Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 13, 2007 20:33:43 GMT
I see ... sort of. Let me see if I can untangle what you have said: *** > Greetings Sisters and Brethren, = Greetings Sisters and Brothers, Or, in light of your views on the ineligibility of women to be Freemasons, are you intentionally NOT including the former among the Brethren? I presume your usage goes beyond semantics as, like Wittgenstein, you appear to acknowledge the limitations of language. *** > In view of the ex-istences of an indefinitude of universes, each with an indefinitude of prototypes of beings and an indefinitude of their modes, the premises of questions of possible communications amongst them seem to yours truly too restricted to our familiarity with parts of only one such universe and thus of limited applicability to the question of what constitutes proof.
= There are too many variables to exclude the possibility of alien contact. Agreed, but we have already established that one cannot prove a negative in such cases. To return to the question—We need to go to specifics—What, for instance, would you accept as proof in any one or more of the reported sightings which are widely discussed among UFO enthusiasts. *** > If intellectual intuition were limited to one individual mind-body conceiving itself as separate from the rest of manifestation, it would have not even generality, let alone universality. The typical case of proof of consensus amongst a number of mind-bodies leads to limited common recognition but not to universality. Usually, navigation of a vessel is based on experience of proofs based on consensus. = 'Proof' is commonly thought to be a matter of consensus. That may be a common perception. An individual may, however, have good reason to demur—50 million Frenchmen CAN be wrong. *** > Intellectual intuition is not what is sometimes called "gut feeling". An example of intellectual intuition familiar to some is the passage to the limit in integral and differential calculus. For an ample explanation of this and some other relevant items of mathematical symbolism, read Bro. René Guénon's work The Metaphysical Principles of the Infinitesimal Calculus, translated into English. Yours truly has read only the French original and thus cannot vouchsafe the translation. = The experience of an 'intellectual intuition,' is akin to what some call an 'Ah-Ha!' moment. Agreed, but your ''Ah-Ha!' moment may not be mine. The trouble with mathematical 'proofs' is, as Imre Lakatos observed, they are essentially tautological—even in the cases of the delightful Vedic mathematics, (upon which I presume Guénon drew), which deal with fractions of the whole rather than multiple, distinct units.
|
|
|
Post by maat on Mar 13, 2007 23:20:10 GMT
I really enjoy lihins posts .... can call me whatever s/he likes Maat
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 14, 2007 0:46:13 GMT
In another context, I too might enjoys lihin's posts. After all, I enjoy the many obfuscations of Sir Humphrey Appleby. For instance: Sir Humphrey: "Minister, I think there is something you perhaps ought to know." Jim Hacker: "Yes Humphrey?" Sir Humphrey: "The identity of the Official whose alleged responsibility for this hypothetical oversight has been the subject of recent discussion, is NOT shrouded in quite such impenetrable obscurity as certain previous disclosures may have led you to assume, but not to put too fine a point on it, the individual in question is, it may surprise you to learn, one whom your present interlocutor is in the habit of defining by means of the perpendicular pronoun." Jim Hacker: "I beg your pardon?" Sir Humphrey: "It was...I."
|
|
|
Post by maat on Mar 14, 2007 2:06:41 GMT
;D
I can see you as Sir Humphrey....
Maat
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 14, 2007 2:55:01 GMT
At least Sir Humphrey closes on a note of clarity, to wit: "It was...I."
|
|
|
Post by maat on Mar 14, 2007 5:11:19 GMT
Ah - but you missed the point that his target audience did not understand a word of what he said prior to that... Maat
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 14, 2007 5:35:33 GMT
My mistake. I should have acknowledged the obviously succinct clarity of declaring: If intellectual intuition were limited to one individual mind-body conceiving itself as separate from the rest of manifestation, it would have not even generality, let alone universality. The typical case of proof of consensus amongst a number of mind-bodies leads to limited common recognition but not to universality. Usually, navigation of a vessel is based on experience of proofs based on consensus. Clear as crystal!
|
|
|
Post by lihin on Mar 14, 2007 8:09:03 GMT
Bro. tamrin wrote: In which post did yours truly express such a view, please?
The initiability of women and the suitability of Co-Freemasonry for such initiation are IMHO two quite distinct items.
Since in continental European usage many women might feel offended if addressed as "Brothers", yours truly prefers to keep with the customary linguistic practice here, unless a particular Sister specifically requests to be addressed as "Brother". This very question is an illustration, but not a proof, of why Co-Freemasonry may well be suboptimal for both sexes.
But let us please not go off topic.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 14, 2007 12:02:24 GMT
Bro. tamrin wrote: In which post did yours truly express such a view, please?The initiability of women and the suitability of Co-Freemasonry for such initiation are IMHO two quite distinct items. Since in continental European usage many women might feel offended if addressed as "Brothers", yours truly prefers to keep with the customary linguistic practice here, unless a particular Sister specifically requests to be addressed as "Brother". This very question is an illustration, but not a proof, of why Co-Freemasonry may well be suboptimal for both sexes. But let us please not go off topic. Firstly, my point was that the masculine of 'Sisters' is 'Brothers' ('Brethren' has a wider connotation). Conventionally, masculine terms were used to encompass both genders. > In which post did yours truly express such a view, please? lihin, you are rarely clear. However, I understood the view I attributed to you is expressed in, "General Masonic Discussion" / "Females in Masonry" / Reply #18, in which you wrote: During antiquity there were initiates and sacerdotals amongst both gendres. As an initiatic Order, FM should IMHO correspond to the nature of the candidates fulfilling the criteria of initiability. As you have mentioned, the extant FM rituals were written with males in mind. Knowledgeable adaptation of the rituals to female (not unisex) Lodges is IMHO more sensible than trying to make Brethern out of Sisters. Gendre is an integral quality of nearly all manifestation. Vive les différences! In case your intention in posting the above statement differed from my understanding of the post, please unequivocally state whether or not, in your opinion, the initiation of women as Freemasons is valid without 'adaptation' (whatever that may signify)—Yes or No?
|
|
jmd
Member
fourhares.com
Posts: 1,081
|
Post by jmd on Mar 14, 2007 21:51:03 GMT
Apart from the 'adaptation' to maintain due decorum, given that in most cultural settings the baring of breasts by women (unless breast-feeding) has acquired sexual connotations. I suppose I read lihin's 'adaptation' with that in mind, which is the only alteration to the ritual I am aware off that is gender-based.
For what it's worth, I too had (perhaps) mis-read lihin's previous contributions as being against both Co-Freemasonry and Women-only Freemasonry. From the above statements, the implications appear to remain that in lihin's view (also, of course, shared by others both on and off the boards), though initiation is available to both men and women, Freemasonry is itself exclusively a masculine initiatory order - a view I totally reject.
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Mar 14, 2007 22:36:32 GMT
As understand it (and I can look this up when I get home, if anyone wants to see where I got my info), in the rites from which Freemasony is descended, the initiate (male or female) was nude. And that we've altered it so that only those bits important for the ritual are bare.
These alterations were made long ago. It seems to me that all the bits that need to be bared, be the candidate male or female, are bared. And, apparently, we don't need to see the entire breast, just the bit (be the candidate male or female) required for the ritual. With no further alteration required.
|
|
|
Post by wayseer on Mar 14, 2007 23:05:50 GMT
As understand it (and I can look this up when I get home, if anyone wants to see where I got my info), in the rites from which Freemasony is descended, the initiate (male or female) was nude.
Imakegarb - Yes, I would be interested on which reference you make this claim.
|
|
|
Post by maat on Mar 14, 2007 23:26:35 GMT
My mistake. I should have acknowledged the obviously succinct clarity of declaring: If intellectual intuition were limited to one individual mind-body conceiving itself as separate from the rest of manifestation, it would have not even generality, let alone universality. The typical case of proof of consensus amongst a number of mind-bodies leads to limited common recognition but not to universality. Usually, navigation of a vessel is based on experience of proofs based on consensus. Clear as crystal! My translation: ...one persons 'gut feeling' is of no consequence to anyone but themselves. ...if many people share the same 'gut feeling' about something then there might be something to it, there is a general consensus. ...if all people 'know' that something 'is' or 'is not' then the feeling is universal. Take the example of the statement "Murder is wrong". If some people decide to test this 'theory' and all report the results of their experiments back to a central panel , the panel will come to the conclusion that "Murder is wrong" based on the 'facts' that the consequences in all instances were harmful to many people (mind-bodies). The panel will then navigate the vessel of "the Law" in the direction that it needs to go. I quite like the way lihin expressed that the Intellectual Intuition is common to us all. It is the common point within all our individual circles. We are indeed real brothers. The mind/body combo, of course, relies on the blood factor to make us brothers. At this level we find it hard to realise that we all have something in common. Now I might have misinterpreted, and I did take many more words to express the thought. (but - I am a woman! ;D) Maat
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 15, 2007 1:17:42 GMT
Bros. JMD & ImakegarbI doubt that the n.l.b. is what lihin had in mind in reference to ‘adaptation’ as, while he doubts the legitimacy of Co-Masonry, from what I have been told, Co-M modestly complies with the spirit of the relevant ‘test’ (referring more appropriately to the ‘heart’). The liminality of our m.o.p. has, I suggest, more relevance in our initiations than ‘skyclad’ notions (although they may not be mutually exclusive). For instance, from Wikipedia's entry on Liminality , we read: There are a number of stories in folklore of those what [sic] could only be killed in a liminal space: Lleu, could not be killed during the day or night, nor indoors or outdoors, neither riding nor walking, not clothed and not naked (and is attacked at dusk, whilst wrapped in a net with one foot on a cauldron and one on a goat). Likewise, in the Mahabharata, Indra promises to not slay Namuci and Vritra with anything wet nor dry, in the day nor in the night, but kills them at dusk with foam. Bro. Maat,You read the passage one way, I read it slightly differently: I wonder what lihin intended. Perhaps it is akin to a Rorschach inkblot test.
|
|
|
Post by maat on Mar 15, 2007 2:10:31 GMT
The inkblot test is marvellous and 'proof' that 'everything' reflects back to us just what and where we are. Who needs mirrors.
This also means we are all correct when we state what a symbol represents, even when it means one thing now and another next week!! That is the beauty and the why of symbols.
Maat
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 15, 2007 3:45:00 GMT
The inkblot test is marvellous and 'proof' that 'everything' reflects back to us just what and where we are. Who needs mirrors. This also means we are all correct when we state what a symbol represents, even when it means one thing now and another next week!! That is the beauty and the why of symbols. Maat Only to an extent: Inkblots are intrinsically meaningless. There are also symbols (such as words) which are intended to be meaningful (and similarly meaningful for all parties). Conversely, we find: '... There's glory for you!'
`I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.
`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.'
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Mar 15, 2007 4:27:50 GMT
As understand it (and I can look this up when I get home, if anyone wants to see where I got my info), in the rites from which Freemasony is descended, the initiate (male or female) was nude. Imakegarb - Yes, I would be interested on which reference you make this claim. Hi Wayseer, ways away up there: ;D As I keyed in the above at work, most specifically I was thinking of a passage in J.S.M. Ward's "The Entered Apprentice's Handbook". This passage says (with an insertion of my own set aside by [brackets]): Now, y'know, only a Lewis may be made a Mason at 18. Everyone else has to be 21. Which means, chronologically anyway, we're all adults, right? And we're all supposed to, as EAs, learn to subdue our passions. Which means, hopefully, that we don't look upon nudity in purely erotic terms but can see past this to the inner person. Now, of course, there are those who just can't. They are overawed by these particular gate keepers and they giggle incessantly when someone mentions underwear. I don't have this problem ;D As for examples of nekkid initiations, there are a number. I'll cite a few: Nath: From " The Phantastikos" in which Shri Gurudev Mahendranath, the final Guru of the Adinath Sampradaya "The passage of wisdom and knowledge through the generations required the mystic magick phenomenon of initiation, which is valid to this day in the initiation transmission from naked guru to naked novice by touch, mark, and mantra. In this simple rite, the initiator passes something of himself to the one initiated. This initiation is the start of the transformation of the new Natha. It must not be overlooked that this initiation has been passed on in one unbroken line for thousands of years. Once you receive the Nath initiation, it is yours throughout life. No one can take it from you, and you yourself can never renounce it. This is the most permanent thing in an impermanent life." Christianity: In the very early Christian Church, initiates into that, then, mystery cult were naked as their baptism. The water, btw, represented the two aspects of God: God the spirit and God the mother. So, yup, another form of rebirth. More information may be obtained here. Charles Leland's Aradia; Gospel of the Witches (1890): "Whenever ye have need of anything, once in the month and when the moon is full, ye shall assemble in some secret place, or in a forest all together join to adore the potent spirit of your queen, my mother, great Diana. She who fain would learn all sorcery yet has not won its deepest secrets, them my mother will teach her, in truth all things as yet unknown. And ye shall be freed from slavery, and so ye shall be free in everything; and as a sign that ye are truly free, ye shall be naked in your rites, both men and women also..."
|
|
|
Post by lihin on Mar 16, 2007 18:44:15 GMT
Greetings Sisters and Brethren,
Brother Maat's interpretation of intellectual intuition is IMHO spot on.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 16, 2007 22:55:10 GMT
lihin finally replied to my question (Reply #148), but did so on another thread ("Females in Masonry" Reply #36). He continues to prevaricate and has not answered whether or not, in his opinion, the initiation of women as Freemasons is valid. Nor, if not, has he specified what ‘adaptation’ may make it so. Greetings Sisters and Brethren, Brother Tamrin wrote: From the context of the entire thread, this is a complex, not a Yes or No issue. Most readers of this forum are probably aware that, according to the landmarks of Freemasonry recognised by the UGLE and all affiliated Lodges as well as by many Lodges not affiliated with the UGLE, females are not receivable in regular male Lodges. IMHO there were and are good and valid reasons for this particular landmark that have nothing to do with negative discrimination based on gendre. On the contrary, this particular landmark appears to have more to do with the weakness of the male gendre. The following French text from 1735 contains a passage very nicely and sympathetically illustrating why nearly all Brethren in regular Lodges do not wish for co-Freemasonry: A translation is up to someone whose English is better than yours truly's. This has of course nothing to do with the question of initiability per se of females. The issue is tangential to this thread and, while complex, it does ultimately come down to a matter of 'Yes' or 'No', at least in terms of lihin's opinion. In the context of this thread, I ask lihin, 'What Would You Accept as Proof?', that the initiation of women as Freemasons is valid? I will not again direct lihin to my article debunking the landmark notion ('There's glory for you!' ) , he is clearly too obdurate to be swayed. Other readers may care to read Albert through the Looking Glass. By the way, despite lihin's statement, there are NO landmarks recognised by the UGLE. I ran lihin's 1735 quote through Babelfish, which gave the following translation: "the women are excluded from it, but it is only because of the effects which their merits only produce too often, between the best of the Brothers." Typically, in lihin's translation, under 'Females in Masonry', Reply #40, we find his usual affectation of multiple negatives (I make no apology and accept no fault for finding lihin's posts difficult to understand, as this appears to be among his intentions). His quote seems to argue that women and men can combine in just about every other field field of endeavour except Freemasonry (I would like to think attitudes have progressed since 1735)!? According to this perverse logic, despite their organization being selective and stressing morality, Freemasons are less able to keep their passions and prejudices within due bounds than are people in the wider community!? lihin, I repeat my question, slightly differently: In your opinion, are Bros. Maat, CoraB, Imakegarb, etc., etc., 'real' Freemasons?
|
|
|
Post by wayseer on Mar 17, 2007 0:07:42 GMT
Imakegarb thank you for your detailed reply -
Which means, hopefully, that we don't look upon nudity in purely erotic terms but can see past this to the inner person.
If 'we', as you suggest, can see past the nudity to the inner person - Why does anyone therefore have to be stipped naked?
|
|