My Freemasonry | Freemason Information and Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Books or readings recommended for the “construction of the internal Temple".

otherstar

Registered User
If your experiences of science or mathematics are any less moving than your experiences in an ecstatic celebration at church, then I am saddened at how you have experienced science and mathematics. And vice versa.

To experience wonder in an intellectual exercise, or to experience joy in worship is NOT the same thing as having a genuine mystical experience. True mystical experiences are quite rare and come after undergoing purification, illumination, and finally unification. In my lifetime, I've never met a person I'd consider a genuine mystic...though I can think of a few who most likely were genuine mystics: Pope St. John Paull II, and the Dalai Lama are on the short list for me.

Of course our definitions of mystical differ. Where's the fun in disagreeing. I even know people who define it as the stuff that does not work. I prefer a usage that is useful. And more importantly that is the way it's used by practicing mystics.

Do we really get to choose how to define words, or is truth one or many?

I have encountered plenty of practicing mystics who nod when they read about Newton's numerology and how it can act as strength training for insight. Then they get fidgety when I apply the principle to mathematics. Math is one of the highest forms of mysticism in that view but a lot of people get uncomfortable when they get too close to it.

And here you are with the opposite. You used the word imagination not noticing the act of creating new knowledge. You got fidgety just like a practicing mystic shown a calculus book.

Like I said above, I don't think there are that many genuine mystics in the world and those who consider themselves to be mystics are probably not really mystics because the real mystics I mentioned would be the last person to refer to themselves as a mystic.
 

CLewey44

Registered User
Methinks you and I use a totally different definition of the word "mystical." I've always considered things to be mystical if they are tied to more of a religious type of experience, like an experience of God in Church or at prayer.

The non-mystical type of experience you described could just as easily be explained in Aristotelian terms: we experience things, and draw inferences from our experiences. We also store our experiences in our memories. Then our mind uses its imaginative powers (not in the sense of creating stories, but in the sense of our minds ability to be resourceful) to combine ideas and create a question. There is nothing mystical about this. This is all just using our rational powers as human beings.



So cynical.



So I guess there is no room for normal human inquiry with you, no?



I still wouldn't call that mystical. Abstractive, insofar as we abstract mathematical ideas from physical things, but not mystical. We may just have to agree to disagree. I think we humans derive all of our knowledge from our senses. Then, we reflect upon that knowledge and combine ideas to form other ideas and arguments. From those arguments, we draw conclusions (in Aristotelian Logic, I've just described the three acts of the intellect: simple apprehension, judgement, and reasoning).

FWIW, my academic background is Aristotelian/Thomist philosophy (Master's Degree) and I focused on the Philosophy of Nature, Philosophy of Science, and the Philosophy of Mathematics.

Methinks you're being a bit of a troll, brother. All I've seen you do is get on here lately and poke, prod and provoke people over the most ridiculous things. This site isn't supposed to be a site in questioning people's grammar usage or their perspective on things in a pretentious, condescending manner. I even saw somewhere here you made it clear your goal was to upset someone on here and bragged about how you succeeded in doing that. For some its all the Masonry they get due to schedules and whatnot. All I'm seeing is negativity going on here.
 

hanzosbm

Premium Member
I personally think that far too many new Masons search externally for answers. No doubt, there is knowledge to be found in many other places, but it seems like many men keep looking on the surface of many different teachings when what they should be doing is digging deeper. Its like a man walking around looking on the ground for precious gems, and, not seeing any, walking on to the next field, and the next, and the next. When, in reality, what he should be doing is spending the time and energy to dig down, in any one of those fields.
 

dfreybur

Premium Member
>far too many new Masons search externally for answers

In 30 years in Masonry I have hardly ever found brethren that do much inner work.

Heraclitus - Diggers after gold must dig through much dirt.

The early philosopher did not mean that literally, though it is also true in a literal sense. The best metaphors do work like that.
 

Center

Registered User
the freemasonry offers a really valid spiritual map to do an inner work of continuous knowledge in my opinion and forming a philosophical lodge where seeking the virtue overweights the mere intellectual exercise is always possible.

Heraclitus was also condemning the men with a short thought, but a man of the brotherhood is usually really good in thinking because learns from life.

The point is that I would be quite brave in saying that to switch to an inner work a minimal degree of dogma should be eventually considered some pillars in the rituals, where there is less room for interpretation and more for a clear message of unity and familiarity of intents,an equilibrium. Speaking continuously between members about the rituals, and the lessons learned I think is really important because there are a lot of lessons inside them from my view.
If not does not matter because the metaphor and awareness to be a raw stone is really powerful and speak itself,
The stone which the builder rejected has become the chief corner stone.
So be it
 

Center

Registered User
Thanks. Shall I gather from your shared link that is implies that your definition of "spiritual" is "knowing yourself" and by default that you are saying freemasonry "offers a really valid map" for "getting to know yourself"?

Really good Coachn you disentangled the conundrum:)

One of the nice things of the Freemasonry rituals is about the symbols that allow to speak without strong direct assertions. Speaking of Spirituality, God without puzzles to me means to not be really a free man, not ransomed by the prison of the dogma and immodesty.
This is why I love the idea of a lost word, the negative theology of the gnostics and some neoplatonics
 

Elexir

Registered User
Really good Coachn you disentangled the conundrum:)

One of the nice things of the Freemasonry rituals is about the symbols that allow to speak without strong direct assertions. Speaking of Spirituality, God without puzzles to me means to not be really a free man, not ransomed by the prison of the dogma and immodesty.
This is why I love the idea of a lost word, the negative theology of the gnostics and some neoplatonics

Wich gnostics? There are diffrencs between the groups...
 

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
coachn said:
Thanks. Shall I gather from your shared link that is implied that your definition of "spiritual" is "knowing yourself" and by default that you are saying freemasonry "offers a really valid map" for "getting to know yourself"?
Really good Coachn you disentangled the conundrum:)...
So, "yes" then?
 

Center

Registered User
Wich gnostics? There are diffrencs between the groups...
I am referring to the Gnosticism in the most classical way, the Christendom of the origins, where is possible to find several apophatic statements, I would refer to Valentinus, Marcion, the Cainites, but also the thoughts of Philo of Alexandria that although not in the gnosticism tout court brings some really important Jewish-Christian contributions. We could then speak of the Gospel of Thomas and the movement that has really high gnostic insights, then we could go a bit back to some Platonic statements, or further considering gnostic also some neoplatonic teachings from Proclus to the Stoics
 

Center

Registered User
So, "yes" then?
when one disentangles a mystery, creates a link, a mystical connection with the name that cannot be named. So the then according to the knowledge of ourselves would be understanding if comes from an intuition or a logic reasoning, maybe a syllogism. And here comes back the dogma again, the knowledge, in the gnostic way, that etymologically is knowledge: Is this dogma a value or an issue? I am afraid I do not have a reply
 
Last edited:

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
JustJames said:
...Meanwhile, the nature of spirituality and that state of human intelligence is such that spirituality is best explored by sensate and experiential means and it is only late in the human process that analysis is worthwhile.
Still no definition...
 

Center

Registered User
>I truly apologize, thank you for your patience to following me till here.

Irony?

Meanwhile, the nature of spirituality and that state of human intelligence is such that spirituality is best explored by sensate and experiential means and it is only late in the human process that analysis is worthwhile.

James, Irony and Sarcasm, are my enemies, are ruffians that killed the Master Builder.

We are free men, and we discuss for the research of true, of Aleteia as Socrates could possibly say.
I am sincere, my message has inbuilt more inside: if we want to use our parameters to understand "spirituality" we will have a discussion OVER spirituality, but not a spiritual discussion. What matters is that we work on the stone, with serious intents, zealous and with brotherly love.

In Naples the city I am born is written in a popular criminal quartier: if you cannot see the happiness look for it inside.
This means to me we cannot find the so called spirituality in a speech, but rather -on a certain degree and not completely- in the analogy of the speech itself, this is in tune with what you say -in my interpretation- regarding the definition that spirituality is something bigger than us, that "is what exists beyond the personality", so I am not going to define into a category the infinite essence of what exists beyond spirituality. Modesty is the first condition to understand. We would be like few horses that fight against a Tsunami, otherwise.

Coachn is a great source of masonic knowledge for me, I am avid to read his posts, and his blog is fantastic because I learn a lot from him, and I truly appreciate his transparent, clear and pragmatic style to discuss, after all we all try to elevate from the black and white of the carpet, to possibly reach the Middle Chamber of the Salomon Temple. This is another beautiful topic that I feel so unworthy to speak. Gnosi Thauton
 
Last edited:
Top