|
Post by cwhite on Aug 24, 2011 10:26:22 GMT 9.5
"What does this have to do with the "lost secrets" of Freemasonry? "
Well, if I told you, then it wouldn't be a secret....
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 24, 2011 11:19:57 GMT 9.5
What does this have to do with the "lost secrets" of Freemasonry? That rather depends upon the nature of the lost secrets.It is the secrets of the third degree which were said to have been lost and replaced by substituted secrets (ostensibly restored in the RA Degree). The "genuine secrets" of the first and second degrees are communicated, consisting in each case of a sign, a token and a word (the words being attributed to very similar objects having meaningful, eponymous names). Presumably, the "lost word" of the third degree completes the pattern established in the first two degrees.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Aug 24, 2011 12:16:01 GMT 9.5
I wonder if we take the "lost secrets" too literally. Is not the concept of lost secrets a case of veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols?
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Aug 24, 2011 13:06:48 GMT 9.5
My off the planet suggestion would be that, as souls, when we incarnated we lost memory of our true home, and our purpose for being here.
The changing positions of the S&C might suggest a shift in consciousness ?
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 24, 2011 13:15:38 GMT 9.5
I wonder if we take the "lost secrets" too literally. Is not the concept of lost secrets a case of veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols? The discussion thus far has been way too literal. In discovering the "lost symbol" we may need to refer to the symbols we already have.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Aug 24, 2011 13:18:34 GMT 9.5
Lead on!
|
|
|
Post by tamrin on Aug 24, 2011 17:48:20 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 24, 2011 17:53:00 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 24, 2011 17:56:13 GMT 9.5
I wonder if we take the "lost secrets" too literally. Is not the concept of lost secrets a case of veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols? I will keep this in mind and may remind you of it if and when you again go off on literal tangents.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Aug 24, 2011 18:44:42 GMT 9.5
So when were the genuine secrets lost?
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 24, 2011 20:37:26 GMT 9.5
The NOTION of the lost secrets was introduced in the early 1720s. The genuine Mason Word, formerly communicated as such in the second (and, at that time, the last degree) was "lost" in plain sight at the same time in the newly created third degree (the word being the second of the two alternatives now communicated as substitutes).
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 24, 2011 20:49:31 GMT 9.5
The pattern established in the rearranged first two degrees, with a new emphasis on the P.s at the porch or entrance, would lead those familiar with the Hebrew VSL, but immune to its polemic, to discover "Asherah" as the lost "genuine" word of the third degree, with the genuine Mason Word relegated to being one of two substitutes.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Aug 25, 2011 5:35:40 GMT 9.5
It does not seem to me that the genuine secrets of a MM are merely the recognition signs as those are arbitrary. And it seems implausible that a single combination of letters can be so powerful as to be symbolised by the Lost Word. If that were the case, a simple computer program would recover the Lost Word.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 25, 2011 6:11:20 GMT 9.5
I guess if one is looking for something mind-blowing, nothing less will suffice. That may be the genius of substituting genuine, though mundane, pragmatic secrets (meeting the needs of the industry), with substitutes and nowhere really specifying what the genuine secrets were or are (Bro. P.T. Barnum would have been proud). For further reading, I recommend: A Pragmatic Masonic History by Leo Zanelli.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 25, 2011 6:23:57 GMT 9.5
Mind you, if my Asherah hypothesis is correct, the new "genuine" secret might be seen as very radical (even mind-blowing) for its day.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 25, 2011 6:42:06 GMT 9.5
Most, if not all, of any Rosicrucian, Hermetic or Kabbalistic content appears to have been introduced at this time, making the Craft more intriguing and appealing to the intelligentsia of the day (and to those with such pretentions).
|
|
|
Post by paul on Aug 25, 2011 7:53:24 GMT 9.5
Rosicrucian content may well constitute part of the genuine secrets of a MM and form a part of the Masonic Science
And as you have hinted, heretical spiritual practices may also be involved.
There might even be identification of who are the bloodline descendents of the Widow. (Why would that be important?)
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 25, 2011 9:28:54 GMT 9.5
Rosicrucian content may well constitute part of the genuine secrets of a MM and form a part of the Masonic Science
And as you have hinted, heretical spiritual practices may also be involved.
There might even be identification of who are the bloodline descendents of the Widow. (Why would that be important?) For what we do presage is not in grosse, For we are brethren of the Rosie Crosse; We have the Mason Word and second sight, Things for to come we can foretell aright. "Certainly" the operative Craft readily lent itself to the changes wrought in the 1720's. Mathematics were once considered diabolical but were essential to calculate the material, labour, nature and cost of their work. They had to tread carefully in such close association with the ecclesiastical authorities who, while it suited them, turned a blind eye to what must have seemed like second sight in the stonemasons' ability to foretell aright the outcome of the work with nothing left over (slight excesses being reduced to rubble and used as fill). Moreover, Protestants and proto-Protestants tended to be over-represented in the Guilds and Rosicrucianism was essentially mystical Protestantism (arguably professing to have preserved the secrets, referred to by Jesus but since lost — possibly to do with the Essenes — or at least believing that to be the case).
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 26, 2011 13:17:30 GMT 9.5
There might even be identification of who are the bloodline descendents of the Widow. (Why would that be important?) "Sons of the Widow" - there are several possible sources for the term (try Isis). I think it highly unlikely that Freemasonry values any bloodlines (I haven't encountered it in practice). As stated before, the Operative Craft readily lent itself to the grafted innovations of the 1720s. However, that Operative rootstock would be incompatible with any hereditary privilege. Rank and authority under the practicalities of the Operative trade were associated with merit and ability (which has, at least as an ideal, carried over into our modern, Speculative institution). Whether consciously or not the Operative trade was in opposition to the feudal system whereby appointments were largely determined by birth with ultimate feudal authority resting with the Catholic State, in the person of the Pope. The Pope appointed or ratified emperors and kings, who in turn legitimized their lords, who appointed officials, and so on down the line. Artisans stood apart. They elected their own leaders, chose their own regulations, set checks and balances and settled their internal affairs themselves. They, in effect, turned the feudal system on its head, in what must have seemed to the civic authorities as a case of the inmates being put in charge of the asylum - and this apparent order out of chaos worked. They were hardly likely to prioritize a bloodline (any bloodline) of what would ultimately end up as yet another load of effete, upper-class twits.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 26, 2011 15:32:41 GMT 9.5
Artisans stood apart. They elected their own leaders, chose their own regulations, set checks and balances and settled their internal affairs themselves. They, in effect, turned the feudal system on its head, in what must have seemed to the civic authorities as a case of the inmates being put in charge of the asylum - and this apparent order out of chaos worked. Further to this, James Wasserman, in his 2009 address, “ Freemasonry and the Quest for Liberty,” to the Grand Lodge of New York described what are either our lineal predecessors or our chosen role models, the medieval operative stonemasons, thus: Further in this address, Wasserman goes on to say:
|
|