on the subject had been corrected at the time. Indeed my presence on that forum ended over another matter of misrepresentation, when my posts concerning Biblical exegesis and archaeology (I took a mainstream academic position) were read as being anti-Semitic. You ask, “ Please ask your self, why is someone seeing what I am not writing? Because if someone is, then it can only be from what you have written.” I cannot definitively answer your question without presuming to read Karen’s mind, as she appears to have done with regard to me, although I suspect she may be particularly sensitive as to any perception of criticism regarding her Obedience. If it is indeed from something I have written, then she simply needs to point that out: If she has any suspicion of some underlying meaning or motive, then she simply needs to ask.
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Mar 26, 2007 21:48:16 GMT
Bro. Philip, I really, really think you need to reread the thread.
My posts are clear. I explain where I am responding to you and why. If you feel misrepresented, you might want to have a look at your own words
I remain of the opinion your disappointment with me is in that I pointed up the weaknesses of your position (and if you want to know what those weaknesses are, please do reread the posts). I'm sure you would have liked it better had I simply played up the parts I can agree with and ignored those parts where I cannot but . . .
There's too much as stake here, Philip. I am keenly aware of how very important it is your position be as strong as it can be. I am too well aware of what will come of all your hard work if it should be otherwise. So I cannot play the sycophant. Much as it grieves me to be out of favor with you, I cannot do that.
I further remain of the opinion that the best time to deal with these weaknesses is now, while there's ample time and the environment is a good one. Later, this time of calm will seem a paradise of luxury. It would be so much the better if you took this opportunity now, while you still may.
However, I think you've decided, for now, that you'd rather not deal with those weaknesses; that you are finding it easier to insist those weaknesses don't exist and that you've been misrepresented. And you've decided the best way to re-enforce this message is to kick the messenger.
(shrug)
As I said, I've told you what I told you because I love and respect you. I'm sure in your quarter century on this topic that you've come upon times in which you've found it very easy to stand up to your opponents. I just stood up to one of my friends. I leave it to you to determine which is the more difficult.
|
|
|
Post by lihin on Mar 26, 2007 22:02:51 GMT
Greetings Sisters and Brethren, Once again, yours truly begs to disagree with Bro. Tamrin. The theosophist movement founded by Madame H. P. Blavatsky in the 19th century was not and is not an authentic tradition comparable to the Hermetic, the Qabbalistic, the Gnostic, the Masonic Craft and other genuine traditions that have influenced and / or found depositories in Freemasonry. On the contrary, the theosophist movement was and is a pseudo-religion. M.'. M.'. René Guénon, 20th century metaphysician, devoted an entire, quite interesting book of some 330 pages to this subject that is available in English translation for example here: Theosophy: History of a Pseudo-Religion[/url] Yours truly has read only the original French and cannot vouchsafe for the quality of the translation. As explicitly stated in a previous post, yours truly has no financial interest whatsoever in this or any other book he might recommend.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 26, 2007 23:20:14 GMT
Here I stand!
On one side, Bro. Imakegarb accuses me (e.g., reply #23) of trying to discredit Co-Masonry, presumably because of its theosophical content, while, on the other side, lihin appears to be accusing me (above) of trying to defend Co-Masonry, despite its theosophical content!?
For the record, The Theosphical Society does not claim that Theosophy is either a religion or an initiatory tradition. In which case, it can scarcely be a ‘pseudo-religion’.
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Mar 26, 2007 23:23:53 GMT
Bro. Philip, I do see the passion in your words. I do indeed. I think it best I just not respond to you for a while. I realize this will deprive you of a clear target but it might also give you a chance to catch your breath. And, maybe, figure out how things actually stand and who your friends really are. Peace.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 26, 2007 23:50:48 GMT
Bro. Philip, I do see the passion in your words. I do indeed. I think it best I just not respond to you for a while. I realize this will deprive you of a clear target but it might also give you a chance to catch your breath. And, maybe, figure out how things actually stand and who your friends really are. Peace. Bro. Karen, Very magnanimous—Not. This is an unfair spin you are placing on the issue. If you are in any sense a 'target' here, it is only because I have been your target, having you misrepresent my position regarding Co-Masonry (e.g., reply #23) and I have wanted to correct what YOU have said.
|
|
|
Post by maat on Mar 26, 2007 23:58:01 GMT
Of course there is the survival factor, in other words Co - Masonry has men in it , who by the basic instinct of a Male Freemason should be in the Male Craft. Ha - the third Ruffian - greed!
|
|
|
Post by maat on Mar 27, 2007 0:17:58 GMT
Just a thought on that last ruffian, and indeed the other two, if you think about it....
Ever noticed how in business there are 'areas' where you go to buy household goods, 'areas' to go to for clothes, 'areas' to go to for cars.
The sole intention of grouping businesses like this is to feed off each others customers... getting part of the action. But the real result is that ALL BENEFIT, there us no cannibalism, because the act of grouping together entices more people/customers to come and satisfy their needs in the one place/grouping.
These 'centreS' thrive whilst those businesses that stand alone just battle on.
Maybe we can learn a lot from our business brothers. Freemasonry would be the winner. Ignorance, Greed and Fear of our 'competitors' would be overcome by the increase in sales, the bottom line, Enlightened Reason.
Maat
|
|
|
Post by maat on Mar 27, 2007 0:29:43 GMT
Y'know when it gets right down to it.... we don't need any organisation to get us where we are going... just patience, in-tuition, and a loving nature.
|
|
giovanni
Member
odi profanum vulgus, et arceo
Posts: 2,627
|
Post by giovanni on Mar 27, 2007 5:40:58 GMT
Greetings Sisters and Brethren, Once again, yours truly begs to disagree with Bro. Tamrin. The theosophist movement founded by Madame H. P. Blavatsky in the 19th century was not and is not an authentic tradition comparable to the Hermetic, the Qabbalistic, the Gnostic, the Masonic Craft and other genuine traditions that have influenced and / or found depositories in Freemasonry. On the contrary, the theosophist movement was and is a pseudo-religion. I add that she was just a plagiarist "There is not a single dogma or tenet in theosophy, nor any detail of moment in the multiplex and complex concatenation of alleged revelations of occult truth in the teachings of Madame Blavatsky and the pretended adepts, the source of which cannot be pointed out in the world’s literature. From first to last, their writings are dominated by a duplex plagiarism, - plagiarism in idea, and plagiarism in language. " W.E. Coleman August, 1893 educate-yourself.org/cn/blavatskyplagiarisms07jul05.shtml
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 27, 2007 5:58:59 GMT
>I add that she was just a plagiarist
Remarkable how "just a plagiarist" is still a hot topic 100 years later.
Cheers
Russell
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 27, 2007 6:04:49 GMT
Among Theosophists I am less impressed than many by Blavatsky as a person. Nevertheless she has made an undoubted contribution to the field and, while an academic might like to see better attribution in her works, she was not writing as an academic and to accuse her of plagiarism in her intermingling of traditions is as inappropriate as, for example, to accuse Pythagoras of the same fault, (certainly ‘his’ theorem was well established before he endorsed it). She did not claim originality: Rather she stressed the unoriginality of what she wrote, saying: Nothing of that have I invented, but simply given it out as I have been taught; or as quoted by me in the Secret Doctrine (Vol. I, p. 46 [xlvi]) from Montaigne: "I have here made only a nosegay of culled (Eastern) flowers, and have brought nothing of my own but the string that ties them." I am somewhat surprised that the polemical article in Gio's link (above) only mentioned in passing Godfrey Higgins' work ANACALYPSIS: An Attempt to Draw Aside the Veil of the Saitic or an Inquiry into the Origin of Languages, Nations and Religions. I suggest it was one of Blavatsky's main sources.
|
|
|
Post by wayseer on Mar 27, 2007 8:14:35 GMT
Our friend Mulla Nasrudin was passing a food stall and lingered smelling the delicious aroma. He was just staring to resume his journey when the owner of the food stall came running after him.
'Stop. Stop right there; I saw that'.
The Mulla was taken aback. 'Saw what?'
'You were smelling my cooking. I demand compensation'.
Nasrudin started to laugh.
'Come. We go to the Magistrate', said the food stall owner.
The Mulla agreed and after the Magistrate heard both men awarded compensation to the food stall owner.
Naurudin took his purse out of his belt and dangled in from of his adversary.
'Do you heard that'? he asked the food stall owner.
'Yes'.
'Then you have been paid'.
|
|
|
Post by middlepillar on Mar 27, 2007 8:19:02 GMT
Greetings Sisters and Brethren, What makes some of the contributors to this thread feel that those not practising co-Freemasonry are afraid of it? Lihin With the utmost respect, what makes you think you know or have seen what I know and have seen? The way you have put your question is a little rude. I was introduced to Co-Masonry approx 4 years ago when I started contributing to these Forums. I have in that time also attended an Open event at LDH HQ Hexagon House, Surbiton. Courtesy of Cora. I have always been interested in the esoteric Orders and immediatley found that LDH Freemasonry is very similar to these Orders. (The sanctuary Lamp, The Thurifier, Agapes etc). Being a member of some esoteric Orders that allow Co membership, I have never had a problem with accepting and appreciating the regularity of the Order or the beautiful Freemasonry that it practices. I have therefore over the last 4 years both in The UK and in France under GLNF (Emulation rite) spoken to simply hundreds of brethren and asked them what they thought of Co-Masonry and Female Masonry. The answers I have been given led me to post what I have posted. Whilst I can accept people disagreeing with me (that of course is there perogative) I cannot accept the blase way you have written off what I said as being ridiculous. The only comments I make are formed from my own personal experience! Anyone can read about it, doing it is what's important.
|
|
jmd
Member
fourhares.com
Posts: 1,081
|
Post by jmd on Mar 27, 2007 12:11:28 GMT
I accept that Middlepillar has asked numerous Freemasons from masculine-only constitutions and found that most were opposed to the idea of altering their own rules to allow the inclusion of women. In my personal experience, however, I must admit that it seems more the position described by Bill: apathy and dis-interest, combined with some concerns about the views of their spouses should 'competition' enter the Lodge they themselves have perhaps no interest in joining, and the need for appropriate alterations to the ritual in at the very least altering the preparation of the candidate.
None of which are grave, of course. _____
With regards of the overall thread, I must admit that I do not see in the least where imakegarb sees in tamrin's stated position a 'weakness'. I have re-read the thread a number of times and have either missed an essential point, read it with different eyes, or been oblivious to a cross-reference I did not follow.
I'd be curious, then, as to also how the existence of co-Freemasonry supposedly 'weakens' a desire to see rectified the currently 'forced' (to use that same word) exclusion of a large adult section of humanity. Individuals would of course still be balloted for - as individuals!
In other words, the 'issue' (answering Cora much earlier on) is that if something ain't right, do we stand by and continue to remain silent and acquiesce, or do we make some moves towards rectification? Here my own personal engagements remain distinct to tamrin's, in that I have not stepped outside my own GL (though perhaps the day may come when I need to). _____
Tamrin also expressed a view that for himself, he prefers a Freemasonry not imbued or mixed with Theosophical Society views - and personally concur. For that matter, I also prefer my Freemasonry to not be imbued or mixed with Guénonian so-called 'Traditionalist' views. In both of these I am glad to say that we have so far been fortunate.
Still, this allows for the various 'flavours' talked of earlier on that does add to the richness of worldwide Freemasonry - as long as individuals have the ability to access these differences. Perhaps tamrin and myself (and wayseer and Maat and but few others) have also something that is obvious when travelling locally: the tyranny of distance outside of very few (very large) cities: unless ondividual Lodges have the possibility of being inclusive, they de facto prohibit many from becoming Freemasons. _____
As to Guénon's Theosophy: History of a Pseudo-Religion, a one sentence book review from myself would read something like: "Here again Guénon shows his predisposition to a world-view that rejects much of humanity's syncretic richness by, whilst on the one hand drawing from details of important figures in the development of the T.S., on the other oblivious that his bias and blinkered views trashes achievements made by more than simply these individuals: unless specifically interested in having a record of another volume on some details of a few individuals, not a book I would recommend." _____
lihin, you write above "in view of the initiatic purpose of the Order", Co-Freemasonry is "suboptimal for both" women and men. I remain unsure as to how you (not Guénon or others) understand what the 'initiatic purpose' of Freemasonry to be, but frankly cannot see any aspect that makes it 'sub-optimal' for Co-Masonic Lodges. Also, if French is to be considered as a requisite to understand the higher degrees and its purpose, then it is interesting that Co-Freemasonry, as an institution, began in that land embedded in the language.
|
|