|
|
Post by LorrB on Jul 26, 2010 11:34:50 GMT 9.5
Much is made of masonic obligations, and they are serious undertakings, no doubt about that. However........  .......... Freemasonry states that one cannot err from the centre. From our perspective the centre is that which is found deep inside of each of us. So which, in your opinion, is the most important: -The obligation -To your own Self be true Can one be free and obligated? Must one Master one's self? If heart and mind are in agreement on a subject must one find the strength and courage to follow what the inner self? |
|
|
|
Post by mgc on Jul 26, 2010 23:03:24 GMT 9.5
only if the obligations never contradict the self..
if 1 doesnt, 1 cant be consciously true to it..
imo, yes
be true to your self..
would the obligations be in place largely to prevent masons who have not mastered their selves yet from being out of bounds?
is a drawback of this system that if the rules r made unchangable, the values r stuck in whatever era (sociologically speaking) they were founded in?
|
|
|
|
Post by coach on Jul 26, 2010 23:24:35 GMT 9.5
So which, in your opinion, is the most important: -The obligation -To your own Self be true One cannot be without the other - IMO. If one is not true to oneself, no Obligation can possibly be taken. Without Obligation, one cannot be true to oneself. Can one be free and obligated? Yes. In fact, one must be free to obligate and one must obligate to be free. Must one Master one's self? No. But when one does, one's life is then owned and enjoyed. If heart and mind are in agreement on a subject must one find the strength and courage to follow what the inner self? Yes. And this requires an Obligation! |
|
|
|
Post by mgc on Jul 27, 2010 0:56:13 GMT 9.5
why?
to be true to ones self, 1 first has to know it.. do u suggest all masons already know themselves before the obligations r taken?
why?
|
|
|
|
Post by coach on Jul 27, 2010 1:18:19 GMT 9.5
That's the reality of these things. to be true to ones self, 1 first has to know it.. do u suggest all masons already know themselves before the obligations r taken? No. That's the reality of these things. |
|
|
|
Post by mgc on Jul 27, 2010 1:54:39 GMT 9.5
pls xplain your take on reality in regard to these things
does that mean that your earlier statement:
needs tweaking?
|
|
|
|
Post by coach on Jul 27, 2010 2:42:22 GMT 9.5
pls xplain your take on reality in regard to these things Okay, simply put: It is what it is. You either understand the connection, or you don't. I encourage you to think this through, connect the dots, come to your own conclusions and share your reality here as you claim it. does that mean that your earlier statement: needs tweaking? No. Why? |
|
|
|
Post by mgc on Jul 27, 2010 3:06:54 GMT 9.5
because if masons dont know themselves and as a result cant be true to their selves before taking the obligations, they take the obligations without being true to themselves..
u dont have to be obligated to be true to yourself to be true to yourself.. u either r or rnt.. obligation or not..
perhaps now ur willing to share your perspective?
|
|
|
|
Post by coach on Jul 27, 2010 3:20:22 GMT 9.5
because if masons dont know themselves and as a result cant be true to their selves before taking the obligations, they take the obligations without being true to themselves.. How does this apply to what I posted? u dont have to be obligated to be true to yourself to be true to yourself.. u either r or rnt.. obligation or not.. I don't agree. To be true to one's self IS an obligation. You either are or aren't. Outcomes always reveal one's true intent and commitment. |
|
|
|
Post by mgc on Jul 27, 2010 7:17:53 GMT 9.5
i may be completely missing the point here, but suppose ur in court and obligated to tell the truth.. u being relieved of that obligation at the end doesnt mean u cant still tell the truth, does it?
|
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jul 27, 2010 8:36:56 GMT 9.5
I suggest that the legal form of the obligation should not distract from the interaction of intent and geometry.
|
|
|
|
Post by coach on Jul 27, 2010 8:44:13 GMT 9.5
I suggest Paul has a valid direction and point worthy of heeding.
|
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Jul 27, 2010 9:13:28 GMT 9.5
To be true to one's self IS an obligationThat is my take on things too. Know thyself. How simple to say how difficult to achieve. I am constantly surprising myself (and not always in a good way). Most of us are moving targets, how do we pin the real me down long enough to examine ourselves in depth. Apparently psychiatrists take years to help their clients approach this goal. I suggest that the legal form of the obligation should not distract from the interaction of intent and geometry.Can you expand on this please, especially the geometry bit. One ideal Two ideas on how to achieve it Three, ideal-idea-action Four, two for two against Five people wrestling  I suggest Paul has a valid direction and point worthy of heedingCoach - do you have a bit from your books which will illustrate what you understand Paul to be saying. I need a little help on this point.
|
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jul 27, 2010 10:19:44 GMT 9.5
>Can you expand on this please, especially the geometry bit.
You might like to project back in time to a Masonic obligation you felt was strong and spend some time moving around the scene to see what you discover
|
|
|
|
Post by coach on Jul 27, 2010 12:00:58 GMT 9.5
Coach - do you have a bit from your books which will illustrate what you understand Paul to be saying. I need a little help on this point. Paul is doing very well here. Let him run with it. |
|
|
|
Post by Henka on Jul 27, 2010 15:23:30 GMT 9.5
pls xplain your take on reality in regard to these things A=A  |
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Jul 28, 2010 8:30:55 GMT 9.5
Coach - do you have a bit from your books which will illustrate what you understand Paul to be saying. I need a little help on this point. Paul is doing very well here. Let him run with it. Oh no... you don't get out of it that easy coach People do not usually use the words intent and geometry together. How would you explain the interaction of intent and geometry? |
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Jul 28, 2010 8:37:01 GMT 9.5
pls xplain your take on reality in regard to these things A=A Man=Man? |
|
|
|
Post by coach on Jul 28, 2010 9:05:01 GMT 9.5
Paul is doing very well here. Let him run with it. Oh no... you don't get out of it that easy coach People do not usually use the words intent and geometry together. How would you explain the interaction of intent and geometry? Patience... Paul is just getting started. Let him run for a bit and things should become clearer. |
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jul 28, 2010 19:53:42 GMT 9.5
>Can you expand on this please, especially the geometry bit. You might like to project back in time to a Masonic obligation you felt was strong and spend some time moving around the scene to see what you discover Anything to report? |
|
.......... Freemasonry states that one cannot err from the centre. From our perspective the centre is that which is found deep inside of each of us. So which, in your opinion, is the most important:
