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!
Yep.
Would love to see your arguments.
The meme made specific claims, romantic and imagined. I'm not seeing how Ritual support most of them, even with taking the wide liberties that you shared. Thanks though for expanding upon it.
Of course, that was a consideration. However, for the meme's claims to be valid, they would have to have continuity with all the degrees, not just a few.
. However, while Ps get Degrees , I'd always rather get and A+ than just a Pass...(Ps get Degrees- how true, in some lodges Fails seem to get Degrees, or you get the Degree before even sitting the exam!) (Actually I am sure you would say Freemasonry is critical to Masonry).
To me this is the very core of Masonry.
I like Doug's "acceptable range" of interpretation
I read this thread the other day and have come back to it several times. I keep having different reactions to the meme, initially I did not like it, but its growing on me each time come in there to critique it, but still see it as faulted- it's certainly something interesting to talk about.
)
LOL! A+ is preferred here as well.
Most interesting. My initial reaction to the meme was mixed. I liked that an assuming member took the time to express himself. I read with sincere interest. Unfortunately, I soon saw the assumptions, notions and romanticism that was interwoven throughout. It didn't sit right then and the more I review it, the more I realize it is not just an inaccurate representation of the degrees, its a misrepresentation for all who know the degrees well, even when allowing for wide and diversely liberal interpretations.
LOL! Thanks for this. Much appreciated!
I left out the "The Degree is a FM; not a Masonic one" reference on the third merely because the claim did not address this. It is still a Freemasonic claim.
Perhaps clarification is in order: One can be engaged in Masonry and have no part of Freemasonry. Freemasonry only points to Masonry. It is not Masonry. One can participate in Freemasonry Masonically. Unfortunately, one can also participate in Masonry Freemasonically as well!
No. However, Freemasonic activities are an excellent way to introduce people to Masonry, and continue to emphasize Masonry's importance to Building better.Coach, are you saying Freemasonic activity is critical to Masonry ?
No. I would not. But as previously stated, if Freemasonry is done well, people are more likely to get introduced to Masonry and practice it.
It is only one man's view being put forth to someone who is a newbie. I would never say this to a newbie. It's misleading and misrepresents them.
Me either! ( I have an entire chapter in my last book addressing that very bastardized aspect. Want to hazard a guess as to where I took the conversation?
)Agreed! Agreed! Agreed!
See previous responses!
Disagree. They are not the territories; they ARE the maps. Although there are many who make them the territories and never see that they are the maps.
Sadly, the innovations to the Craft over the years have left many members requiring to stay outside the door because they are not considered full members until the MM title is bestowed.
Unfortunately, is doesn't "just" do this. It misrepresents the Degrees themselves and does this by being simplistic, superficial and assumptive.
Same Page for sure!
I'm leaning more toward all of them are the direct result of Masonic application. However, their re-enactments (conferring) are a direct result of Freemasonic support.
I disagree. The first degree tells candidates that there is a new life that is possible and if they want it, they have to lay a strong foundation on which to build that new life. The degree itself points to this. Going through the degree does not however do any of this. The candidates must do this themselves, not by going through the degree, but by actually doing the Work that the degree points them toward.
Agreed!
Agreed!
I understand. I just don't agree. It's unfortunate too that such a notion is well entrenched within the fraternity. It connotes the newly made MM is a child. He is not and if he takes upon himself this notion, he is not a Master at all and wears the title falsely.
And there in lies the point. Claims must have interconnectedness and continuity!
LOL! That would help a lot. (but if we want to pick at the bones, please understand, showing up is an organizational requirement
)Unfortunately, the bare minimum in some areas is showing up, going through the degrees in one day, and paying dues.
Yes. They call, sometimes even shout a bit, and expect candidates to actually listen and apply. When the system supporting them re-enforces this, perhaps we shall start to see better men as a result of them listening and applying betterment activities.
Agreed!
The existence of a secret book is not necessary to extract concrete (and valid) meaning.
Additional meaning, symbolism, etc. may very well come from associated reference materials and literature that provides what specific things, words, phrases and terms meant at a specific point in time that puts into context and frames what is offered by ritual. Such things are essential to understanding ritual. In fact, I find it's next to impossible to understand ritual properly and fully without references to which ritual alludes, and it has A LOT of allusions!**
I disagree. You can quote what KY ritual says, (and hopefully not violate your OB), and in doing so present what KY ritual claims, but you cannot say that KY Ritual actually does represent what it claims to represent and not be offering an opinion, unless there is supporting evidence backing up what KY Ritual claims.
I agree! And I think we might see a lot more of this than we want to.
Agreed!
I disagree... but only partially. Yes, we get a lot of stuff thrown at us that is clearly bovine output. However, meaning extracted from ritual based upon scholarly backing that is not assumptive, not fanciful, not heavily biased by personal agendas and shows continuity and validity within and without, could be correct, as are views that are similarly supported.
LOL! Agreed!!!!!
Absolutely. And there in lay the challenge. Semantics is about the meaning we invest and how that meaning drifts with time and cultural influences.
Yep!
Actually it can be argued and quite effectively, especially when it can be shown that what is claimed is not supported, which is exactly what was done here.
, is part of the problem with the BS that is being fed to our candidates. "Just" because something is "symbolic" doesn't give anyone "free license to provide unbounded interpretations" without that person receiving well deserved valid criticism. That simply will not happen when who he surrounds himself is supporting him well.It is too often different, and I fault the support the candidates gets and doesn't get. The system is not flawed. It is simple not executed very well by well meaning members.
Thanks for the validation!
Great question. I don't see it as a matter of right or wrong. I see it as a matter of whether the receiver was able or even capable of understanding the intended message sent. Art for art's sake is wholly different from ritual written and performed with intent. When the intent is written well, the intent is both known and performed well by those who deliver it AND the receiver has a proper foundation to comprehend what is received, the intent and message gets through. When the latter two are operating in the dark, the message will be lost till future generations rediscover it.
As previously stated: I see it as a matter of whether the receiver was able or even capable of understanding the intended message sent.
LOL! In your own time my good Brother.
