|
Post by tamrin on Oct 3, 2011 1:23:45 GMT 9.5
I do what I can. Above all, I share. I give lectures and short talks when called upon (the Study Circle and Research Lodges undertake to provide speakers to lodges). At appropriate times in Open Lodge and in the South I will throw in my two bob's worth. I will follow-up with individuals who ask insightful questions to ensure they are led aright to what they are looking for (either putting them in touch with others interested in their field or directly providing them with what they seek). Ultimately, one can only share what one knows, suggest options, provide cautions and offer opportunities.
As for a Fellowcraft asking me for guidance, I am happy to assist even non-masons in all but the modes of identification (albeit, I might caution a FC against spoiling any ritual "surprises"). Please note, you especially ask about insights into Unity, yet I have been here, in public, sharing all I can comprehend on the subject!?
|
|
|
Post by Henka on Oct 3, 2011 2:36:31 GMT 9.5
But in my personal experience it is my (possibly incorrect) impression that many masons appear to see this as being no more than a phrase in the second which is then largely forgotten about. Yes you are mistaken. Badly.
|
|
|
Post by Henka on Oct 3, 2011 2:38:37 GMT 9.5
It is the way of Masonry. I could not disagree more vehemently. The way of masonry is NOT to obfuscate! We investigate the hidden mysteries with mutual assistance as well as by our own endeavors. We do not try to tease our Brethren. We share! As far as lies in our power, we meet on the level, act on the plumb and part on the square. Consider the duties of the Principal Sojourner, " ...to bring the blind by a way that they know not; to lead them in paths they have not known; to make darkness light before them, and crooked things straight." Hear, hear!
|
|
|
Post by stewartedwards on Oct 3, 2011 3:01:05 GMT 9.5
But in my personal experience it is my (possibly incorrect) impression that many masons appear to see this as being no more than a phrase in the second which is then largely forgotten about. Yes you are mistaken. Badly. Then I guess some of your brothers have lied to me in the past Henka.
|
|
|
Post by tamrin on Oct 3, 2011 7:38:15 GMT 9.5
Yes you are mistaken. Badly. Then I guess some of your brothers have lied to me in the past Henka."Lied" is too strong a word in this instance. What they mean is that they and their mates don't value and so don't pay much attention to the many opportunities pressing upon them. Masons are driven by different forces. With a bit of overlap, some brethren are excellent ritualists (and, no, that doesn't mean they have less insight, as is commonly implied); some are excellent organizers (and are rightly favoured for GL rank); some enjoy the catering; some make excellent Caring Officers or charity collectors; the musical brethren have their own niche; some visitors maintain links between lodges; and some brethren just attend their own lodge (and are very welcome): A lodge depends upon them all. We researchers are a rare breed (we wish that were not so). Yet ask any mason with a few years of membership if their masonic knowledge is better than average and it is very likely they will say yes. This no more unusual than finding that a large majority of drivers think they better than average drivers. Still, as researchers, we can at least ensure that we share what we can and continue to provide opportunities. Ultimately it is up to the individual. When a mason says there is no follow-up to the charge in the second-degree, ask if THEY have so much as borrowed a book from their lodge library, attended a study group or gone out of their way to hear and question a visiting, international lecturer.
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Oct 5, 2011 8:50:36 GMT 9.5
Masons are driven by different forces. ... We researchers are a rare breed (we wish that were not so). Agreed. What happens in your organisations when the research reveal inconsistancies? Researchers almost universally disagree with one another over a given subject. It is the nature of the beast.
|
|
|
Post by tamrin on Oct 5, 2011 12:09:07 GMT 9.5
Corroborate or debunk.
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Oct 6, 2011 8:07:15 GMT 9.5
Whatever happened to 'perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between'.
When was the last time your research was debunked? How did you feel? Did a Bro offer you a pointer to something you might have missed or not thought of?
I can't help but think of Einstein here. His math was so advanced that few scientist were able to follow it. Although they were qualified, they were really not in a position to corroborate or debunk. Those that corroborated, now find themselves slightly embarrassed maybe to discover that something can travel faster than the speed of light.
Debunking, to me, is foolish ... 'out of the mouth of babes...'
Feeling the need to corroborating everything might also be considered foolish, who is qualified or has the time to prove for themselves the knowledge and experience gained over decades by thousands/millions of dedicated people?
|
|
|
Post by paul on Oct 6, 2011 8:27:51 GMT 9.5
When I was young the world was black and white and so was the TV. Later came colour.
|
|
|
Post by tamrin on Oct 6, 2011 18:40:28 GMT 9.5
Whatever happened to 'perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between'. You asked what we do in such cases and I told you. Have a look at any AQC edition, you'll see that all the main papers are peer reviewed. When I publish I am usually careful to check my facts first but, where an error slips through and is pointed out by others, I'm grateful for their help. Sometimes the truth may lie between two different theories: More often one is demonstrably false (better black AND white than black IS white). Even where a theory can only ever be tentatively favoured, that does not mean that all others are equally likely to be true. In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be per- verse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms
Stephen Jay Gould In some disciplines, such as in Jnana Yoga, the first step on the path of wisdom is said to be appropriate discrimination, Viveka, distinguishing between the real and the unreal. Reality isn't the way you wish things to be, nor the way they appear to be, but the way they actually are
Robert J. Ringer
*
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away
Philip K. Dick
*
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is
Winston Churchill
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Oct 7, 2011 6:54:32 GMT 9.5
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away
Philip K. Dick So - that invisible 'thing' which attacked me once was real. I didn't believe at that time that invisibles could physically attack me.
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Oct 7, 2011 7:06:17 GMT 9.5
Peer review has its own shortcomings - as many discoverers, and scientists, have learned.
Remember how doctors scorned the notion that washing hands between performing autopsies and delivering babies would save thousands upon thousands of lives, both mothers and babies. From memory it was a humble nurse that bought it to their attention. 'Out of the mouth of babes ..'
Peer review is also good for the reasons you stated. I just wouldn't rely upon it as the ultimate umpire regarding what is true and what is not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2011 16:38:13 GMT 9.5
So - that invisible 'thing' which attacked me once was real. I didn't believe at that time that invisibles could physically attack me. Funny how the **** attract the woeful.
|
|
|
Post by tamrin on Oct 7, 2011 21:15:56 GMT 9.5
So - that invisible 'thing' which attacked me once was real. I didn't believe at that time that invisibles could physically attack me. I'm guessing you haven't discussed this attack (or your "clairaudience") with anyone having reputable qualifications in the field of psychiatry. Why? because, although the experience was very real to you, they are likely to regard it as a delusion. Have you seriously considered this possibility? Would you be ashamed if this were the case or would you rather not know and, in either case, why? Such experiences are common: it is the preconceptions we bring to the situations and the interpretations we apply to them that differ.
|
|
|
Post by tamrin on Oct 7, 2011 21:28:32 GMT 9.5
Peer review has its own shortcomings - as many discoverers, and scientists, have learned. Peer review is but one of many tools of rational discrimination. Indeed, the bulk of the work usually comes well before publication. The process of formulating a reasonable theory is a bit like the glib opening remark to an early American recipe, "First catch your turkey" (easier said than done). " Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night" - Isaac Asimov.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Oct 8, 2011 8:02:37 GMT 9.5
.... they are likely to regard it as a delusion. Have you seriously considered this possibility? Would you be ashamed if this were the case or would you rather not know ... Perhaps a vote is the best way to establish reality. Although I wonder if the witnesses' votes should be weighted more highly than those based on second hand reports. Of course, as scientist we would want also to look at the results of acting on the alternative theories. For example, do those who believe they have been under psychic attack and who take appropriate actions suffer fewer such events in the future? If so that would tend to support that theory. On the other hand, the theory of delusion could be followed up by psychological and psychiatric therapy. Do those therapies perform better than no intervention? If not, that would tend to undermine the delusional theory or at least interventions based upon that theory. Perhaps both theories are true on occasion. How then to distinguish the events?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2011 10:17:31 GMT 9.5
How then to distinguish the events? Ockham's Razor.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Oct 8, 2011 10:44:05 GMT 9.5
The trouble with using Occam's Razor is that it may simplify the mind map only of the person using it but complicate the mind map of others. Further a simple mind map is not necessarily more accurate. For example believing that the weather is managed by the seagod is a much simpler map than used by meteorologists and may be similarly useful if the accounts of some farmers are to be believed. Still a simple mind map does bring to mind the slogans from 1984 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four
|
|
|
Post by tamrin on Oct 8, 2011 12:49:42 GMT 9.5
Your last post doesn't appear so much to be out of left field as to be out of nowhere. How does it relate to the previous posts? What point are you trying to make?
|
|
|
Post by tamrin on Oct 8, 2011 14:23:22 GMT 9.5
How then to distinguish the events? Ockham's Razor.Agreed. Albeit, as LB said on another thread, the simplest explanation is to accept an assertion at face value. However, where an assertion conflicts with others, we need to apply the razor more widely.
|
|