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!

Interesting perspectives

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
Sounds like we will have an ever expanding number of landmarks as people will add new ones to the already existing :)
Not likely. More likely that they will change to suit the times.
 

SimonM

Registered User
Not likely. More likely that they will change to suit the times.
So what will remain is the number of landmarks, but the content of them will change.. not really what you think of when you hear the term "ancient landmarks" :)
 

Kenneth Munn

Registered User
I think a " trade union" in any sense is a post industrial revolution construct Coach.

What is interesting about post industrial trade unions is some did have oaths of secrecy and/ or loyalty and have Masonic Characteristics.... but that does not make them Masonic lodges (despite in some instances the guard at these meetings was sometimes called a "tyler"). For me, the link between fraternalisn and unionism is murky.....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_of_Labor

A famous Australian like Henry Lawson (1867-1922), Australian poet and author, has erroneously been listed as a Freemason because people read of his (probable) membership of the Knights and thing it's a Masonic organization.....

I often wonder if modern unions would have developed as they did without fraternalism as a model...
Greetings Brethren, Mr. Blake I would definitely agree with you. If any one has been in the industrial apprenticeship trades, Plumbing/Pipefitting, Welding, Machinist and Tool and Die etc. you would notice the heavy symbolism as well as the similarities. We are taught character building, how to treat our fellow brother, how to separate unjust work from just work (real and unreal) and we are taught gradually how the liberal arts are within the sacredness of the trade.(Internal make up of the individual) while evolving from one class(degree) to the next. When we finish(raised) of course we are invested with our diploma(lambskin) and yes we do have a ceremony just as well. In my research for the youth I use this model to bridge the gap. The gap was disproportionally widen when NAFTA came on the scene. Some of my work is devoted to the Trades and the Young Future a paper and book that I'm putting together to reach the technical hands on minds of tomorrow.
 

Warrior1256

Site Benefactor
Not likely. More likely that they will change to suit the times.
True!
Greetings Brethren, Mr. Blake I would definitely agree with you. If any one has been in the industrial apprenticeship trades, Plumbing/Pipefitting, Welding, Machinist and Tool and Die etc. you would notice the heavy symbolism as well as the similarities. We are taught character building, how to treat our fellow brother, how to separate unjust work from just work (real and unreal) and we are taught gradually how the liberal arts are within the sacredness of the trade.(Internal make up of the individual) while evolving from one class(degree) to the next. When we finish(raised) of course we are invested with our diploma(lambskin) and yes we do have a ceremony just as well. In my research for the youth I use this model to bridge the gap. The gap was disproportionally widen when NAFTA came on the scene. Some of my work is devoted to the Trades and the Young Future a paper and book that I'm putting together to reach the technical hands on minds of tomorrow.
Oooooookayyyyyyyyy!
 

grayflannelsuit

Premium Member
BTW - Peculiar: belonging exclusively to; private property

ORIGIN: late Middle English (in the sense 'particular, special'): from Latin peculiaris 'of private property,' from peculium from pecu, 'cattle' (cattle being private property)

Apologies for bumping an old thread, but I ran across this today while going down an etymological rabbit hole and am intrigued. Coach (or anyone else), regarding the original meaning of the word peculiar - while I certainly do not dispute the correctness of this, how can we be certain that this is the definition of "peculiar" meant in the well-known peculiar system of morality slogan? Since this slogan almost certainly was first espoused after "peculiar" also came to be a synonym for "unusual," which was the early 17th century, what leads you to believe it is the definition of private property that was meant?
 

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
Apologies for bumping an old thread, but I ran across this today while going down an etymological rabbit hole and am intrigued. Coach (or anyone else), regarding the original meaning of the word peculiar - while I certainly do not dispute the correctness of this, how can we be certain that this is the definition of "peculiar" meant in the well-known peculiar system of morality slogan? Since this slogan almost certainly was first espoused after "peculiar" also came to be a synonym for "unusual," which was the early 17th century, what leads you to believe it is the definition of private property that was meant?
Simply look at how rabidly the organization has tried to keep it under lock and key...
 

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
coachn; I'm a little intellectually challenged right now. Don't quite understand this. Please explain.
Look at the mechanics! The organization did everything in the beginning to protect these plays from outsiders and to keep these plays privately owned and out of the hands of non-members. It still does. If that doesn't scream private ownership, I don't know what does.
 

Warrior1256

Site Benefactor
Look at the mechanics! The organization did everything in the beginning to protect these plays from outsiders and to keep these plays privately owned and out of the hands of non-members. It still does. If that doesn't scream private ownership, I don't know what does.
Got it. Thanks.
 

Luigi Visentin

Registered User
Freemasonry points to the science. It is not the science.
I have read this post of some time ago and I'm sorry but I cannot agree about this point: Freemasonry is a science ... but in the old meaning of this word, not in the modern (that is from Galileo to present time). We can discuss about how much of the old meaning has been conserved and I can agree in the fact that from beginning of 1700 some things have been changed, but the basics are still existing.
 

grayflannelsuit

Premium Member
Look at the mechanics! The organization did everything in the beginning to protect these plays from outsiders and to keep these plays privately owned and out of the hands of non-members. It still does. If that doesn't scream private ownership, I don't know what does.

While the argument is compelling it's ultimately circumstantial if that's the case for defining "peculiar" in this manner.
 

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
I have read this post of some time ago and I'm sorry but I cannot agree about this point: Freemasonry is a science ... but in the old meaning of this word, not in the modern (that is from Galileo to present time). We can discuss about how much of the old meaning has been conserved and I can agree in the fact that from beginning of 1700 some things have been changed, but the basics are still existing.
Freemasonry started around 1717, as a dinner oriented role-playing theatrical society that incorporated the symbolism and lexicon of Stonecraft for its members to use as a foundation upon which to interact. If you do not believe this, then you shall likely disagree. Freemasonry is not a science. It is an art and that art is acting. There was never an old meaning for this word that wasn't put forth until after circa 1723. The basics of Stonecraft and the basics of freemasonry are in two entirely different directs, even when you make every effort to mask those differences by using the operative-speculative" red herring. Nothing changed other than the originators of Freemasonry using Stonecraft as a foundation for its plays.
 

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
While the argument is compelling it's ultimately circumstantial if that's the case for defining "peculiar" in this manner.
The definition already exists. The behavior backs up the definition.

You consider this ultimately circumstantial. It's lazy to dismiss without suitable argument. I challenge you to prove that the other "definition" is more suitable.
 

grayflannelsuit

Premium Member
The definition already exists. The behavior backs up the definition.

You consider this ultimately circumstantial. It's lazy to dismiss without suitable argument. I challenge you to prove that the other "definition" is more suitable.

Who said anything about dismissing? I actually prefer the idea of what you proposed over the traditional understanding. But the evidence you have provided seemingly amounts to 1) "Peculiar" used to mean "private property" in centuries past and 2) Freemasons treat their ritual like private property so clearly whoever penned the idiom meant it that way, even though the definition of "peculiar" as "odd or unusual" has also been in use since the early 17th century. You were the one who made the claim, I am simply asking to see how you got there.

If this comes across as confrontational then I apologize, as this is not my intent. But if I am to accept the conclusion you have reached, I certainly need to see more than I have. If that makes me lazy or ignorant, well that certainly wouldn't be the first time I've been called either.
 

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
Who said anything about dismissing? I actually prefer the idea of what you proposed over the traditional understanding. But the evidence you have provided seemingly amounts to 1) "Peculiar" used to mean "private property" in centuries past and 2) Freemasons treat their ritual like private property so clearly whoever penned the idiom meant it that way, even though the definition of "peculiar" as "odd or unusual" has also been in use since the early 17th century. You were the one who made the claim, I am simply asking to see how you got there.

If this comes across as confrontational then I apologize, as this is not my intent. But if I am to accept the conclusion you have reached, I certainly need to see more than I have. If that makes me lazy or ignorant, well that certainly wouldn't be the first time I've been called either.
Forgive me if I came across "in your face" on this. I TRULY want to see an argument for the "odd or unusual" supported. I have yet to see one put forth that was well supported. It was not a directed comment toward you. It is a directed comment toward the "odd or unusual" being espoused over "private ownership". I see the former being (lazily) espoused all the time but with very little support for it other than how the word meaning changed about that time. If you could provide a convincing argument, I'm all ears. The latter argument has sound premise and firm support as to our organization's overall behaviors and attitudes from its Premier GL beginnings. Even the ritual's words support it.
 

grayflannelsuit

Premium Member
Forgive me if I came across "in your face" on this. I TRULY want to see an argument for the "odd or unusual" supported. I have yet to see one put forth that was well supported. It was not a directed comment toward you. It is a directed comment toward the "odd or unusual" being espoused over "private ownership". I see the former being (lazily) espoused all the time but with very little support for it other than how the word meaning changed about that time. If you could provide a convincing argument, I'm all ears. The latter argument has sound premise and firm support as to our organization's overall behaviors and attitudes from its Premier GL beginnings. Even the ritual's words support it.

Thank you for the reasoned reply. Since you have already done much research on the topic allow me to ask a related question: Do you know from whom or from when this "Freemasonry is a peculiar system..." saying originates? I do not, and the best I have been able to do in a quick search is to find references to it in the mid-19th century.
 

Bloke

Premium Member
Thank you for the reasoned reply. Since you have already done much research on the topic allow me to ask a related question: Do you know from whom or from when this "Freemasonry is a peculiar system..." saying originates? I do not, and the best I have been able to do in a quick search is to find references to it in the mid-19th century.

(I'm interested in the reply as well. "Sportsman bet" that Bro Coach will either supply the answer, or reply with "why does it matter?", both are responses of merit.).
 

grayflannelsuit

Premium Member
I should interject that in reading a little more on this topic, another definition of peculiar -- that being "special or unique" -- offered to me another possible way to view things.
 

Bloke

Premium Member
I should interject that in reading a little more on this topic, another definition of peculiar -- that being "special or unique" -- offered to me another possible way to view things.
Ah. Yep, you need to look not just at what the current meaning of a word is... not just with words like "peculiar" but also words you might think you know what they mean. "Stupid" is a good one, or "awful" - the common use of which today might not reflect what the composers of ritual intended in using the word.
 
Top