BryanMaloney
Premium Member
We are often encouraged to think that humanity is divided into two fundamentally opposing camps and always has been. While this is an oversimplification, it can be a useful way to look at the world from time to time. Since it plays into the desires of various power brokers or would-be power brokers, this is almost always cast as a fight between Established Power Group A (EPGA) vs. EPGA's characature of Established Power Group B (EPGB)--ultimately a falsehood. Somewhat more sophisticated people try to cast it as a struggle between the underlying philosophies of EPGA vs. EPGB, but this is also a falsehood, since it is usually based on what each group calls its own philosophy, mixed with what its opponents call its philosophy. Neither touch upon the possibility that deeper matters may be driving things. Note that EPGA, EPGB...EPGn do not have to correspond to explicit organizations but could also refer to basically coherent social subgroups.
To further complicate issues, the various power brokers adopt similar surface doctrines almost independently of deeper currents. This is very often a matter of historical accident. Some injustice perpetrated by EPGA is done in the name of practice I (pI), so, EPGB decides that pI is, in and of itself, the problem, not bothering to ask whether or not pI was actually just the hammer, not the arm swinging the hammer.
I intentionally set this up in a very abstract way, to ease people into the model without eliciting too much emotional response. I will now completely mess this up by introducing my own real-world speculation based on the model.
My speculation is that the fundamental social current that has driven opposition to Freemasonry has not been "atheism", "immorality", shadowy "control groups", or other far-too-convenient scapegoats. The fundamental social conflict has been the conflict between existential collectivism and existential individualism. I am careful to denote that it is the "existential" forms of these doctrines, not political or economic versions. This is because many people fall into the trap of mistaking politics, money, religion, or other surface traits for fundamental realities. I wish to speak of fundamental reality.
Existential collectivism is the doctrine that we, as human beings, primarily (weak collectivism) or solely (strong collectivism) derive our basic worth as humans by virtue of being members of some group and how "properly" we act as members of that group, be that group "the workers", "citizens of the USA", "Christians", "Muslims", "conservatives", "Freemasons", or any other group. This does not prevent valuing members of the "proper" groups differently as individuals--but the core of their value is that they are within the in group(s). Thus, one can have "better" members of the appropriate groups and "worse" members. Ultimately, it is a hierarchical doctrine, since it says that there are those who are innately worse than others, based on group membership. If the group membership is genetic, we often call the doctrine "racism", but the criterion need not be genetic. However, it is ultimately the same mindset. "We" are better than "they", simply by being "we" and "they". This attitude comes first, all justifications of it come afterwards. Since it is based on membership in large, usually stable groups, worth tends to be stable, reinforcing a hierarchical worldview. The paradox is that, while worth is assigned collectively, inequality is mandatory and expected. The underlying model sets up a hierarchy of "us" vs. "them", and this gets reflected multiple times.
Existential individualism assigns basic human worth to individuals, simply on the basis of being human. This does not prevent group membership from being important, particularly voluntary group membership, since this often expresses individual value systems. However, nobody is inherently better than anyone else--it is impossible under existential individualism. Individual worth, then, has a fundamental "basement", but it is possible to gain greater importance or acceptability on the basis of ones acts. However, since individual acts regardless of group affiliation are the final determinant, this means that the high can bring themselves low and vice-versa with great ease. Since there is to be no presumption of "stability of worth", an attitude of "we're all ultimately in the same boat" can become common. The paradox is that, while worth is assigned individually, the tendency toward equality keeps re-asserting itself over time by virtue of a tendency for multiple independent processes to end up clustering about a "central limit" in any large system. No innate hierarchy is presumed, so any hierarchies are ultimately temporary.
Note that nowhere in this is there a mention of "conservative", "atheism", "communism", or other of what I call "surface doctrines".
Freemasonry is an important expression of existential individualism. For all or "Masters", "Worshipful Masters", "Past Masters", and "Grand Masters", we are all simply "Brother", and every "Worshipful Master" or other officer will surrender his seat and return to being a "Brother". Likewise, while there are many "degrees", all Master Masons are to be on the same level. Race, religion (so long as there is an assent to a Great Architect) and wealth are not to be matters of import. This is, of course, Freemasonry in the ideal. However, it is an innate threat to all forms of existential collectivism. After all, if men can meet as "brothers" despite their membership in various groups, what does that say about existential collectivism?
Thus, Freemasonry has been hated by nativists, by Communists, by Nazis, by Nation of Islam, by various Evangelical Christian groups and leaders, by Islamists, and by many other governments and organizations bent on defining humanity on collectivist lines. All of these anti-Masonic organizations are also happy to be at each others throats. They are not all atheist. They are not all anti-capitalist. What they do share is collectivism, and this is the final line in the conflict.
To further complicate issues, the various power brokers adopt similar surface doctrines almost independently of deeper currents. This is very often a matter of historical accident. Some injustice perpetrated by EPGA is done in the name of practice I (pI), so, EPGB decides that pI is, in and of itself, the problem, not bothering to ask whether or not pI was actually just the hammer, not the arm swinging the hammer.
I intentionally set this up in a very abstract way, to ease people into the model without eliciting too much emotional response. I will now completely mess this up by introducing my own real-world speculation based on the model.
My speculation is that the fundamental social current that has driven opposition to Freemasonry has not been "atheism", "immorality", shadowy "control groups", or other far-too-convenient scapegoats. The fundamental social conflict has been the conflict between existential collectivism and existential individualism. I am careful to denote that it is the "existential" forms of these doctrines, not political or economic versions. This is because many people fall into the trap of mistaking politics, money, religion, or other surface traits for fundamental realities. I wish to speak of fundamental reality.
Existential collectivism is the doctrine that we, as human beings, primarily (weak collectivism) or solely (strong collectivism) derive our basic worth as humans by virtue of being members of some group and how "properly" we act as members of that group, be that group "the workers", "citizens of the USA", "Christians", "Muslims", "conservatives", "Freemasons", or any other group. This does not prevent valuing members of the "proper" groups differently as individuals--but the core of their value is that they are within the in group(s). Thus, one can have "better" members of the appropriate groups and "worse" members. Ultimately, it is a hierarchical doctrine, since it says that there are those who are innately worse than others, based on group membership. If the group membership is genetic, we often call the doctrine "racism", but the criterion need not be genetic. However, it is ultimately the same mindset. "We" are better than "they", simply by being "we" and "they". This attitude comes first, all justifications of it come afterwards. Since it is based on membership in large, usually stable groups, worth tends to be stable, reinforcing a hierarchical worldview. The paradox is that, while worth is assigned collectively, inequality is mandatory and expected. The underlying model sets up a hierarchy of "us" vs. "them", and this gets reflected multiple times.
Existential individualism assigns basic human worth to individuals, simply on the basis of being human. This does not prevent group membership from being important, particularly voluntary group membership, since this often expresses individual value systems. However, nobody is inherently better than anyone else--it is impossible under existential individualism. Individual worth, then, has a fundamental "basement", but it is possible to gain greater importance or acceptability on the basis of ones acts. However, since individual acts regardless of group affiliation are the final determinant, this means that the high can bring themselves low and vice-versa with great ease. Since there is to be no presumption of "stability of worth", an attitude of "we're all ultimately in the same boat" can become common. The paradox is that, while worth is assigned individually, the tendency toward equality keeps re-asserting itself over time by virtue of a tendency for multiple independent processes to end up clustering about a "central limit" in any large system. No innate hierarchy is presumed, so any hierarchies are ultimately temporary.
Note that nowhere in this is there a mention of "conservative", "atheism", "communism", or other of what I call "surface doctrines".
Freemasonry is an important expression of existential individualism. For all or "Masters", "Worshipful Masters", "Past Masters", and "Grand Masters", we are all simply "Brother", and every "Worshipful Master" or other officer will surrender his seat and return to being a "Brother". Likewise, while there are many "degrees", all Master Masons are to be on the same level. Race, religion (so long as there is an assent to a Great Architect) and wealth are not to be matters of import. This is, of course, Freemasonry in the ideal. However, it is an innate threat to all forms of existential collectivism. After all, if men can meet as "brothers" despite their membership in various groups, what does that say about existential collectivism?
Thus, Freemasonry has been hated by nativists, by Communists, by Nazis, by Nation of Islam, by various Evangelical Christian groups and leaders, by Islamists, and by many other governments and organizations bent on defining humanity on collectivist lines. All of these anti-Masonic organizations are also happy to be at each others throats. They are not all atheist. They are not all anti-capitalist. What they do share is collectivism, and this is the final line in the conflict.
