|
Post by Quatuor Coronati on Jun 12, 2013 20:25:06 GMT 9.5
As Albert Mackey tells us: He must not confound the doctrine of Freemasonry with its outward and extrinsic form. He must not suppose that certain usages and ceremonies, what exist at this day, but which, even now, are subject to extensive variations in different countries, constitute the sum and substance of Freemasonry. ..... But it must be always remembered that the ceremony is not the substance. It is but the outer garment which covers and perhaps adorns it..... The Symbolism of Freemasonry p10. Then there came the "authentic school" of Masonic research: "The Lodge was founded in 1884 by nine brethren* who were intent on using an evidence-based approach to the study of Masonic history and research into Freemasonry. This innovative approach was intended to replace the imaginative writings of earlier authors on the history of Freemasonry. This new style and approach was later to be referred to as the 'authentic school' of Masonic research."
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jun 12, 2013 20:42:38 GMT 9.5
I suggest that Masonry has body, soul and spirit.
Which does the self-proclaimed "authentic school" study?
|
|
|
Post by stewartedwards on Jun 12, 2013 20:51:59 GMT 9.5
So we have:-
1. Freemaosnry throughout its long history into esoterics. 2. A new freemaosnry who calls itself the "authentic school" saying "evidence based." Nowt wrong with evidence, but as metaphysics, the personal journey through life, the eternal quest etc is an individual experience finding evidence is a fools challenge. Masonic writers to this day still try to help point people in the right direction eg Kirk macNulty in his wonderful book "Way of the Craftsman" which incidentally I purchased in the shop in UGLE HQ.
So perhaps the "authentic school" with the best of intentions have actually hurt the masonic world? By making it less potent and more impotent in terms of aiding people navigate the stony path of life? All in a bid for hard evidence that everyone can see - when in reality only those who are ready will see. Just as a primary school child is not ready to see the intricacies of brain surgery, a man or woman who is firmly planeted in the physical here and now might not be ready to feel his or her way to enable the sight to see - yet.
Perhaps the masons of yesteryear were actually more masonic than those today?
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jun 13, 2013 8:21:48 GMT 9.5
It does seem to me that the "authentic school" has very specific views as to what constitutes evidence. Personally I prefer a broad collection of data to reduce bias in the selection of evidence.
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Jun 13, 2013 9:57:38 GMT 9.5
Builders free to decide for themselves?
Builders free from politics, religion and 'authentic' science?
|
|
|
Post by Hal Clement on Jun 13, 2013 17:52:01 GMT 9.5
Which does the self-proclaimed "authentic school" study? That which can be authenticated. "Speculation is perfectly all right, but if you stay there you've only founded a superstition. If you test it, you've started a science." - Hal Clement.
|
|
|
Post by John Ruskin on Jun 13, 2013 17:59:53 GMT 9.5
It does seem to me that the "authentic school" has very specific views as to what constitutes evidence. Personally I prefer a broad collection of data to reduce bias in the selection of evidence. On what do you base your supposition about what the school counts as evidence, and your implication that it does not encompass a broad collection of data (provided it can be authenticated)? "The work of science is to substitute facts for appearances, and demonstrations for impressions." - John Ruskin
|
|
|
Post by G on Jun 13, 2013 18:03:40 GMT 9.5
Builders free to decide for themselves? Builders free from politics, religion and 'authentic' science? Builders are strictly governed by geometry. If not authentic their construction will not stand.
|
|
|
Post by stewartedwards on Jun 13, 2013 18:47:45 GMT 9.5
Builders free to decide for themselves? Builders free from politics, religion and 'authentic' science? Builders are strictly governed by geometry. If not authentic their construction will not stand. Unless they are building stealth aircraft most of which simply should not fly, using geometry or aerodynamics. It takes a lot of esoteric fancy stuff to make them fly - instabilities all working in harmony to produce a fighting stealth plane.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jun 13, 2013 20:27:12 GMT 9.5
...On what do you base your supposition about what the school counts as evidence, and your implication that it does not encompass a broad collection of data (provided it can be authenticated)? There are various critiques of the "authentic school" "It is partly over the question of the definition of freemasonry that a new school of Masonic historians, which is now emerging, differs from the older authentic school. Members of the authentic school concerned themselves almost exclusively with the development of organisation among freemasons, an unduly narrow conception, in our opinion, of the scope of the subject." www.phoenixmasonry.org/genesis_of_freemasonry.htm"Westcott returned to his attack upon the ‘authentic’ school in his paper on Rosicrucians, their History and Aims, which he read later in his year of office. He told the members: You have no proofs to give me of the exact years in which the principal philosophic and mystical allusions became embedded in the Masonic ritual, but there are many of you who believe the Ritual of Speculative Masonry formed a concrete whole in 1717, your grand landmark of the Order. I contend then that Ashmole and Vaughan possessed just such ancient lore as is found suggested in Masonic Ritual, that they did enter our Society, and that if it were not they who designed the ritual of Speculative Masonry in its present form with its quaint Kabalistic and Egyptian allusions, the fact is more amazing than the suggestion that they did so design it." www.mastermason.com/luxocculta/westcott.htmNotice Westcott is interested in the soul of Masonry rather than its outer form. No doubt you can find other examples critiquing the "authentic school" if you wish.
|
|
|
Post by stepnwolf on Jun 13, 2013 21:00:08 GMT 9.5
What is your occupation and does your disdain for reason as expressed here also apply to your work? I have had two occupations both of which relied heavily on mental activities. As a professional librarian in a science library, I've seen intellect at it's best and worst. The great enemy here seems to be pride. Pride in the scope of their endeavors, pride even in their manipulation of the English alphabet. We won't even speak of some scientists who seem to read their own papers in print before everything else. As a teacher, I am now conscious of my own pride in the mastery of the subject matter. It's miraculous that some students went into the field after having their creativity stifled in my classes. Reason is indeed a trap that justifies pride, among its other sins.
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Jun 14, 2013 8:05:53 GMT 9.5
Builders free to decide for themselves? Builders free from politics, religion and 'authentic' science? Builders are strictly governed by geometry. If not authentic their construction will not stand. Agree. But some are content with the circle and fail to appreciate, or even see, the spiral.
|
|
|
Post by William Thomson on Jun 14, 2013 18:13:22 GMT 9.5
...On what do you base your supposition about what the school counts as evidence, and your implication that it does not encompass a broad collection of data (provided it can be authenticated)? There are various critiques of the "authentic school" No doubt by those who wish to insist upon assertions which cannot be authenticated (and even some which can be definitely debunked). “Mathematics is the only true metaphysics.” - Lord Kelvin.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jun 14, 2013 18:35:40 GMT 9.5
Those who find it satisfying may pursue the body of Masonry. My interest is in the soul and spirit. How authentic is that?
|
|
François-Marie Arouet
Guest
|
Post by François-Marie Arouet on Jun 14, 2013 22:43:09 GMT 9.5
Those who find it satisfying may pursue the body of Masonry. My interest is in the soul and spirit. How authentic is that? Define soul and spirit. “When he to whom a person speaks does not understand, and he who speaks does not understand himself, that is metaphysics.” - Voltaire.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jun 15, 2013 6:13:01 GMT 9.5
Intelligences and energies beyond matter are better experienced than delineated.
But can experience be authentic if there is no documentary evidence?
|
|
|
Post by David Hume on Jun 15, 2013 12:22:57 GMT 9.5
But can experience be authentic if there is no documentary evidence? It is not experience as such that justly requires authentication but claims f experience. For published claims one might reasonably expect credible evidence to be published and cited. "In our reasonings concerning matter of fact, there are all imaginable degrees of assurance, from the highest certainty to the lowest species of moral evidence. A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jun 15, 2013 13:12:13 GMT 9.5
But can experience be authentic if there is no documentary evidence? It is not experience as such that justly requires authentication but claims f experience. For published claims one might reasonably expect credible evidence to be published and cited. I'll take that as a yes: recounted experience is not authentic unless published and cited.
|
|
|
Post by CENSORSHIP on Jun 15, 2013 18:17:44 GMT 9.5
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe in telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life after death? No I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no. One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?" Ys", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be” - Isaac Asimov.
|
|
|
Post by stewartedwards on Jun 15, 2013 20:00:34 GMT 9.5
[re flying saucers] "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. Well there is plenty of that - but you perhaps are unwilling to accept the observations, measurements and reasoning of highly credible people, confirmed by independent observers. So the question might not be one of science but one of your personal beliefs being bashed in ways that make you uncomfortable. Much easier to debunk and deny that pass the veils of your comfort zones, isnt it? Now I may be a fool in believing what hundreds of senior, experiences, high trained professionals say, but hey, I dont mind being a fool. Better than that being imprisoned by belief. As an interesting aside order-order.com/2013/06/14/watch-scottish-independence-day/ is worthy of a watch for a smile. The really funny bit is that he has a point, even if I think he is misunderstanding the issue. There is a lot of energy in Scotalnd that is relevant to the ufo sphere, but I dont think that independence will make things a step closer [but might if Scotland stays in the European Union and England referendums itself out of it]. And no Censorship I dont consider him in the same regard as I do generals, pilots etc. But it is interesting to hear his views. The catholic church has reinterpreted scripture, and some younger folk have strong beliefs, when combined with what the professionals with first hand direct experience gained through their jobs are saying does make you think.
|
|