|
Post by tws on Aug 7, 2007 3:46:37 GMT
Thank you all ;D But, Bro. Tamrin . . . (brow furrows) . . . Fight? . . . Win? . . . I don't want to fight. Not with my Brethren. For I tell you, the GAOTU invested me with much, all of it, I think, needful. But he did not make me a fighter. I must conclude that I am not to fight with my any of my Brethren. Not even those who would fight with me. Granted, Gandhi had clear opposition and so his policy of nonviolent resistance made sense. But it cannot be this way with us. For, among "us", there is no "them". Those of us now not afraid to see must be willing to see for those who are: there is no opposition. There are only Brothers. The language of division and exclusion can have no place among us. Somehow, instead, we must reason together. I know it's a puzzle. I don't see the solution. All I can do is talk about the elephant. To speak, clearly and without fear, the truth I see before me. And I can only hope that, one day, eyes that presently are closed will be opened; ears muffled will be uncovered; tongues restrained will be loosed and long idle hands will be recommitted to the Great Work. And that one day we will know we utter these truths now so that our Masonic posterity will be free to be bored by it: will safely take for granted what we now struggle to realize. And if they look into it at all, I hope they will at least marvel that anyone ever thought otherwise. Bro. Karen, when we take over, I nominate you to write our new Masonic constitution. ;D
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 7, 2007 8:49:34 GMT
Granted, Gandhi had clear opposition and so his policy of nonviolent resistance made sense. But it cannot be this way with us. For, among "us", there is no "them". We need look no further than some of the “irregular” / “clandestine” issues on this forum to see that Masonry is very much a human institution with all the human failings which that entails. Some Brethren DO see issues in terms of “them and us,” even when the issue is that there ought to be no “them and us”!? What Gandhi said was, “then THEY fight you.” All YOU have to do is stand your ground, as did he and people such as William Wilberforce, stating as you said, "clearly and without fear," the truth one sees and against which THEY fight (your Reply #34 outlined the typical nature of THEIR fight). I think I have even witnessed you adopting what, to me, appears to be a principled stance from time to time, against which others fought and railed—and I admire you for it, although others may have thought you also were fighting.
|
|
bod
Member
UGLE - MM (London), MMM RAM(Middx), OSM (London)
Posts: 1,296
|
Post by bod on Aug 7, 2007 9:19:29 GMT
Is it not enough that we can accept that there is sufficient room and opportunity for those who want to practice their freemasonry a particular way? I was aware of the various co-masonic obediences when I joined UGLE, and knew I was joining a male-craft GL, I wasn't quite as aware as I am know of the other differences present, but now I know that they exist does it fill me with a burning desire or need to join co-masonry? No, but the option is always there for me if I do want to join. Maybe we are in 3, 4, 5, but I believe we will be there for a significant amount of time., because after step 6 there is step 7, schism, division and unhappiness.
I quite like bro tamrin's comments above this post, be the rock, not the sledgehammer.....
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Aug 7, 2007 9:34:37 GMT
Bro Bod. I agree, Freemasonry Universal is big enough and robust enough to live with the various different types of Freemasonry.
Unlike yourself I was NOT aware of Co-Masonry despite all my reading and research when I was Initiated in 1988 but in the end I found it and in due time became a member thereof.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Aug 7, 2007 14:10:43 GMT
Tired ideas beget tired institutions.
Brandt
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Aug 7, 2007 14:36:22 GMT
A rock feels no pain . . . and an island never cries . . .
Hmmmmmm. Nope, I don't think the GAOTU made me a rock. There must be another way.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 7, 2007 18:11:06 GMT
I think I have even witnessed you adopting what, to me, appears to be a principled stance from time to time, against which others fought and railed—and I admire you for it, although others may have thought you also were fighting. ... be the rock, not the sledgehammer... A rock feels no pain . . . and an island never cries . . .
Hmmmmmm. Nope, I don't think the GAOTU made me a rock. There must be another way. Then what did S/He (or yourself) make you? What is your way? And what is your example? BTW, like all analogies, that of a rock can be taken too far and, when a popular saying is contrasted with an unrelated lyric, the result can be meaningless.
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Aug 7, 2007 19:50:02 GMT
Then what did S/He make you? What is your way? And what is your example? I do not know. I agree that there is real danger is finding lessons in popular culture. However, in this one, I think there is relevance. Taking it back to the beginning, we have John Donne, a poet, some would say philosopher, and, for his time, a part of popular culture (at least for the literate elite of his time). In his "Meditation XVII", Donne observed: Beam forward to the 20th Century and Paul Simon's writing his "I am a Rock", based on Donne's observations. Simon writes about a fellow who doesn't recognize the above, who, in fact, attempts to withdraw from the world by becoming the island (or rock, if you will) that Donne talks about. But Simon's final line is damning - even if you really want to do this, you simply can't become Donne's island. Or a rock. Not without cutting yourself off from your feelings and emotions; those things that make us human. It just isn't possible, so long as you are within this world of manifestation. So Donne's observation remains. Now, above, the observation is to be the rock, not the sledge hammer. It sounds like a good idea, it really does. I pondered that. Again, to be that rock, to endure these blows, for the greater good. But, again, to do so, I must cut myself off from my feelings and emotions. Which isn't possible. So, there must be another way. I just don't yet know what it is. And just because the lesson comes from popular culture does make it meaningless. It just doesn't.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 7, 2007 20:10:04 GMT
And just because the lesson comes from popular culture does [not] make it meaningless. It just doesn't. Agreed. What is meaningless in this instance is the conjunction of two unrelated analogies, which happen to both be using a rock as an example, to say rather different things (one about responding to aggression, without losing one's integrity; the other about the futility of disengagement, in seeking to avoid suffering). Now, above, the observation is to be the rock, not the sledge hammer. It sounds like a good idea, it really does. I pondered that. Again, to be that rock, to endure these blows, for the greater good. But, again, to do so, I must cut myself off from my feelings and emotions. Which isn't possible. Not at all, one does not and indeed cannot entirely cut one's self off from feelings and emotions. Far from it: One accepts the first noble truth of Buddhism— Suffering is a part of human life—To try to avoid all suffering is literally self-defeating; to accept suffering in one's life is to start a process of transformation.
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Aug 7, 2007 20:38:13 GMT
First of all, I don't think the two analogies are opposed.
To respond to aggression by enduring the blows of another (especially reprehensible that the other should be a Brother), without complaining, but to still "feel" it . . . it would, I think, leave me all the more vulnerable to the person inflicting the blows. And, thereby, give them even more advantage.
Of course, there was also Gethsemane. . .
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 7, 2007 20:44:44 GMT
I don't think the two analogies are opposed. I did not say "opposed:" I said "unrelated." Of course, there was also Gethsemane. . . And before that, Golgotha—a mystery very apt in this context—suffering, yet full of love.
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Aug 7, 2007 23:58:30 GMT
Uh, well, first of all, as places, Golgotha and Gethsemane existed (still do, so far as I know) at the same time. However, Gethsemane is where Jesus pondered his fate, in depth. Golotha is where they crucified him, afterward.
Yeah, fine point. I'm bad for those.
But, yup on the message. Though I question the necessity of what took place at Golgatha, expect, perhaps, in an esoteric/symbolic way.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 8, 2007 0:52:14 GMT
And before that, Golgotha. Sorry—brain glitch—should have been "after that" (rushing to leave for work).
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Aug 8, 2007 1:00:14 GMT
Is cool
|
|