|
Post by ariel on Nov 11, 2006 4:10:17 GMT
No offence taken. It is just that flippant coments can be taken light-heartily and at the same time be used by others who really do feel that women are just "sexy" and should not be allowed as Masons. Your comments show that you are taking the subject seriously and for that, I respect you. Kind regards, Ariel (not "sexy" by any stretch of the imagnation !)
|
|
|
Post by Bettendorf on Nov 11, 2006 4:10:53 GMT
Aha! This brings something else to mind, and it is actually pertaining to some MaleCraft Freemasons points of arguments on why the Craft should remain Male only. They view admitting a female into the Lodge changes the chemistry, say an attractive female amist a bunch of men, deviating the concentration and attention to the development the Open Lodge seeks to produce.
My take on that though, a Mason who has his desires and passions circumscribed within due bounds should be capable of not allowing the presence of a woman to subtract from his concentration in Lodge.
|
|
|
Post by ariel on Nov 11, 2006 4:14:07 GMT
At least your statistics are interesting, Ordo.
|
|
|
Post by ariel on Nov 11, 2006 4:18:37 GMT
Your last paragraph says it all. If women are thought of as "distracting" in Lodge...it say a lot about those who are distracted ! Kind regards, Ariel
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Nov 11, 2006 5:36:01 GMT
Look about you! If women and men in virtually every other field of human endeavor can work, worship and socialize together, whilst keeping their passions and prejudices within due bounds, why not in Freemasonry?
Co-Masonry, OES, etc. are living examples of the practicality of the idea. Freemasonry is, or is meant to be selective: Surely we ought to expect more, not less, of its members.
According to our First Sectional Lecture, the object of Freemasonry is the cultivation and improvement of the human mind: Humanity is more than half female!
|
|
staffs
Administrator
Staffs
Posts: 3,295
|
Post by staffs on Nov 11, 2006 7:53:37 GMT
Aha! This brings something else to mind, and it is actually pertaining to some MaleCraft Freemasons points of arguments on why the Craft should remain Male only. They view admitting a female into the Lodge changes the chemistry, say an attractive female amist a bunch of men, deviating the concentration and attention to the development the Open Lodge seeks to produce. My take on that though, a Mason who has his desires and passions circumscribed within due bounds should be capable of not allowing the presence of a woman to subtract from his concentration in Lodge. IMO i think this would depend on the age and maturity of the man as to wether his concentration would be subtracted in lodge if their were women present.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Nov 11, 2006 9:02:46 GMT
>a Mason who has his desires and passions circumscribed within due bounds should be capable of not allowing the presence of a woman to subtract from his concentration in Lodge.
Surely this is precisely why the apron is the badge of innocence. It covers the genitals so that Masons can be innocent in their lodge workings
Cheers
Russell
|
|
giovanni
Member
odi profanum vulgus, et arceo
Posts: 2,627
|
Post by giovanni on Nov 11, 2006 9:57:22 GMT
I am not against Women Freemasonry, I am against Co-masonry. On another thread I posted a long article of “The Guardian”, concerning the study of prof. Simon Baron-Cohen, an eminent neurologist. staffs.proboards37.com/index.cgi?board=General&action=display&thread=1157233877&page=2#1157779711He teaches us that male brain and female brain have different anatomy and physiology. Male brain is divided in two lobes – which work like two drawers: in the one we put rationality, in the other one emotion. Female brain isn’t. So female brains empathize far more than male ones. The problem, however, is that any brain emits what it has already received, in this case, emotions. If we work at the energetic level – and in Italy we do, at least in my lodge – we have to excite and then to harness the kundalini, so to sublimate it to the glory of the GAOTU. Women would distract men even if they were dressed as nuns. It is not matter of being “sexy”, but, rather, to have a different “sexual” mind (excuse me for the pun). This is not important in other social environments, including those lodges where the Brethren do not work at energetic level.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Nov 11, 2006 10:34:52 GMT
As Ivy Compton-Burnett observed, ‘There is more difference within the sexes than between them.'
Humanity is one: The object of Freemasonry is the cultivation and improvement of the human mind.
Freemasonry is, or ought to be, a 'universal' science: Any gender exclusive energies fall short of being universal.
|
|
|
Post by wayseer on Nov 11, 2006 11:03:48 GMT
The problem, however, is that any brain emits what it has already received, in this case, emotions. How can the 'brain' to that? The brain is an organ - perhaps you might mean 'mind' or even 'conscious' - but even then there has to be a will to act. Emotions are learned behaviour. How about a burka? Or, maybe you would like to just keep them at home chained to the sink. Am I really reading this? In Australia we recently had a very public instance of the learned Islamic teacher, Sheikh Hilali, refer to women as 'uncovered meat'. This concept also reeks of Christianity where Eve is blamed for the downfall of Man. Rather conveniently, men are thus portrayed as victims - not the aggressors. Neat. Apparently, if I were to swallow your argument, men are controlled by their penis while women are controlled by their emotions. What you are actually confirming is that women are responsible for men's aberrant behaviour and actions even when they are the victims. If this is the view of many men in FM then they are in the same boat as the Sheikh - women are 'meat'. I hope I am wrong - and that you, along with others on this thread, could re-read their posts and might wish to re-think their position. That's a cop out. And here I agree with Ariel - such like statements say more about men than it does about women. Let's grow up.
|
|
giovanni
Member
odi profanum vulgus, et arceo
Posts: 2,627
|
Post by giovanni on Nov 11, 2006 13:19:48 GMT
John,
yours is an emotional, romantic view. I respect it but cannot share it.
Romanticism is not esotericism. I am afraid you are doing confusion between exotericism and esoterism.
In any case, I speak on my own experience: all male co-masons I know do scarcely control their emotional side.
Let me draw your attention on symbols: over the WM's throne we have sun (male) and moon (female), but they are separated by the Triangle. Oneness is in the metaphysical reign, in an another reality, which is not that we are actually living in.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Nov 11, 2006 14:01:56 GMT
>Women would distract men even if they were dressed as nuns. It is not matter of being “sexy”, but, rather, to have a different “sexual” mind (excuse me for the pun).
Giovanni
Having spent a number of years in a mixed lodge, I never noticed any situation indicating male distraction.
But perhaps some brethren can give us examples of witnessing such a problem in a lodge.
Or is this a case of Masonic speculation and moralising?
Cheers
Russell
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Nov 11, 2006 14:48:23 GMT
Giovanni, Let me draw your attention on symbols: over the WM's throne we have sun (male) and moon (female), but they are separated by the Triangle. Oneness is in the metaphysical reign, in an another reality, which is not that we are actually living in. Symbolic language is extraordinarily accommodating. We could also say the sun and moon are 'united' by the triangle and that Oneness is the metaphysical reality which underlies our own. 'Romantic'? - I suggest the romantic notion is that which, solely on the basis of one's own limited experience, posits some ill-defined, 'energetic' Freemasonry as being a special case in the vast field of human endeavors, contrary to the demonstrated experience of, for instance, Co-masonry. P.S. Not that it should be relevant, but I am not a "Co-mason" and I note from Russell's signature that he is currently a member of a "malecraft" GL. From another site I have gained the impression that John is also currently in mainstream masonry. By jumping to conclusions, it is you who appears to be emotional.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Nov 11, 2006 15:14:18 GMT
Giovanni gets distracted and he's not even in the same building. But thats Italians for you.
|
|
|
Post by Bettendorf on Nov 11, 2006 16:11:00 GMT
John, Romanticism is not esotericism. I am afraid you are doing confusion between exotericism and esoterism. While Romanticism is not fundamentally Esosteric, there are plenty of mysteries to be discovered when experiencing the transcendental sensations of being. John, Let me draw your attention on symbols: over the WM's throne we have sun (male) and moon (female), but they are separated by the Triangle. Oneness is in the metaphysical reign, in an another reality, which is not that we are actually living in. In the Gnostic Mythos, the Logos(Chokmah, male, dynamic) doesnt reach his full potental til he gives of himself to save Sophiah(Binah, feminine, static) from the abyss and dominion of the Archons, and only through the reconciliation of himself with Sophia can they both ascend back to Abraxas, completing the unification of the 3 Supernals, into the Pleroma. Considering the involvement of one of our Orders Patron Saints, John the Baptist, with Gnostic schools, we ought observe that women could play full part in the Churches highest Offices and partake in the liturgies and Initiations of Gnosticism.
|
|
|
Post by Bettendorf on Nov 11, 2006 16:53:06 GMT
Regarding the Patron Saints, the 2 John's, that may be a contemporary peculiarity of US Masonry, dedication of our Lodges to them instead of King Solomon.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Nov 11, 2006 16:57:19 GMT
Giovanni states that in Italy, "...we have to excite and then to harness the kundalini..." This appears to be an idiosyncratic masonic practice which may be beyond or even contrary to the remit of the Craft. I suggest such exceptional practices should not dictate the outcome of wider considerations. He also refers to a newspaper article by Prof. Simon Baron-Cohen, which Giovanni says, “…teaches us that male brain and female brain have different anatomy and physiology.” Following his link we find the article is however no more than the presentation of one theory amongst many. Baron-Cohen’s opening paragraph asks: Are there essential differences between the male and female brain? My theory is that the female brain is predominantly hard-wired for empathy, and that the male brain is predominantly hard-wired for understanding and building systems. By contrast, there are the books, BrainSex:The Real Difference Between Men and Women, by Anne Moir and David Jesselbooks, Mandarin, 1991 and Sex and the Brain: The Separate Inheritance, by Jo Durden-Smith and Diane deSimone, Pan, 1983. Both books report the surprising fact that there are indeed subtle differences in the brains of men and women. However, the physiological differences are minuscule, the causal issues are complex and the behavioral consequences are slight (much, much less than those proposed in Baron-Cohen’s peculiar theory). I am reminded of the old argument that boys excelled at different subjects to girls because of some innate differences. One of the subjects in which boys traditionally excelled had been mathematics. Now, in New South Wales at least, that distinction has been turned around and authorities are looking for ways to address the relatively poor performance of boys in such subjects.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Nov 11, 2006 20:01:05 GMT
Regarding the Patron Saints, the 2 John's, that may be a contemporary peculiarity of US Masonry, dedication of our Lodges to them instead of King Solomon. No it goes back quite a way I believe, if you check here the 24th June is still today regarded as a Masonic day in London. www.freemasonry.london.museum/exhibits/stjohnsday.phpSt John the Baptist, whose feast day is 24th June, and St John the Evangelist, whose festival is celebrated on 27th December, are regarded as the "patron saints" of freemasonry and in some lodges meetings may be held on those days. A number of possible explanations for the association of these two saints with freemasonry have been put forward including the fact that the dates in the Christian calendar which mark their feasts are close to the Summer and Winter solstices and therefore link freemasonry with ancient customs. In the eighteenth century Grand Lodge sometimes met on 27th December (the premier Grand Lodge was constituted on St John the Baptist's Day in 1717). Before that is was common for the Craft Guilds to hold those days as important. www.maybole.org/community/organisations/St_John_No.11/maybole.htmas you can see here at St Johns Lodge.
|
|
|
Post by JulesTheBit on Nov 11, 2006 22:20:02 GMT
Seems to me that St association with "the Holy Sts John" was removed from English freemasonry by the Duke of Sussex as part of his de-christianisation of the Craft.
Could have been worse, he joined some of the Christian Orders with the sole intent of closing them down.
Some traces remain of the Sts John remain in the English Craft though, as Bill points out.
S&F, Jules
|
|
|
Post by kizzy on Nov 11, 2006 22:25:27 GMT
Every time I go near Kensal Green Cemetery I think of that fat old Hanoverian rotting in a rather nondescript tomb there , rather than in the Royal Mausoleum with others of his kin, and have a little laugh to myself. Sic Transit Gloria Mundi and the Paths of Glory lead but to the Grave. img299.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dcp1290qd1.jpgI consider that that man ruined English Malecraft Freemasonry and eviscerated it of its Spiritual content.
|
|