|
Post by pw on Aug 15, 2008 12:52:40 GMT
I'd like to ask you all if there is anybody here that has descovered any kind of scientific or spiritual enlightenment with the knowledge of Freemasonry that would answer the question of why Freemasonry is esoteric? I'm not going to focus on the knowledge gained, I'd just like to know if any of you have gained that knowledge.
For instance I was interested in Coral Castle or should I say Edward Leedskalnin and his supposed secret knowledge of magnetism and the application of sacred geometry.
|
|
|
Post by cosmicthought on Aug 16, 2008 4:40:53 GMT
I know i have, Freemasonry has given me tool's to comprehend T.G.A.O.T.U. It is your experience that makes it sacred plus other thing's ...but experience is the best teacher in life. I'd like to ask you all if there is anybody here that has descovered any kind of scientific or spiritual enlightenment with the knowledge of Freemasonry that would answer the question of why Freemasonry is esoteric? I'm not going to focus on the knowledge gained, I'd just like to know if any of you have gained that knowledge. For instance I was interested in Coral Castle or should I say Edward Leedskalnin and his supposed secret knowledge of magnetism and the application of sacred geometry.
|
|
|
Post by jerohm on Aug 16, 2008 17:07:30 GMT
Even if I would want to, I am perfectly unable to tell you what is the masonic secret. Maybe that's the reason why masonry is esoteric : THE secret cannot be told, because it goes beside words and all human porcesses of communication. Maybe could we considere it like a divine secrets, since human beeings couldn't betray it, even if they would want to. On the other hand, I think it is quite difficult to be aware to be the holder of a very ancient secret which was ignited in the brotherly heart of men and women at the dawn of the Humanity Fortunatelly, there are tools for ! Cheers Jérôme, who still speaks english like a german pig ;D
|
|
|
Post by astraia on Aug 16, 2008 19:10:28 GMT
Jerome, ne t'inquiete pas, tu ecris mieux en anglais que la majorite pourrait ecrire en francais! Apres avoir faire plus de dix ans de francais a l'ecole je le trouve encore difficile a m'exprimer par ecrit OK, there goes my French practice for this year! Can I be a pain again and add my two cents from an "academic perspective"? Before I do - a disclaimer. I'm not overly hooked on using this approach to understand - or try to - esoteric ideas, of course that requires that inner sense which can't really be expressed in words. Nor is it possible to make the "esoteric exoteric" although some scholars have gone so far as to claim so. I just find it a useful tool (pun intended) which allows the intellect to engage with these ideas on an equal footing to the 'inner sense' which is of course completely irrational in the strict sense of the word ;D I'm going to come at this from the other end; ie what is esoteric and then look at Freemasonry: Esotericism is broadly defined as a "form of thought" (way of thinking encompassing lifestyle and outlook). A popular and establisehed typology says that a given current of thought or movement (such as Freemaosnry) must display 4+2 components to be defined as esoteric. 1. Correspondences -symbolic and real, ie microcosm/macrocosm etc. 2. Living Nature - the cosmos is complex, plural, hierarchical - everything is interdependent on everything else and everything has its natural place in the cosmos, with a "hidden" life force permeating all things. 3. Imagination and mediation: the use of intermediaries (such as symbols and ritual) and images to develop a gnosis (inner, absolute knowing of something) to penetrate the hieroglyphs of Nature, to put the theory of correspondences into active practice and establish a cogntiive and visionary relationship with an intermediary (between the material and the spiritual) world. 4. Experience of transmutation. That metamorphosis that through initiation or experiential dimension changes us on an inner level. 5. The Praxis of Concordance: a tendency to establish common denominators between two or more diverse traditions, uncover their harmonies, and acquire a gnosis embracing them and melding them in a single crucible. 6. Transmission: From master to disciple - initiation of the younger by the older and more adept. (adapted from Antoine Faivre, Access to Western Esotericism, (New York, SUNY 1994) pp. 10-15Freemasonry, from where I'm sitting, corresponds to all six of those components. What each person individually may gain in terms of gnosis depends on the person, and I suppose that's where the idea that we all walk alone despite the sense of fraternity comes from. IMHO the way of seeing (hence my signature) used/taught in Freemasonry is what makes it esoteric compared to a rationalistic and linear approach - because when talking about symbolic correspondences, the idea of living nature, the sense of timelessness and the melange of traditions that have found their way into modern Freemasonry - we are truly outside time and 'seeing' in a very different manner to our everyday profane world. The resultant illumination will be different for each one - that's really the ineffable part is it not? What holds it all together, again IMHO is the 'knowing' that we share that particular, elusive approach through FM's teachings and method. At least that's how I make sense of it!
|
|
|
Post by pw on Aug 16, 2008 20:47:48 GMT
Thanks very much I suppose I'm a little clearer, I have no understanding of the initiation part but I gather that the point of this would be to create a sense of a a greater connection to a philosophical idea of creation by embrassing that in a group environment. Does this make sense of am I nowhere near?
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 16, 2008 22:35:47 GMT
On the other hand, I think it is quite difficult to be aware to be the holder of a very ancient secret which was ignited in the brotherly heart of men and women at the dawn of the Humanity While this is a common perception, it requires selectivity and an uncritical comparison with those systems selected. To keep matters in perspective, I recommend reading Leo Zanelli's short article,
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 16, 2008 23:00:05 GMT
'When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, … ‘it means just what I choose it to mean’ … (Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass) Esotericism is broadly defined as a "form of thought" (way of thinking encompassing lifestyle and outlook). A popular and establisehed typology says that a given current of thought or movement (such as Freemaosnry) must display 4+2 components to be defined as esoteric.
1. Correspondences -symbolic and real, ie microcosm/macrocosm etc. 2. Living Nature - the cosmos is complex, plural, hierarchical - everything is interdependent on everything else and everything has its natural place in the cosmos, with a "hidden" life force permeating all things. 3. Imagination and mediation: the use of intermediaries (such as symbols and ritual) and images to develop a gnosis (inner, absolute knowing of something) to penetrate the hieroglyphs of Nature, to put the theory of correspondences into active practice and establish a cogntiive and visionary relationship with an intermediary (between the material and the spiritual) world. 4. Experience of transmutation. That metamorphosis that through initiation or experiential dimension changes us on an inner level. 5. The Praxis of Concordance: a tendency to establish common denominators between two or more diverse traditions, uncover their harmonies, and acquire a gnosis embracing them and melding them in a single crucible. 6. Transmission: From master to disciple - initiation of the younger by the older and more adept.
(adapted from Antoine Faivre, Access to Western Esotericism, (New York, SUNY 1994) pp. 10-15 The above definition is ideosyncratic, going well beyond the usual meaning of the term "Esotericism." In going well beyond the usual meaning, the definition does not change that meaning and may instead be seen as device to bolster a peculiar position. In this case, it appear to be the position of the so-called Traditionalist School whose principal proponent was the anti-masonic author René Guénon.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 16, 2008 23:05:06 GMT
I'd like to ask you all if there is anybody here that has descovered any kind of scientific or spiritual enlightenment with the knowledge of Freemasonry that would answer the question of why Freemasonry is esoteric? I'm not going to focus on the knowledge gained, I'd just like to know if any of you have gained that knowledge. For instance I was interested in Coral Castle or should I say Edward Leedskalnin and his supposed secret knowledge of magnetism and the application of sacred geometry. Esotericism is a term much abused. It literally pertains to that which is within (either within a group or, more especially, within an individual). Despite this, the term is often used to refer to superstitious beliefs outside of or contrary to reason: Such as in the actual, concrete existence of giants of fairy tale proport-ions; humanoid, alien visitors; mythical creatures, such as unicorns; quack therapies; and dowsing (all of which may be subjects worth considering, if only to plumb the psychological factors underlying them).
However, Freemasonry is a rational science which was in the vanguard of thought during the Age of Enlightenment. Further on in one's masonic career, the mason may indeed be charged to oppose super-stition (along with tyranny and ignorance). Thus the esoteric tradition to which we are heirs is a discipline which properly and accurately corresponds to the term, pertaining as it does to that which is within each individual, i.e., their spiritual development. This esotericism enlightens the human condition; promotes our moral and intellectual development; and even provides a glimmer of insight as to our prospects.
Few if any of Freemasonry's teaching are peculiar to the institution. However, many find its methods can be more convincing than traditional means of education. Whereas in a class room, one teacher attempts to instruct many students, in Freemasonry this model is turned on its head and many "teachers" focus on the one "student," the initiate, and bring to bear all domains of learning: Cognitive, by way of non-dogmatic information to assimilate; behavioral, impressing lessons on a candidate's mind through active participation in dramatic performances; affective, eliciting each candidate's emotional attention by repeated challenges and unfamiliar surprises; and hopefully, surpassing all this with the combined good will of those present contributing a spiritual domain and an attachment to their group "soul." This is very powerful stuff.
The chief lesson learnt is that Life itself is the great initiation and Freemasonry effectively models our human condition and enables us to reflect and deliberate on our development and our present situation, our choices and our future prospects. Central to our tenets is the notion of Brotherhood. It promotes the recognition that all men and women, indeed all sentient creatures, are bound by the Mystic Tie, whereby we are each sprung from the same stock, are partakers of the same nature and sharers of the same hope.
Freemasonry has moral, intellectual and spiritual tendencies with respect to all its genuine professors. These tendencies enhance recognition of the ultimate reality, which is Oneness, and those who follow this path increasingly come to see separateness as an illusion, individuality as a mystery and the one soul, the one "I", the One Life or, indeed, the one light shining and being expressed through All that Is, being that one aspect which is essentially us.
|
|
|
Post by astraia on Aug 16, 2008 23:50:51 GMT
Categorically not so, Bro:. Tamrin, though I can see how that may be construed without some of the context. It needs to be understood as a phenomenological categorisation of esoteric currents as studied from more of a historical and painfully academic perspective(I'll explain what I mean by that in a minute). I am not sure what you are referring to when you say "the usual meaning of esotericism" unless it is with reference to the text in your last post.
What has happened with the academic study of esoteric currents is precisely an effort to avoid at all costs the mixing of scholarly vs practical perspectives. We (as scholars) are warned to be extremely careful when getting anywhere near traditionalist literature because of the undercurrent of bias inherent in many writings. Although there is nothing wrong with studying Traditionalism for its own sake, again, from a perspective that explores its development and influences, it is certainly not a perspective used in our methodology. This particular book of Faivre's is considered "W.Esotericism" 101 for people entering the course.
Antoine Faivre has lectured and written extensively on esotericism and it's study in the academy, is one of the pioneers of the academic study of this subject and held the Chair of Religious Studies at the Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes at the Sorbonne until recently (unless he still holds it, though I think he's now retired). If he isn't a Freemason himself then he has certainly lectured at the first ICHF Conference held in Edinburgh last May and was also on the board selecting presenters. His position is anything but negative towards Freemasonry or any other currents, and his criticisms, such as they may be, are oriented towards bad scholarship, not one or another current.
The typology I quoted above is basically used to examine whether a given current which may seem esoteric, is esoteric, and from there on how and where it fits into the corpus of esoteric currents as now studied. Simply because a given spiritual current involves "inner work" doesn;t make it esoteric - and if it does, it is "our job" as scholars to understand how, why and wherefore. This is considered one of the most influential methodological propositions in terms of these studies, and though more recent scholars have added to it and suggested modifications, these are methodological in nature in terms of perhaps avoiding reductionism (as a historical approach is sometimes wont to cause) and so forth.
Nor is it intended to "bolster" any particular position. But if, for instance, you're studying, say, Pietism - now Pietism influenced esotericism and provided 17th-18th century theosophy with a vehicle, yes, but it is not an esoteric movement, it is a religious one, when held up to aforesaid typology. Same goes for many New Age movements which could be construed as esoteric, but are actually more mystical in nature, and not esoteric as such. When analysing, say, the process of initiation - generally, not just in Freemasonry - take for example, puberty initiation in indigenous tribes, or something entirely different, like the initiation of priests. Both, particularly the first, are sociological first and foremost. They have an esoteric element, yes, but are they esoteric currents denoting forms of thought which display the phenomenology of esotericism? No, or not according to the typology. This is how it is meant, and it is an extremely useful rule of thumb to avoid confusion. Which is why its used in an academic setting where objectivity and understanding is key. One could argue of course that anything effecting change on an inner level is esoteric - and my first paper on this course argued precisely this. I got a so-so mark, and firm instructions of why I had to stick to the methodology, despite the fact that it was a well-supported paper.
It is not idiosyncratic - what it is is academic - and this may well come across as unusual in the context that Freemasonry teaches. The definition of esoteric from this perspective goes well beyond the sense of "inner" knowledge as we as practitioners may comprehend it. This definition is now widely accepted as a rule of thumb in the three major European universities now teaching MA courses in Western Esotericism, (Sorbonne, Universiteit von Amsterdam and Exeter) and to the best of my knowledge, in other institutions teaching on elements of Western Esotericism as part of undergraduate religion or philosophy courses as well. Take the University of Sheffield Centre for Studies into Freemasonry, the Canonbury Masonic Research Centre etc, even Great Queen Street Library - in the UK at least all of these institutions are positively disposed towards the literature and methodology used in our courses (I'm at Exeter). I daresay they speak for themselves.
If you, or anyone else is interested, I can type up the full text of the definition (though I think I should do it privately as it is bound by copyright and runs for 5 pages) so that the proper context can be given.
Allow me to reassure you, and anyone else though, that because it has been a fight to get the study of W.E. into the academy at all, they are so careful about methodology that it puts a severe strain on us students! I came from a background in English Literature where we had a certain leeway when it came to interpretation. Here the level of assessment is as stringent as they come simply because the field cannot afford to allow one iota of stigma related to poor scholarship or free association - they'll have us out on our ear before we know it! I thought to post the typology simply because to my mind it gives a succinct account of elements of esotericism which in its entirety fits Freemasonry down to the ground, and is useful especially for a non-Mason seeking to understand the relationship between esotericism and fraternities such as ours. It is all a matter of perspective, IMHO.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 17, 2008 0:27:16 GMT
If one feels that standard definitions are inadequate for one's purposes one may specify one's own particular usage, to be born in mind in the context of one's exposition. This usage does not however change the usual meaning. I would "categorically" reject the notion that a specialist definition of a term takes precedence over its usual definition, except within the narrow confines of that discipline. For the record, while I was a speaker at last year's ICHF and Prof. Faivre was on its Academic Committee, his name does not appear on the program of speakers (albeit, there was at least one late substitution).
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Aug 17, 2008 0:31:58 GMT
astraia
I find the 6 points of:
-Correspondences -Living Nature -Imagination and mediation -Experience of transmutation -The Praxis of Concordance -Transmission
to be a pretty good model for spiritual esotericism. The model has hooks on which to hang most aspects of esotericism - although like any model it might be seen as a bit inanimate and more analytic than synthetic.
The model as far as presented above seems to refer to the early stages of esotericism.
Thus "correspondences" is a mental construct that reflects partially how the initiate generates conceptual maps and diagnostic means to assist in finding and recognising entities.
And imagination and mediation by symbols and images reflects an early stage of experience - like examining a photo before visiting. A more advanced stage is "identifying" with the target in order to experience its reality from the inside.
Transmutation does indeed occur along with unfoldment of transpersonal faculties and merging with other entities symbiotically
Transmission is perhaps a bit mechanistic as a term. Contagion might be better.
I recall a story about Jung. He was having trouble in the kitchen and after some time he went and stood in the middle of the kitchen and apologised to the pots and pans for the disturbance he was causing. That seems to me a good example of the esotericist in action.
Cheers
Russell
|
|
|
Post by astraia on Aug 17, 2008 0:46:47 GMT
One did! See above disclaimer. Nothing wrong with dictionary definitions, but if a different discipline offers a different perspective and insight, why not use it? I've been using elements of Communication Theory to explain how alchemical symbolism works - what's wrong with that? Never said it did. I was answering (or trying to ) pw's question about what makes Freemasonry esoteric, not contradicting your definition. Well first I'm hideously jealous (couldn't afford to make the journey to Edinburgh and desperately wanted to), secondly I congratulate you, and thirdly I'm glad because then I don't have to explain the field I'm talking about nor vouch for Prof. Faivre's integrity as a scholar. What does his name appearing on the program of speakers have to do with it? He didn't speak, OK, but he obviously played a part in selecting who would speak. Bro:. Tamrin, let's not turn this into another hair-splitting match over definitions. We both know there is no one "correct" definition for anything in Freemasonry - yourself far more than I based on precedence and experience. However there's nothing wrong with using a diverse approach, especially since Freemasonry doesn't require nor necessitate the academic method. I like to use it because - although it may not seem so - I am a terrible cynic and it satisfies my need to intellectualise things which I won't fully interiorise before my brain accepts them. In this case I figured that might apply to others, and an exoteric approach could do no harm. The one approach complements the other from where I'm sitting, and provides a nice stopper for possible credulity while allowing the space for plenty of philosophising should one be that way inclined. On another note. Before I joined Freemasonry, some of my (now ) Brn:. used to really put me through my paces when in discussion about this or that a aspect of symbolism or esoteric philosophy. Their greatest criticism was to be careful with my use of words because, they said, in Freemasonry, you need to be very clear about being precise with language. This gave me a headache, because I'm bilingual, but more accustomed to using English at this level as all my studies have been in English, so sometimes in Greek I would use too general a term or a shortcut which sounded vague. So you're giving me another workout and truly, with no trace of irony intended, I'm grateful! Keeps the brain firing on all cylinders!!!
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 17, 2008 1:12:55 GMT
Wonder of wonders! An academic who does not wish to split hairs!? Less wonderful is the the call for precision or leeway as it suits the exponent (I very much doubt if pw's question was raised with your peculiar definition in mind).
|
|
|
Post by astraia on Aug 17, 2008 1:26:11 GMT
Bro Russell, Well yes it's analytical - but that's an occupational hazard - goes with the territory really. ;D ;D ;D ;D As to some of the other definitions - there's more to them, much of which actually encompasses what you werote - but I was trying to keep it short! Bro Tamrin, ;DI'm an artist at heart, I'm in the middle of my dissertation and running late, it's nearly 4:30 in the morning and I stay up every night til dawn in the hope of finishing the blasted thing!!!!!!!! Over a coffee or beer I'll split hairs all you like! Not on a friendly, sorry, fraternal forum where the risk of misinterpretation isn't worth the number of explanatory follow-up posts that will be needed! Plus I went into academia to satisfy my own personal need to intellectualise things, not to split hairs!!!!!! To learn and share knowledge, not to reinvent the darn wheel!!!! And when I'm done with the dissertation I'm going back to painting and leaving my books alone until my head clears! Is this an academic debate? No it isn't, so leeway is just fine IMHO. Precision came in because I was anxious to allay your possible concern that the definition had anything to do with the Traditionalist school. See what I said re misunderstandings due to this medium - I have no way of knowing how much is understood about this kind of methodology, so I have to overcompensate by being precise even when it may be uncalled for. You're probably right, but it sure spiced up the debate didn't it? And may have given a few folks an interesting perspective - which was the point! Excuse me, I'm going back to trying to fit two millennia of debate on the soul into a paragraph Now there's peculiar! (actually, downright masochistic!)
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 17, 2008 1:40:36 GMT
For instance I was interested in Coral Castle or should I say Edward Leedskalnin and his supposed secret knowledge of magnetism and the application of sacred geometry. With Leedskalnin's magnetic theories, he claimed it was possible to store energy without appreciable loss (not as remarkable as the perpetual motion notions others have attributed to his ideas). As for his coral constructions, he didn't say what methods he used (levers, pulleys—who knows?). Lack of knowledge is not sufficient grounds for attributing supernatural causes.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 17, 2008 1:48:16 GMT
Is this an academic debate? That was the direction in which your intervention was taking the thread.
|
|
|
Post by astraia on Aug 17, 2008 1:55:59 GMT
I'm sorry if you saw it that way. I wrote that disclaimer to avoid precisely that impression.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 17, 2008 2:07:19 GMT
I'm sorry if you saw it that way. I wrote that disclaimer to avoid precisely that impression. IMO, That was not so much a disclaimer as an expression of regret for doing so.
|
|
|
Post by astraia on Aug 17, 2008 2:18:30 GMT
THIS IS A DISCLAIMER
THIS IS AN EXPRESSION OF REGRET THAT YOU SEEM TO MISINTERPRET WHAT IS SAID AND THE SPIRIT IN WHICH IT IS SAID
AND THIS IS AN HONEST, FRIENDLY, AND WRYLY AMUSED EXPLANATION OF THE SPIRIT IN WHICH ALL OF THE ABOVE WERE POSTED ORIGINALLY WRITTEN WITH A SMILE
And the direction in which this intervention is now taking the thread is off topic, so I, for one, shall say goodnight, or good morning, depending on which way one chooses to view the world.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 17, 2008 2:42:16 GMT
Well, in plain English this was to me saying, I do not like doing this and, while it may not even be a good approach, I am doing it anyway (hardly a "disclaimer," even though you used the term). Perhaps you need to define what YOU mean by "disclaimer" (perhaps you meant "qualification," as you presumably still retain responsibility and accountability for what you wrote).
|
|