|
Post by hollandr on Apr 5, 2007 23:59:51 GMT
>I suggest Occam's Razor cautions us against further pointless conjectures
I doubt that Occams Razor has anything to say about pointless conjectures
As I recall it suggests the all things being equal, a simpler hypothesis is preferable
But in life it is rare to find all things equal.
Further, the wild conjectures of one generation may be the common sense of the next
And the commonsense of one generation may be rejected by the next
Cheers
Russell
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Apr 6, 2007 0:13:19 GMT
Occam's Razor specifically states that 'entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity'—which was precisely my point—there is no need for the entities you propose.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Apr 6, 2007 1:16:39 GMT
>there is no need for the entities you propose.
I find that statements without actors a bit hard to respond to
Who or what does not need those entities?
And to leap ahead - how do we know that the rest of creation does not need those entities? The bio-political structure of the extra-systemic creation contains many things strange to terran humans
"HAMLET And therefore as a stranger give it welcome. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. "
Cheers
Russell
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Apr 6, 2007 3:06:31 GMT
By 'need,' I mean no logical need. I readily accept there may be psychological needs being met by such delusions. In asking, 'how do we know that the rest of creation does not need those entities?' you are again asking for negative proof. One may simply respond by asking for positive proof, i.e., 'how do we or would we know that the rest of creation might need such entities?' While there are indeed more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in any philosophy, upon anyone proposing any particular entity beyond our direct experience, such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, one to whom it is presented, is entitled to some proof, or at the very least some reason for the proposition. Which takes us back to the beginning of the thread.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Apr 6, 2007 3:21:02 GMT
>no logical need
If my memory serves me from my long gone mathematical studies we:
- started with assumptions or undefined constructs such as a "point" - applied logical operations - arrived at the implication of the assumptions
Hmm
Cheers
Russell
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Apr 6, 2007 3:30:56 GMT
I was not referring to mathematical proofs. The later Wittgenstein and then Imre Lakatos convincingly argued that mathematical proofs were essentially tautological. They did not extend their arguments to 'proofs' in other disciplines. If you do not like 'logical' (and I can see why), how about ' epistemological' need? Better still, will YOU please please tell us what objective need is being met by your hypothetical entities?
|
|
|
Post by lihin on Apr 6, 2007 12:06:57 GMT
Greetings Sisters and Brothers, Since this thread has resurfaced, yours truly respectfully submits that the lovely pictures posted by Brother Tamrin here and at his website constitute proofs neither of female work as masons nor, even less, of initiation of females into Freemasonry. Kindly examine the nice pictures carefully. One shows a queen or other high ranking noble woman with a silver crown carrying a stone. Another picture shows women in their elaborate clothes including high head dresses carrying one stone each on top their heads. One of the women crushes her head dress in so doing. Is any of this plausible of a workaday world in light of even the most superficial reality check? In keeping with the tone of a long section of this very thread, perhaps the lovely pictures allegorically illustrate the initiatic transmission of particular building techniques by aliens to human beings.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Apr 6, 2007 13:27:15 GMT
Greetings Sisters and Brothers, Since this thread has resurfaced, yours truly respectfully submits that the lovely pictures posted by Brother Tamrin here and at his website constitute proofs neither of female work as masons nor, even less, of initiation of females into Freemasonry. Kindly examine the nice pictures carefully. One shows a queen or other high ranking noble woman with a silver crown carrying a stone. Another picture shows women in their elaborate clothes including high head dresses carrying one stone each on top their heads. One of the women crushes her head dress in so doing. Is any of this plausible of a workaday world in light of even the most superficial reality check? In keeping with the tone of a long section of this very thread, perhaps the lovely pictures allegorically illustrate the initiatic transmission of particular building techniques by aliens to human beings. lihin, I'm not sure what you mean by 'resurfaced' as this thread has not long been far below the surface since Bro. Maat commenced it. Albeit, until now, the issue of women and masonry has not been discussed in this context. Perhaps you are confusing it with another thread. Be that as it may, I again suggest you go back to my website and this time read the articles (which, as I have previously pointed out, have no illustrations), especially the Craftswomen article. Consider the Old Charges, especially the Certificate of the Guild of Masons at Lincoln; the cases of Sabina von Steinbach and Mary Banister; the employment records on building site at Würzburg and those of the London Company of Masons; etc., etc. You obviously have not read these articles despite my request that you do so. They are readily available, not overly long, and in a language with which you a acquainted. Read them before again presuming to criticize what I have written. To rephrase what I have previously said to you: I have never claimed the illustrations constitute definitive proofs (for the very reasons you have outlined) and I have not relied on them as such (nevertheless they have some relevance). There is a page under the 'Galleries' section depicting androgynous figures in work clothes (examples below), illustrating how, in many cases (as with Masons' Marks), one can only ascertain sex where the artist has employed some license, (as in the illustrations to which you referred).
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Apr 7, 2007 17:20:40 GMT
Bro. Phillip, you and I have discussed this very matter before (in another most excellent thread that now, sadly, is deleted). And in it we discussed the various ideas about the women who were in the Operative Masonic lodges (for indeed they were, it is too far easily documented and, once presented with this documentation, only the willfully ignorant would deny it). However, in that thread, I said something that I still stick to: that the clothing in these illustrations is being worn by men. The lower workers are wearing a short tunic and the masters/wealthy visitors, who aren't doing any work, are wearing the longer tunics. This is how men of this time (fairly early in the cathedral building period) dressed. Women dressed in a similiar fashion except their tunics, likewise, tended to be long. Even their work tunics would be expected to come no higher than calf length, though often they would tuck their tunics into their belts when they were doing especially arduous work (for these are, by and large, working-class women). Also, their hair, very likely would be covered (though certain not with the high peaked head dresses of the higher classes, who would not be doing this work anyway; a fact that brethen such as Bro. Lihin rather skillfully ignore). For women in this period, doing this job, *if* they wanted to progress in the Craft (and I'm sure there were those who did otherwise and then made it all the more difficult for other women) would be expected to be very modest in their dress and manners. Almost like a nun. However, that said, it would not be required as unmarried women of the time generally kept their hair uncovered (see below because . . . wow, this gets interesting). I would, therefore, expect to see them in caps, such as the men in these illustrations are wearing or it could be something like this or this and this or . . . you get the idea. Again, she wouldn't be wearing anything like this as we're talking about a woman of the working classes, not of the nobility (as is the woman depicted in this image). For as Bro. Lihin pointed out, this would be most impractical. It also would be willfully ignorant to assume all women of the period wore only those headdresses. And for what it may be worth, I have done very hard work dressed as a working-class woman of the cathedral building period (complete with head covering). I find it far easier to work in those clothes than in my modern garb. A few other things also need to be pointed out. These are NOT photographs. These are images created by artists for agenda of their own. If they choose not to portray a woman in their image of a cathedral building worksite, it's their choice. They are, by and large, going for allegory and not reality (there's a physical assault going on to the right of one of your images; this rather clearly points out the symbolic meaning of this image). Also, for a woman to succeed as a Mason in this period, she would need to clear a number of obstacles. For one thing, she would have to be exceptionally and strong and skilled. She couldn't be just a mediocre apprentice. As women in modern times have found when entering fields formally worked only by men, she would have to be better than average. She also would have to, somehow, avoid some interesting marriage traps. For instance, it had occurred to me that the daughter of a penniless and deceased brother might be taken on as an apprentice by one of his brethren. This, I think, would be especially so if she showed adequate skill. I also think it would be more likely that his brethren would take up a collection to pay her dowry (either into marriage or into a convent). Even if she were taken on as an apprentice, marriage would still be an obstacle. For, as an apprentice, she would not be allowed to marry. If she did (and this would be true of any apprentice), her career would be over. My over all guess is that there were very few women who entered the Craft during the pre-gothic and gothic periods; and fewer still who made it to the rank of fellow or master. Their numbers certainly increased later (they worked more cheaply) and, on some worksites, they were the majority. I think it should also be said that those brethren who insist on saying women were not included in operative lodges (though clearly they were) as proof there should be no women Freemasons are not only wrong but are missing the more valid point. For when this proof falls away, such brethren simply fall back to another position. And then another. And then another. Which makes the work of brethren such as you all the more exhausting. My experience with such brethren, however, is that their objection has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the "proof" they're clinging to. The fact is they just don't want to sit in lodge with women. And that is a very valid reason not to do so. For harmony in a lodge is very important. And if they feel they can't find that harmony if women are present, then they should join a Malecraft lodge and be done with it. No debate, no drama. All is well. It does puzzle me, however, why they don't just state this very valid reason and, instead, go on and on about reasons that have utterly no validity. Now, having said aaaaaaaaaaaall that . . . Bro. Philip, I only this morning noticed something in one of your images that I'd never, ever noticed before (and I do have some experience with this image). It's this figure: Uh, wow. We have here a person in a tunic far longer than most working men of the time wore (compare it to the shorter tunics worn by other apprentices in the image). And it's tucked into the belt. This figure also is properly shod and hosed. The hair isn't covered but, y'know, an unmarried woman wouldn't be *required* to cover her hair. And a female apprentice would be unmarried. I can't be sure but . . . you know Bro. Philip, I think this one *might* be a woman.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Apr 8, 2007 2:16:09 GMT
Bro. Karen,While I have made no claim other than that this and other such images are ambiguous and that we should not therefore expect from them proof either way, I suggest you look again at some of the other figures in the picture. The reasons you give for one figure being possibly a woman could also apply to the other workers depicted there, especially the one behind the figure you selected (the other three are also belted, however, the wall conceals their hemlines and footwear) and in this other image (background, right). The problem with most such illustrations, as you point out, is that in them, as distinct from photographs, all details are intentional and some selectivity is inevitable. As you know, dress styles varied over time, from place to place, between classes, within occupations, for various tasks and even allowed some individual latitude. An analogy may be drawn with the wearing of the hijab, of which more extreme forms, such as the burqa, are said to be consided by some women to be a status symbol, as they are unsuitable for wearing while working in the fields or in many of the more arduous 'lower class' occupations. Thus women in such occupations have always had to dress for work, often despite prevailing mores in the wider community. The upper classes were disproportionately represented in medieval illustrations and the lower classes tended to be represented less carefully and more stereotypically. Thus, we would have had a situation mirroring that in the cartoon below: While, for individuals, first impressions matter, in history, last impressions linger. Thus many studies focus on the late Middle Ages (when women were indeed excluded from many trades—although, even then, some were still Masons) seemingly as if they were more or less representative of the whole period. My studies show that the employment of women in the building trades was fairly common until the late Middle Ages (after the Gothic period), with the rise of Journeymen's lodges, which were largely successful in agitating for the exclusion of women and foreigners, who they blamed for driving down wages. Indeed, wives and daughters had been expected to participate and become skilled in the trades and widows continued to be given special priviledges in the guilds.
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Apr 8, 2007 23:26:23 GMT
True enough but we do have some images of women working - and working very hard - in other images of the period (which, as your correctly pointed out, was over many centuries). As blacksmithAs physicianAt harvestMidwifeAnd, again, I have, personally, done very hard work dressed in women's garb of this period. A proper head dress (binding, really) will keep the hair out of my face and will do much to wick the sweat from my brow. Which is why the fellows on the ladder are wearing coifs (which women of this period likewise often wore). Anyway, I can tell you from personal experience that the work of a Mason of the pre-gothic and gothic periods can be done in women's clothing. You get the point. However, in these images, and based on my personal garb studies, I think *all* of the figures on the right are men (indeed, some of them have beards) and are either in charge or are patrons of the work. I base this on the length and cut of their tunics and how well they are dressed. It is confusing because women's tunics had about the same cut as men. However, if there were a woman master or patron in the group to the right, she would, presumably (because she's not there to do any physical work) be as well dressed as is everyone else in that group. In which case (and bearing in mind the time period of this particular image), I would expect her to be dressed something like this. So I'm concentrating, instead, on the group of workers to the left. Your mention of abiguity is apt as there was, in this particular period, and incredible amount of that, especially when the working classes are depicted. For instance, all the garb knowledge in the work can not determine if the two musicians here depicted are women or young boys. Styles, at the time, for both sexes were that close. And apprentices on a construction site would, largely, be young boys and (a very few) girls. So, yup, plenty of room for ambiguity. In the images and, I'll bet, in person. So *if* any of the group on the left are female, about the only thing I can go on is tunic length. And it's here that we get a bit of a clue about which gender might be which. The fellows climbing the ladder have exposed knees. It is doubtful that even a working class woman of this time would have shown that much leg (hosed or otherwise). You're right about the worker to the left of the one I pointed out but that worker is bent over and it's difficult to tell how long his/her tunic is. the one I pointed out, clearly, has a longer than normal tunic. In fact, were it not tucked under the belt, I'll bet it would reach the ground. That's a sharp contrast to the fellows on the ladder. Now, it *might* be female. It might also be a young boy not yet grown into his tunic. That happens, too. But even without these images, we know there were women operative Masons. There's much too much documentation to really, and truly, believe otherwise; though some willfully disbelieve. But it's hardly the point. Those brethren who don't want to sit in lodge with women just don't want to. And there's no better reason than that. Why they feel a need to make up something to justify this . . . well, that part I don't get. But they do it not withstanding.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Apr 9, 2007 0:58:54 GMT
Bro. KarenHere are some more images of artificers in metals, a trade arguable even more involved in macho mystique than stonemasonry and a trade which may in the future hold even greater significance for you:
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Apr 9, 2007 1:32:23 GMT
(Little smile) I'd not heard that metal working would ever come up in Freemasonry. I'll keep my eyes open. Of these images, the top one is strictly allegorical. The lady is wearing ermine. Only royalty wore ermine. And not queen/princess/duchess/countess/etc. would do such work so . . . But the other two images . . . yup. In the second image, the person on the left seems to be rather ambigiously dressed, though I like the touch of having his/her sleeve tied about his/her waist to keep them out of the way. A touch such as this is rather obscure and tells me the artist must have seen it done. Which lends a HUGE bit of credibility to the obviously female worker on the right. Even if she were not, so obviously, a mature woman, the wideness at the neck of her tunic would give her gender away. This wideness was considered a feature of female clothing. For a man to wear a tunic that open at the neck was akin to cross dressing. It just didn't happen. The bottom figure deals, a bit, with the hair issue. If you weren't going to cover your head (and if you were unmarried, you didn't have to) and you weren't going to wear a coif, keeping your long hair out of your face could be an issue (for it was considered rather shameful - mannish even - for a woman to keep her hair short). Luckily, then as now, working women find ways to deal with this issue. And since very, very few people lived alone, there always would be another woman around to help with intricate braiding (which could be left in place for days). Oh, and I came across this image from the Maciejowski Bible. Both, I think, are men but I'm liking the clear view of their tools and how they use them. The fellow on the left is using the square and a marking tool to mark off the straight line. the fellow on the right is using a gavel and chisel upon his stone, presumably already so marked. I like this image quite a lot ;D
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Apr 9, 2007 3:02:29 GMT
Without spoiling anything, I can say that 'Masonry' encompasses more than Stonemasonry. You would, for instance, already be aware that H.Ab. was said, among other things, to have been an artificer in metals. Generically, Masonry can refer to any artisan in the building trades or even to any artisan, such as a blacksmith, whose trade entails the use of a hammer as an important element. Fort in his Early History and Antiquities of Freemasonry (thank you for recommending it) says, p.434: " From the mallet, club, or mace, ... the name of Mason has originated." I presume the derivation follows something like, 'mace-one,' i.e., one who uses a mace. I suppose my first serious doubts about the presumption of female delicacy arose in my early twenties, at the BHP steelworks in Newcastle (since closed), where I formed friendships with some of the robust women there who, if anything, outperformed the men at heavy labour. Unfortunately, the photo below is not from BHP.
|
|
|
Post by maat on Apr 10, 2007 0:47:25 GMT
.... and what about we invisible female workers!
True story... just this morning my husband told me about a 'really odd, strange dream' he had. He woke up during the night and saw me approaching him with 5 shortish ghost people (his discription). The ghost people proceeded to tell him they were here to help heal him. Apparently they were each to work on a different section... the one he remembered in full, said "I am here to make your hearing better, I will not be able to totally cure it, but I will be able to make it better for you". (My husband does wear a hearing aid and his hearing has got worse recently.)
I sure am going to have fun talking louder than normal over the next day or two.... ;D
Maat (He deserves it, he laughed when I saw 'a ghost')
|
|
|
Post by dragonseeker on Jun 9, 2007 0:33:09 GMT
On another thread Tamrin posed this very interesting question and I thought it deserved a thread of it's own. Russell's response to Tamrin's fantasy scenario was as follows: >the 'possibility' of super intelligent unicorns monitoring and guiding our activities from a parallel universe and materialising only in rare cases where our universes intersect on binary transects of the nth dimension...Hang on, maybe I'm onto something!? Philip You certainly are on to something there. The unicorn is one of the most powerful images in a range of cultures and it is not because there was a great advertising campaign way back. Many people in our culture claim to have seen unicorns and the claimants I have met (close to 30) all seemed to me to be reasonably competent humans able to run businesses and bring up families. Interestingly most of those I questioned (about 20) had basically identical descriptions of the feel of the coat of their unicorn - like a silk carpet Cheers Russell I find that my criteria for considering acceptance of the 'unbelievable' is when you get the same reports from reliable witnesses of different cultures, age groups, belief systems, time frames, etc etc. If so many are reporting the same thing - then there must be something there. To consistently deny what hundreds, thousands, millions? have seen is not being rational. Now, sometimes a phenomenon may have an explanation that is different from what is supposed, but that does not negate the existance of the phenomenon itself. As in Russells example above, if 20 people all say they have seen a Unicorn and they all say it feels the same way, then they must be experiencing something that exists on one level or another. Thousands of people who have had conversations with people who have passed on/over/died and been told by skeptics that that is not possible "because no dead person has come back to tell us" must find it a trifle frustrating. Same goes for those who see or interact with what is termed aliens/ufo's. Most witnesses are not UFO buffs, often they are the man on the street, the policemen who answers the call, whole towns (as in Mexico). So many people cannot all be deluded, together, at the same time. To think so is to delude ones self IMO. As most of you know I am a crop circle fan - and I know people can construct them - and I know that they cannot construct complicated abstract ones in 15 minutes (has happened and witnessed by reliable non crop circle enthusiasts). Are crop circles much different to snow flakes ... ? We know no-one constructs them. All that being as it may - can we consider here in the esoteric section what you personally would accept as proof, or pointing to proof, of something you had hitherto thought of as 'not possible' 'rubbish' etc Maat A partial list of my paranormal experiences: My mother has visited me multiple times (she passed in '92), sometimes in 'dreams"..in one, we were sitting, facing each other, and she was sobbing, "I'm dead, I'm dead"..other times she visits and flicks the light on and off to let me know she's around I saw a ghost hovering over my bed in my old apt bldg, it used to be a hotel and was haunted. about 2 years ago, I was visited by 3 creatures, hard to describe, but they looked like the kind of thing you see carved on a native american totem pole; they spoke to me, and told me to "make amends"..I was in the middle of some serious conflict with some people at the time. There's more but, that's all the proof I need to know the otherworld exists. If i saw that, unicorns aren't so crazy..and neither am I Edit: I won't even get into what happened when me and another 'sensitive" friend used a handmade ouija board she found in her apt..
|
|
|
Post by whistler on Jun 10, 2007 7:30:44 GMT
In keeping with the tone of a long section of this very thread, perhaps the lovely pictures allegorically illustrate the initiatic transmission of particular building techniques by aliens to human beings.
Seems highly Possible to me
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Jun 10, 2007 7:39:53 GMT
In keeping with the tone of a long section of this very thread, perhaps the lovely pictures allegorically illustrate the initiatic transmission of particular building techniques by aliens to human beings.Seems highly Possible to me [/size][/quote] Is the opening sentence in italics a quote? If so, from where? BTW, what does the "HGW" abbreviation you use elsewhere mean?
|
|