|
Post by enki on Dec 2, 2009 22:42:29 GMT
Also, how do we seek the meaning the of the s & q by certain ancients in certain times to that same definition in Freemasonry? Do we know what attributes these peoples ascribed to the tools and are they similar to the basic traditions of Craft Freemasonry? To Operative Masonry? Are they indeed the same? If so, are they similar by actual transmission of knowledge or by the fact that urban cultures worldwide using these tools would naturally ascribe symbolic meaning to them, thus drawing from the "collective unconscious" popularized by Jung?
And finally, are we positive that we're not confusing the fact that it is historic and natural for societies to ascribe moral meanings to tools with a mistaken idea that doing so automatically makes the practice Masonic, that is, pertaining directly to Freemasonry?
Such questions we should ask ourselves before coming to an absolute conclusion for ourselves and debating it with the public.
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Dec 2, 2009 22:49:21 GMT
Also, how do we seek the meaning the of the s & q by certain ancients in certain times to that same definition in Freemasonry? Do we know what attributes these peoples ascribed to the tools and are they similar to the basic traditions of Craft Freemasonry? To Operative Masonry? Are they indeed the same? If so, are they similar by actual transmission of knowledge or by the fact that urban cultures worldwide using these tools would naturally ascribe symbolic meaning to them, thus drawing from the "collective unconscious" popularized by Jung? And finally, are we positive that we're not confusing the fact that it is historic and natural for societies to ascribe moral meanings to tools with a mistaken idea that doing so automatically makes the practice Masonic, that is, pertaining directly to Freemasonry? Such questions we should ask ourselves before coming to an absolute conclusion for ourselves and debating it with the public. Did Modern Freemasonry hijack the symbol regardless of ancient meaning? If so, are those of us who are gender equal "taking it back?" Love and Light,
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 2, 2009 23:18:39 GMT
No, what I doubt is that an exclusive (or segregated) inclusion is meaningful. It appears to be a contradiction in terms... Exactly! That's how doubt works. When you doubt, you say "no." And consistantly. In your case, you see/sense/feel/hear/read the contradiction between a) what you know to be true for you and b) what is before you and hence you doubt. And to add to this, you read my describing the simple mechanism of doubt, and you experience and express further doubt. Great examples! What part of "contradiction in terms" don't you understand? I doubt for the reason I gave.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 2, 2009 23:27:40 GMT
Did Modern Freemasonry hijack the symbol regardless of ancient meaning? I doubt they we were unaware of the meanings. The correlations between the 17c. Western, Rebis image ( Theoria Philosophiae Hermeticae) and the 7c. Eastern, Nüwa and Fuxi, image (tomb of Fan Yen-Shih) are too pronounced to be accidental.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 2, 2009 23:40:25 GMT
Such questions we should ask ourselves before coming to an absolute conclusion for ourselves and debating it with the public. Agreed! Question by all means. However, absolute conclusions are rare birds. I see public debate as desirable.
|
|
Augur
Member
Travelling salesman. Roamin' profit.
Posts: 184
|
Post by Augur on Dec 3, 2009 0:01:19 GMT
Did Modern Freemasonry hijack the symbol regardless of ancient meaning? If so, are those of us who are gender equal "taking it back?" Hijacked or not, I wouldn't argue against the idea in the slightest that it represents a masculine and feminine force just as described. However, it doesn't make for any sort of argument either way as to whether to include both sexes in Masonic rites. It's a symbol and like many symbols contains male and female imagery. We, as human beings, contain both energies ourselves to a certain extent so these forces are always at play. In fact, there are a fair number of feminine symbols in Masonry as well. The fact that they are there doesn't argue for the inclusion of women whether the Lodge wants it or not. That's entirely up to the people practising their Craft. So it really has no bearing on this thread. That doesn't mean it isn't an interesting discussion though, just off topic.
|
|
|
Post by enki on Dec 3, 2009 0:04:23 GMT
I don't think that either terms, "hijack" or the act of "taking it back" is an appropriate assumption in regard to comparing/contrasting the traditions of Freemasonry with other uses of the s & q. It's not always an "us and them" situation, nor is it a "we win because we're right by virtue of us taking it back". The failure of most "reclamation" projects is that they miss the point entirely by believing theirs is the right way to do something.
We know that the use of the s & q has important symbolic usages in various cultures, just as its combination is seen in non-Freemasonic signage all through Europe, although it is frequently confused as such (wrights, coopers, roofers, carpenters, etc.). Freemasonry, undoubtedly, has adopted the use of the s & q from a variety of legends involving stone masons. The fact that this is highly unspectacular stems from the fact that other guilds (of which Freemasonry is modeled, not some Egyptian/hermetic pyramid priesthood) utilized the s & q symbology as well as the practice of ascribing moral aspects to their practices and tools. Personally, I think this is a very human trait and is not just limited to Europe and the guilds that inspired Freemasonry; it goes back farther. However, is this practice specifically Freemasonic? No, not at all. As an example, Chinese Tong Freemasons have zero relationship to actual Freemasonry. They've adopted the name, but even its own leaders will deny any relationship to what is commonly known as Freemasonry.
Is it less important to it's members as a result? Absolutely not.
Back on topic, in FREEMASONRY, what specifically points to a male/female attribution for the s & q?
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 3, 2009 0:36:17 GMT
Yes; I agree that you do doubt. Hence, your "doubt" mechinism kicked in and rightfully so. This is getting silly and doesn't contribute to the subject at hand. The essential difference is that you began by talking of the meaning of Freemasonry and what worked for you. Freemasonry is meaningful to me and the unity that I feel as a result of Masonry is real for me. I never doubted that this worked for you! What I doubt is that an exclusive (or segregated) inclusion is meaningful. Such usage of the term "inclusion" is absurd. You were referring to one thing, I to another.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 3, 2009 0:42:10 GMT
I think it's a bit insulting to think that males MUST have females in the lodge to balance out the male energy; and the same for females requiring males in the lodge to balance their energies. As a male, I have an equal measure of x and y chromosomes. The BALANCE already exists for me and other males! If you forced males into a female Lodge, the balance still would not occur since the ratio would be one Y for every 3 x's. There's No Balance Whatsoever! (of course, the Y part of me likes this ratio, sensing deep down that this imbalance might actually be the natural order of things; but that's an other issue for another time!) Balancing the energies by forcing males and females together is not and never will be a sound argument for recognition OR forced integration of single gender Lodges. Here I agree with your conclusion (but not wholly with your premises or logic). The male and female "energies" argument is either nonsensical or irrelevant. What we are left with is unjustified discrimination against otherwise worthy potential candidates on the basis of accidents of birth.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 3, 2009 1:00:06 GMT
"Exclusive inclusion" Very Orwellian.
|
|
|
Post by enki on Dec 3, 2009 1:27:53 GMT
Really?! Are we going to go that route of blanket-blame again?! Please see my earlier post on this subject. With all due respect, I ask you to search your feelings on this because almost by virtue of this statement being so often repeated, it loses all meaning for lack of evidence. As such, I believe this argument is worn out and untrue, yet constantly used by those who see social oppression at every corner regarding the subject of gender. When has someone ever said to you, "Freemasonry is for men because women are inferior"? If you have, then why presuppose for an entire tradition based on some fool's equally faulty statement? For those into the energy argument, if one truly experiences "balance" with "the energies" then they should also be able to consider the value in same-sex work as equally valid. Maybe what is balanced is internal and is not specifically needed on the material plane in order to prove balance. Whereas you may doubt meaning and value in same-sex organizations, this does not mean it does not. It means YOU do not find value in it PERSONALLY. However, for many thousands across many thousands of years people in same-sex groups (and not just Freemasonry) will totally disagree with you. To YOU, and not the fraternity as a whole and I'm sorry you've been missing the meaning, but I hope you find it somewhere without being critical or being criticised. I am a member of both male (Masonic) and mixed orders (non-Masonic) and find both to be satisfying IN THEIR OWN WAY AND PURPOSE. One is Masonic and the other isn't, but both are spiritual and philosophical. The fact that I meet on an exclusively male platform for one doesn't mean that it's devoid of meaning. In fact, there are noted benefits to meeting this way. We tend to go on and on about how we don't like that Masons teach "Universal Truths" and then exclude women. Through this din, have you ever considered for one moment that it is possible to teach "Universal Truths" through same sex platforms in order to uplift that person's and group's individual and collective mind? In the context of male only orders, does not the benefit of Truth help a man ground himself; prove him gentle and wise? Men need to REALLY learn how to be men and to interact with them. They need empowerment. Fraternities help that, if the culture is conducive to that (this is why I encourage less family shenanigans and parties that has quickly taken the place of the men spending more time together. We almost don't know how to act as Masons because we've become too preoccupied with pleasing everybody else). Women only orders benefit in the same way. Further, co-ed groups experience the "universal Truths" in a different manner and utilize it. One is not preferable over the other to me and for many of you to assert the primacy of mixed gender groups over the male is totally sexist. In fact, it's been communicated in that tone. Methinks you should reconsider the reasons for same-sex grouping because this constant harping on "segregation", ad naseum is really missing the point and has not explored the valid sides of same-sex work. Also, even IF the male orders were forced (some of you may like this) to integrate, consider that already less than a few men want to become Masons. I believe even less women desire this. I don't think we'll have women rushing at the gates and solving all of the membership problems. Consider the history of the mass-influx of men into Freemasonry and then the reduction. That's not a gender issue. It's a cultural issue. Some of you (and you know who you are) would benefit from studying this phenomenon and its possible reasons before applying assumptions based on your 21st century mindsets and social trends. So, one can doubt and find same sex abhorrent and disgusting, but I'll wager some opinions have overshadowed the path. Stop the mud slinging and rather infantile accusations of prejudice and segregation. That's a victim mentality that has no bearing on what many believe to be a discovery of truth through like-mind, be it gender specific or mixed.
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Dec 3, 2009 1:40:28 GMT
Just a question. If the value of the feminine and masculine energies and symbolism is so well represented in single sex lodges, why is it that most Masons aren't even aware of the deeply rooted feminine symbolism within their own lodges?
Love and Light,
|
|
|
Post by enki on Dec 3, 2009 1:48:45 GMT
Just a question. If the value of the feminine and masculine energies and symbolism is so well represented in single sex lodges, why is it that most Masons aren't even aware of the deeply rooted feminine symbolism within their own lodges? Love and Light, I'll answer your question with a question: Why do you suppose this lack of knowledge is indicative that the symbolism isn't there? Also, why is it automatically gender based energies? Why not positive and negative? Also, the lack of discourse in traditional sources on male/female energies may clue one in to the fact that Masonic symbolism wasn't necessarily solely defined as gender-based; much of it is obviously solar and planetary. If one finds gender in even this aspect, then that is largely interpretive and seen through subjective reactions to culture. If there are specific and glaring references to gender-based symbology in the early Masonic writings, let's examine them and then see what else we can dig up! We can then probably put together one hell of an interesting research paper. ;D But the answer to your question is not that EVERYBODY has it wrong, or are blind to the TRUTH (TM) and others have the quintessential answer. We should not go down that route.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 3, 2009 3:03:36 GMT
Really?! Are we going to go that route of blanket-blame again?! Please see my earlier post on this subject. With all due respect, I ask you to search your feelings on this because almost by virtue of this statement being so often repeated, it loses all meaning for lack of evidence. As such, I believe this argument is worn out and untrue, yet constantly used by those who see social oppression at every corner regarding the subject of gender. When has someone ever said to you, "Freemasonry is for men because women are inferior"? If you have, then why presuppose for an entire tradition based on some fool's equally faulty statement? For those into the energy argument, if one truly experiences "balance" with "the energies" then they should also be able to consider the value in same-sex work as equally valid. Maybe what is balanced is internal and is not specifically needed on the material plane in order to prove balance. Whereas you may doubt meaning and value in same-sex organizations, this does not mean it does not. It means YOU do not find value in it PERSONALLY. However, for many thousands across many thousands of years people in same-sex groups (and not just Freemasonry) will totally disagree with you. To YOU, and not the fraternity as a whole and I'm sorry you've been missing the meaning, but I hope you find it somewhere without being critical or being criticised. I am a member of both male (Masonic) and mixed orders (non-Masonic) and find both to be satisfying IN THEIR OWN WAY AND PURPOSE. One is Masonic and the other isn't, but both are spiritual and philosophical. The fact that I meet on an exclusively male platform for one doesn't mean that it's devoid of meaning. In fact, there are noted benefits to meeting this way. We tend to go on and on about how we don't like that Masons teach "Universal Truths" and then exclude women. Through this din, have you ever considered for one moment that it is possible to teach "Universal Truths" through same sex platforms in order to uplift that person's and group's individual and collective mind? In the context of male only orders, does not the benefit of Truth help a man ground himself; prove him gentle and wise? Men need to REALLY learn how to be men and to interact with them. They need empowerment. Fraternities help that, if the culture is conducive to that (this is why I encourage less family shenanigans and parties that has quickly taken the place of the men spending more time together. We almost don't know how to act as Masons because we've become too preoccupied with pleasing everybody else). Women only orders benefit in the same way. Further, co-ed groups experience the "universal Truths" in a different manner and utilize it. One is not preferable over the other to me and for many of you to assert the primacy of mixed gender groups over the male is totally sexist. In fact, it's been communicated in that tone. Methinks you should reconsider the reasons for same-sex grouping because this constant harping on "segregation", ad naseum is really missing the point and has not explored the valid sides of same-sex work. Also, even IF the male orders were forced (some of you may like this) to integrate, consider that already less than a few men want to become Masons. I believe even less women desire this. I don't think we'll have women rushing at the gates and solving all of the membership problems. Consider the history of the mass-influx of men into Freemasonry and then the reduction. That's not a gender issue. It's a cultural issue. Some of you (and you know who you are) would benefit from studying this phenomenon and its possible reasons before applying assumptions based on your 21st century mindsets and social trends. So, one can doubt and find same sex abhorrent and disgusting, but I'll wager some opinions have overshadowed the path. Stop the mud slinging and rather infantile accusations of prejudice and segregation. That's a victim mentality that has no bearing on what many believe to be a discovery of truth through like-mind, be it gender specific or mixed. Blanket-blame or statement of fact? Please note, I did not use the term "prejudice" (your choice) but rather "discrimination". Also note that the lack of meaning discussed, for my part, referred to a term, not to the institution. I too have been over this issue ad nauseum and have yet to find a masonically sound justification for the continuance of our "No Women!" rule. If you think you have found one, post it here for discussion. As for evidence, I have studied this issue for about three decades, what do you want to know?
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Dec 3, 2009 4:01:39 GMT
If women are not respected as Masons (in fact disrespected) by most Masons how is that a level playing field option?
After all Rosa Parks was allowed to ride in the bus, she just got tired of riding in the back of the bus.
Love and Light,
|
|
|
Post by letterorhalveit3 on Dec 3, 2009 5:38:26 GMT
But there again, Rose Parks situation was a racial one. What we've been talking about here is what some feel is sexual discrimination. Also, when Rosa Parks and other African Americans were being made to sit at the back of the bus, it was a law, not a Masonic rule or regulation. Not saying either is correct or good, but we need to keep the apples seperate from the oranges. Also, there was no other option for Rosa Parks. She had to ride the bus. Female masons have co-masonry and female craft masonry open to them. Mrs. Parks had no alternative.
|
|
|
Post by enki on Dec 3, 2009 7:34:23 GMT
Please forgive my tone of frustration in my past post--it wasn't necessarily directed at you--it was the direction of the conversation. Please know that I am in no way showing you anger. Please read the following as if I am sitting next to you, having an animated and enjoyable conversation. One cannot find a Masonic basis for the exclusion of women precisely because there is none--it does not say that women are inferior or cannot understand the concepts, just as it doesn't say that brethren should bar blacks or Chinese, or whatever. Individuals colored by extreme trends in a culture will say and believe this, but no thinking and sensitive person ever will. They can take same-sex meetings in a totally different way--even if it means saying that this particular way is called this and this is only for men. If you want something else, go for it. The Craft was originally conceived as a fraternity, which began to change in some circles over time--and in accordance with their own cultural structure. But I cannot fathom why, when it is brought up, the fact that universal "Masonic" light can be validly taught in a same-sex atmosphere is totally ignored. To argue otherwise would be sexist, natch? In Freemasonry, there are at least two large orders that have a long and viable history that has indeed contributed to what can be called modern Masonic culture. I personally am bored with the gender issue when it's based solely on calling someone an oppressor, or an organization having little value because it has a same-sex aspect that many prefer and find in it much value. I don't think that is fair--especially because I can't just come in here and say LDH or the Order of Freemasonry for Women is just dress-up or oppressive against men. I don't believe that, nor would I say it if I did. Is it okay to bash just men? If so, why? For what concrete reason in regard to Freemasonry, other than what we have already discussed. If we must revisit the previously discussed, how do we use it to advance the conversation to better heights? And curiously, why do I find more men obsessed with this particular subject than women? I do not deny that women have been treated very badly throughout history. I just fail to see how Freemasonry does so directly in this day and age (or even in the past) and why masculine Freemasonry and those a part of it get to be the eternal whipping boy while others cheer and say "preach on". That's too bad because these conversations (if we remain polite, of course) could draw us into topivd about the perception of roles for each gender and how identity is expressed. Fraternities and Sororities are integral parts in how a society expresses its gender roles. We can also see how the society evolves and regresses through these groups. I'd like to consider the positive contributions all Freemasons have made regardless of order or gender. I don't want to see good conversations get too heated. With that, I think I've said all I can for now!
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 3, 2009 8:32:12 GMT
1) Any and all discrimination is wrong. I had written "unjustified discrimination" not "any and all discrimination". 2) Providing candidates with different choices is wrong. The policy also blocks choices for both candidates and lodges 3) Gender is an accident of birth. Good point: Sex is an accident (in the philosophical sense) of birth, gender is a social construct.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 3, 2009 8:36:41 GMT
First, there is no continuance of a "no women" rule within "our" Masonry. Wonderful news! So the masonry in which you participate admits women!? Please carry on. There are, however, many Grand Lodges, my own included, which still insist on the rule.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 3, 2009 8:39:49 GMT
Fraternities and Sororities are integral parts in how a society expresses its gender roles. We can also see how the society evolves and regresses through these groups. I couldn't have expressed it better myself.
|
|