The Science Debate

The Science Debate

One would think there is no debate about science. The scientific method is, quite simply this: “a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.” What I find extremely interesting about this statement is the use of the word “nature,” or rather, natural science. It bears noting that “natural sciences” are those sciences which have to deal with the physical world – astronomy, physics, biology, geology, etc. In other words, it is a study of, you guessed it, the natural world.

At a recent M.P.S. meeting discussing the impact of humanity on the earth’s physiology, or eco-system, many arm-chair scientists spoke up and theorized on the state of our globe’s atmosphere. One person noted that there is a “layer of bacteria” it the atmosphere, and this could be the cause of some of the earth’s climate issues. Skeptical, as always, I wanted to know more. Using the internet and what I hope were reputable sources, I determined there is not a “layer” of bacteria but viruses and bacteria do get swept up into our atmosphere and in some cases, may be able to thrive there. There is no indication, however, of their impact on Earth’s changing or evolving climate.

img_0451The activities I undertook to understand what someone was saying were also a topic of this very same discussion. We have many ways of obtaining information and while the internet and search engines are helpful, they are not the “end all” of research. When libraries and bookstores were the norm, the person doing the research had to know the topic area, perhaps some reputable authors or scientists, and then searched and read through information to find data to support, or deny, whatever message they were researching. Now, it is slightly backwards – we’re provided the data quickly, but with little background on who, or what, produced this data.

While the tools may have also made the data easier to find, we have become less able to do actual research. In a recent airport visit, I watched a “Big Story” about a man who became fascinated with sea horses. He moved to California from his native Iowa, and during a dive in 2016, he spotted sea horses in the Long Beach harbor. He became fascinated with the creatures and now averages 1500 miles per year, driving and diving up and down the coast of California, to study sea horses. He is not a biologist or scientist of any kind. Yet, over time, he’s taught himself to start taking data, creating biomes for these creatures to study them, and become one of the foremost authorities on sea horses. Why? Because they fascinate him. He is passionate about them. Dare I say, he loves them.

We normal humans have become subjected to being fed “science” and rarely make the time or foment the passion to study a single piece of nature. We might find flowers beautiful or animals majestic, but we move right back to our computers and away from the natural world. When we get out into the world, we begin to understand it in a way that computers and spoon-fed data can never provide. Rather than find a path to learn, we are mortified by “not knowing” and become fearful. We look for information to make us feel better, to generally support our suppositions. We do not gather data based on observation or theory, like our friend above, nor do we really obtain knowledge. We lack understanding. We take what we hear, and return to the world around us a feedback loop of information that is consumed but not subsumed.

483c5e6d-977b-48b0-9d69-bbbc4c60790a-921-000000d05cd6384bWhy is science, a respect for science, important? For two reasons, I believe. The first is our ignorance of true science, of true nature, ignores the facts of the world around us. It drives us away from being of nature, when in fact we are nature. We lose context and disseminate false information. Fake news isn’t fake because someone simply lies; fake news is fake news when we perpetuate it without solid understanding and investing in personal research. We then make choices about how we live and how humanity thrives based on misinformation.

The second reason true learning of nature is important is because understanding nature stops fear and anger in its tracks. Understanding the larger cycles of the earth, geologic cycles, helps us understand better what is, and is not, human impact. It complicates what we want to be simple, but it complicates it because it is complicated. Nature needs to be understood by our individual selves, otherwise, we’re not really learning. We are part of this great body of animal, mineral, and vegetable. We’re made of stardust and earth, of air and water. We’re electrical and chemical. So is the world around us. If we seek to understand the universe, we are really seeking to understand ourselves. Destroying this ignorance destroys fear and hate.

48b17022-8269-4ce9-9a6e-1e009bd6dc11-921-000000d41d537600While I think we should question everything, I am not so sure there should be debate about science – about its existence and use in our lives. There should be no debate about nature, about physics or chemistry, no debate about exploration nor about the extrapolation of research. We should all become our own scientists in this world, curious and intuitive, passionate about life. Humanity isn’t separate from nature; humanity is nature, and thus, we study nature, we study ourselves. We learn. We grow, We become better.

Curiosity and Intuition

Curiosity and Intuition

Not long ago, a friend asked how I’ve come to this point in life with the vocation and avocations that I have. Were these all conscious choices or not? I thought long and hard about it, and decided it was a combination of mind and gut – of curiosity and intuition. Sometimes, I felt like the job offers appeared before me and the universe was saying, “Okay, how about this one?” Curiosity propelled me toward research and ultimately jumping in. Other times, my intuition said, “Hey! You need to be over there, now!” So, I took the fresh position without any research whatsoever. Pure gut. Pure terror, more like it.

Yet, at each of these moments, I grew in equal measure. Curiosity provided expansion while intuition afforded me introspection and trust in something greater than myself. Fate. God. Destiny. Connectedness. Consciousness. Whatever you wish to call it, that seems to be the place where that voice-not-ours originates.

According to the University of Chicago, “intuition”  was first used in a text at the end of the 15th century. Until the 17th century intuition meant “mentally looking at”; “the act of regarding, examining, or inspecting”; “a view, regard, or consideration of something”, all of which are now obsolete meanings. In the modern world, it reflects insight not necessarily borne of cognition. In fact, the root of the word intuition means “to look over, to watch over.” Who, or what, is watching and even more important, who or what is speaking to us?

Conversely, curiosity is nothing but mental questioning, inquisitiveness stemming from, “I don’t know but I really want to know.” One might say it has less to do with the mind and more to do with the heart. It is an eagerness to learn, a desire for expansiveness of mind, body, or emotion. Curiosity makes us step into the water without knowing the depth or temperature, to see what lies at the bottom. Oddly enough, the word curiosity stems from the same root as “to cure.” Curiosity is hungry mind.

Both words have that measure of terror with them. I don’t mean this literally; I mean that there is the sense of the unknown, the essence that we might be too fragile to cope with what is on the other side of knowledge, or that we might not like what we find. The opposites of these two words, curiosity and intuition, might be equally interesting to measure: indifference and intellect, respectively. They take on a hard aspect, something cold and somewhat lifeless.

Why explore these? I am curious. Why do they exist? Why are humans propelled to investigate while others do not? Is this an evolutionary drive? Why do we rely on intuition when it might steer us wrong? Are we really able to let go of fact and simply go with our gut?

This question becomes highlighted when we talk about divinity and our motivations in perfecting humanity. What would our humanity look like without curiosity and intuition? Would it be cold intellect, heartless? Or would it be mindless automatons, moving through the world without the reason or passion to ask why? Would either of these antithetical properties propel us forward toward becoming better versions of ourselves? I’d have to say no.

Yet, today, we fight something something insidious, something related and underlying: apathy. We fight it in our politics, our work places, our schools, and even in our families. It’s easier to take the intuition and curiosity to the depths rather than bring it into the light. It’s interesting that this is what our Masonic Philosophical Society meetings do – bring out curiosity and intuition and work toward crushing apathy.

And time after time, I hear how needed these meetings are, how hungry people are for color where there is only black and white. Only divisiveness. It seems to me that something we should, as the “human race” should cultivate is curiosity and intuition, in our babies and children. Forty years ago, Dr. Wayne Dyer cultivated the idea that we limit curiosity in our children, and it creates frightened or apathetic adults; adults who do look to others for guidance at every turn are neither curious nor intuitive. They have lost touch with themselves and thus, lose their own sovereignty. Can humanity move forward without such sovereignty? I do not think so.

So, here is the encouragement:

  • Be curious about something you “think” you detest.
  • Listen with an open mind to a political rival, and ask questions.
  • When the voice tells you to send your friend an email, do it.
  • Pick up that call from a number you don’t know, when the drive tells you to.
  • Listen to the quite nudges of your mind and heart.
  • Smile at a stranger, hug your boss or your coworker if you need to, and learn to listen to the subtleties of human movement in the world.

The world opens wide, full of wonder, when we listen deeply.

The Universe Perceived

The Universe Perceived

If we perceive the universe, does it exist? And what if we fail to perceive? 

Why Does the Freemason Care?

I’m going to start off with something that people usually place at the end of one of these conversations: how does this question tie to Freemasonry? As we talk through these concepts, I’d like you to keep in mind several key notions which inform Freemasonry and the ideals of Freemasonry.

  • Freemasonry works towards the perfecting of Humanity; in doing so, it does not tell the Freemason what to think but how to be: moral, just, tolerant, seek truth and practice liberty under the law. Only the Free-Thinker can conceive of the ideal humanity and what that may achieve.
  • A Freemason’s foundation is founded on the principles of human solidarity, freedom of conscience, and the facts of Brotherhood. It places no restrictions on the search after Truth, and in order to secure that freedom, it demands the greatest tolerance from all members of the Order.
  • To a Freemason, the freedom of thought, speech, and action belongs to all Mankind – regardless of race, religion, or gender.

While we talk about the concepts contained in this discussion, allow yourself to keep coming back to these core ideas of Freemasonry. You can view an example of these principles here: http://universalfreemasonry.org

A Distant Philosopher’s Take

1024px-John_Smibert_-_Bishop_George_Berkeley_-_Google_Art_ProjectIn 17th Century England, the Age of Enlightenment was underway. New discoveries in biology, astronomy, alchemy, chemistry, and physiology gave birth to an even wider range of philosophies. Many of the things we think about today were beginning to blossom in the minds of great thinkers.

One of those great thinkers was George Berkeley. Berkeley was born in 1685 near Kilkenny, Ireland. After several years of schooling at Kilkenny College, he entered Trinity College, in Dublin, at age 15. He was made a fellow of Trinity College in 1707 (three years after graduating) and was ordained in the Anglican Church shortly thereafter. At Trinity, where the curriculum was notably modern, Berkeley encountered the new science and philosophy of the late seventeenth century, which was characterized by hostility towards Aristotelianism. (Stanford, Philosophers)

Two Competing Ideas

Materialism of this time period meant “the concept that material things exist.” Berkeley’s take on this was that if one only believed in the senses, one type of perception, that this was a false view of the nature of the universe. The core idea of materialism is this: a thing exists independently of the thinking mind. A tree is a tree, whether or not there is a mind to perceive the tree.

Berkeley charges that materialism promotes skepticism and atheism: skepticism because materialism implies that our senses mislead us as to the natures of these material things, which moreover need not exist at all, and atheism because a material world could be expected to run without the assistance of God. In other words, there is no ideal of a tree, no spirit of a tree, so therefore there does not need to be a God to have a tree.

AlchemyWhat Berkeley proposes is “idealism.” This is not the modern interpretation of idealism; Idealism to Berkeley is the fact that a) We perceive ordinary material objects and b) we perceive ideas, therefore c) Ordinary material objects are ideas. Although there is no independent material world for Berkeley, there is a physical world, a world of ordinary objects. This world is mind-dependent, for it is composed of ideas, whose existence consists in being perceived. For ideas, and so for the physical world, esse est percipi. To be is to be perceived. Berkeley believed that while physical objects exist, the concept of them does not exist unless we perceive them as collections of ideas. These ideas are the construct of the human mind, and therefore, they, as individual objects, cannot exist without the human perception of them. 

Against Idealism

There are three main arguments against “idealism.”

  1. The most obvious objection to idealism is that it makes real things no different from imaginary ones—both seem fleeting figments of our own minds, rather than the solid objects of the materialists.
  2. What is the purpose of internal mechanisms and hidden structures to a world of ideas rather than a world of material existence? In other words, what is the point of the internal workings of a watch, if we don’t need to see them for the structure to work?
  3. Science should reveal the efficient causes of natural things, processes, and events. Isn’t it a step backward to imagine that all our physical substances are really based in “spirit?” Spirit in this sense is attributable to God.

A Modern Take

jawFast forward 400 years to 2002. John Wheeler, a physicist and contemporary & colleague of Einstein and Bohr, pondered the idea of existence from another angle.

Wheeler postulated that the universe is participatory. In the final decades of his life, the question that intrigued Wheeler most was: “Are life and mind irrelevant to the structure of the universe, or are they central to it?” He suggested that the nature of reality was revealed by the bizarre laws of quantum mechanics. According to the quantum theory, before the observation is made, a subatomic particle exists in several states, called a superposition (or, as Wheeler called it, a ‘smoky dragon’). Once the particle is observed, it instantaneously collapses into a single position. 

A Grand Experiment

Wheeler’s belief was that the universe is built like an enormous feedback loop, a loop in which we contribute to the ongoing creation of not just the present and the future but the past as well.

To illustrate his idea, he devised what he called his “delayed-choice experiment,” which adds a startling, cosmic variation to a cornerstone of quantum physics: the classic two-slit experiment. The “two slit” experiment illustrates a key principle of quantum mechanics: Light has a dual nature. In the experiment, light — a stream of photons — shines through two parallel slits and hits a strip of photographic film behind the slits. We have even seen, now, a photograph of a particle in both states. This photograph seems to undermine some of the concepts presented here, but for now, we’ll continue building our overarching discussion. 

This “two slit” experiment outlines the theory of The Observer Effect: In physics, the observer effect is the theory that the mere observation of a phenomenon inevitably changes that phenomenon. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. Thus, the basic idea is that observed, photons act like particles. Unobserved, they act like waves. Observation equates to a choice; Lack of observation provides multiple options/actions.

A Grander Experiment

Wheeler came up with a cosmic-scale version of this experiment that has even weirder implications. Wheeler’s version shows that our observations in the present can affect how a photon behaved in the past. This is a fairly large and complex experiment, described here by Mary-Jane Rubenstein, in “Worlds Without End: The Many Lives of the Multiverse.”

2000px-Double-slit.svg“Imagine a quasar — a very luminous and very remote young galaxy. Now imagine that there are two other large galaxies between Earth and the quasar. The gravity from massive objects like galaxies can bend light, just as conventional glass lenses do. In Wheeler’s experiment the two huge galaxies substitute for the pair of slits; the quasar is the light source. Just as in the two-slit experiment, light — photons — from the quasar can follow two different paths, past one galaxy or the other.

Suppose that on Earth, some astronomers decide to observe the quasars. In this case a telescope plays the role of the photon detector in the two-slit experiment. If the astronomers point a telescope in the direction of one of the two intervening galaxies, they will see photons from the quasar that were deflected by that galaxy; they would get the same result by looking at the other galaxy. But the astronomers could also mimic the second part of the two-slit experiment. By carefully arranging mirrors, they could make photons arriving from the routes around both galaxies strike a piece of photographic film simultaneously. Alternating light and dark bands would appear on the film, identical to the pattern found when photons passed through the two slits.

Here’s the odd part. The quasar could be very distant from Earth, with light so faint that its photons hit the piece of film only one at a time. But the results of the experiment wouldn’t change. The striped pattern would still show up, meaning that a lone photon not observed by the telescope traveled both paths toward Earth, even if those paths were separated by many light-years. And that’s not all.

By the time the astronomers decide which measurement to make — whether to pin down the photon to one definite route or to have it follow both paths simultaneously — the photon could have already journeyed for billions of years, long before life appeared on Earth. The measurements made now, says Wheeler, determine the photon’s past. In one case the astronomers create a past in which a photon took both possible routes from the quasar to Earth. Alternatively, they retroactively force the photon onto one straight trail toward their detector, even though the photon began its jaunt long before any detectors existed.” 

1-thefirsteverAt the time that Wheeler conceived of this idea, it had already been demonstrated in a laboratory. And, as I noted above, a recent photograph of a particle behaving in both ways has been seen floating around the internet. 

In 1984 physicists at the University of Maryland set up a tabletop version of the delayed-choice scenario. Using a light source and an arrangement of mirrors to provide a number of possible photon routes, the physicists were able to show that the paths the photons took were not fixed until the physicists made their measurements, even though those measurements were made after the photons had already left the light source and begun their circuit through the course of mirrors.

Wheeler conjectures we are part of a universe that is a work in progress; we are tiny patches of the universe looking at itself — and building itself. By the choices we humans make, in observing the world around us and acting on those observations, we are creating the universe as it continues to move through time and space. 

Wheeler isn’t alone in his thinking; other notable, modern scientists have weighed in on our perceptions of the universe. Stephen Hawking noted: “The laws of science, as we know them at present, seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.” Fred Hoyle, in his book Intelligent Universe, compares “the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by a chance combination of amino acids to a star system full of blind men solving Rubik’s Cube simultaneously.” Physicist Andrei Linde of Stanford University stated: “The universe and the observer exist as a pair. I cannot imagine a consistent theory of the universe that ignores consciousness.”

Participatory Anthropic Principle

The anthropic principle is a philosophical consideration that observations of the universe must be compatible with the conscious and sapient life that observes it: Sapience – to taste or to perceive, consciousness – aware of the mind and surroundings, of space and time. Wheeler speculated that reality is created by observers in the universe. “How does something arise from nothing?” he asked about the existence of space and time. He also coined the term “Participatory Anthropic Principle.” In 1990, Wheeler suggested that information is fundamental to the physics of the universe.

According to what he called the “it from bit” doctrine, all things physical are information-theoretic in origin:

It from bit. Otherwise put, every it — every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself — derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely — even if in some contexts indirectly — from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits. It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe. (Wheeler, Interview)

Wheeler’s theory was that, in an analogous manner, consciousness may play some role in bringing the universe into existence. This is the core of what he called The Participatory Anthropic Principle.

Conclusion

https___blogs-images.forbes.com_startswithabang_files_2017_01_1-5JNJ0lwn_6wGru2LU9iDTAWe may choose to believe that the universe is made up of entirely material items and its existence would be here, whether we are or not. From at least the 17th Century, and probably earlier, people have conceived of the idea that the universe is created from our own minds, our observations, our “experimentation” on the world.

What we do in our day to day life, in our spiritual life, in our interactions with others has an effect on the world around us, causing the interplay of life and the stream of consciousness of time.

Perceiving the universe as a participatory place gives us a glimpse of the answer to the question: why are we here? I personally believe we humans are meant to create – life, activity, buildings, art, ideas, new thoughts – many things. To tie this back to the beginning, with regards to Freemasonry, we are working together, in ritual and in groups, toward perfecting humanity. If we are doing this, we are perfecting the universe – past, present, and future. 

Brother or Friend?

Brother or Friend?

A long time ago, I heard a Freemason tell another that they “should not be friends” with their Brothers. It was a strange comment to me, as I thought that when I joined Freemasonry, I would find like-minded people who I could spend time with, conversing and changing the course of the universe, all of us achieving amazing and lofty ambitions. These are the things you do with people you like. And don’t you like your friends?

Later on, once I moved into the higher degrees, another, more experienced Freemason said the same thing, adding, “it is a lonely path, being in these higher degrees.” While I might have doubted before, I did not doubt now. I have seen too many things go awry to question that wisdom. My quandary, though, was trying to figure out what the difference between Freemason and Friend is all about? Why can’t a Brother also be a Friend? Why shouldn’t a Brother be a Friend? How do I communicate that to others, who have stumbled into some awkward and emotionally disturbing situations? How do I avoid them, too?

Let me preface this with saying that this discovery, this understanding between friend and brother, has been a long journey. I have learned a lot about myself, as Freemasonry is wont to provide to a person on its path. I am the type of person who tries to have a pleasant demeanor and be welcoming. Call it being a Libra, a caretaker, eldest daughter, or whatever you will; my personality is to bring in as much hospitality as possible with my attitude, thoughts, and feelings so as to create a circle of warmth, trust, and authenticity. I feel it’s the only way to communicate well with people, and how I want people to communicate well with me. Being open gives me insight into who they are. Many people mistake this for friendship; I think in general, people from the United States mistake quite a bit for friendship, but that might be a topic for another time. Being nice does not equate to friendship. Being nice is, well, simply being nice. I have had this issue all my life and it’s something I understand about myself. While I attempt to be clear, I sometimes do not see the forest for the trees. I struggle to see how being nice may cause misunderstanding. Let’s call it knowledgeable naivete.

A friend is someone who you have created a bond with, someone with whom you know and have a mutual affection. Someone once said to me, you win friends. They are created through experiences of trust, sharing, and having someone with which is common. You might or might not provide some kind of support for a friend; it might be emotional, mental, or physical support.

Different friends have different levels of engagement and meaning. A friend might be someone with whom you share events throughout your life or someone with whom you only share coffee once in a while. There are no expectations in overall friendship; each relationship creates its own boundaries and ways of thinking and being together. In Europe, acquaintances are not friends. You may know someone for 20 years, but they are not your friend. They are someone you know. We have less distinction about that here in the United States. We rely a lot more on others who tell us what we should be. Friends are necessary for everyone; they provide us a window to the world and an ear to speak to when we need that confidant, that supporter, that person who knows us best.

A Brother is very different. While we choose our Brothers in Freemasonry, it’s a very democratic and discussion-heavy process. Brother, it should be clear, is a title. It may mean a fellow Freemason, but it is also a title of someone who is a Freemason. For someone to become a Brother, there is a lengthy and stringent process, where the requirements are spelled out based on the Masonic organization or body. For example, one has to be just, upright, and free, of mature age, sound mind, and strict morals. They don’t have to meet my morality; they have to demonstrate a morality that upholds the tenets of Freemasonry – for example tolerance and prudence. As a Freemason who makes a judgement about an applicant, I can say with authority that this isn’t a popularity contest: the applicant must meet the criteria and the majority of the Lodge members agree to the membership. While it’s nice to have people get along, it is certainly not a requirement unless something is seriously disharmonious. Some Masonic groups do not admit the other gender, or some do not admin non-Christians. Whatever the rules are about entrance, they are tightly controlled by the overarching organization.

In my opinion, the more diverse the group of Freemasons, the better the growth of the human and humanity. What better way to gain a better understanding of the self than to rub up against those people with whom we don’t particularly fit well? Think… rock tumbler. We like to think we have no rough edges but all rocks in a tumbler are pokey. If you catch on someone else, it’s not because your surface is super smooth. You have bumps, like we all do. That is how we get better. By working them out. We’ll talk more about this later.

Selecting who becomes a Brother is only one part of answering the question, what is the difference between Brother and Friend? The second comes from repeatedly working in Lodge together as Freemasons. Human beings are normally drawn to one another as they perceive common interests. In Freemasonry, many Brothers travel together or offer their homes for visits and boarding. In the outer world, the non-Masonic world, this indicates or implicates friendship. For someone who is not clear about their Masonic boundaries, this kind of interaction can be misconstrued. Being nice isn’t being a friend; being nice in Freemasonry is expected and hospitable. Conversely, as I noted above, agreeing with someone isn’t a requirement to be or remain a Freemason. We all don’t have the same thoughts, same views, nor would we want to. Debate and rhetoric are things which create better humans, and Freemasons value the well-informed, opinionated debate. If you can’t discuss topics of importance with your Brothers, then you may not have success as a Freemason. In other words, disagreement or debate isn’t cause for hate or strife. It’s a cause for growth.

Rock. Tumbler.

There is a code of conduct that Freemasons have in interacting with one another that is fairly formal and is intact whether they are in a Lodge meeting or out in public or at a non-Masonic event. No Freemason would dream of striking another physically, calling names to them or their families, or treating them with anything but human decency. There is a respect for them as a human being but even more so, they have earned respect because they have the title Brother. There is also a respect for the hard work someone has put into their Masonic Order, whether it be from years of service, traveling to instruct or mentor, hours of meetings and committees, or other volunteer time. There is a respect of position, formally granted by the Lodge to that person who must spend their time coordinating, planning, instructing, and fostering further Masonic influence, as well as that Lodge’s officers who carry out the work. There’s respect for memorization, degree work, and one hopes, for the execution of the ritual. All of these require a sense of honor for fellow Brothers and a real dedication to support what they do, even if we don’t want to, can’t, or are not able to do it ourselves. We respect merit and ability. This respect is backed up by rules and regulations that demand respect, and a jurisprudence that enforces those rules.

I think this is where the waters become muddy. In the non-Freemasonic world, we bestow respect by our own credo. We win friends by living by our own ideals and sometimes we compromise those ideals for the benefit of having those around us who share our proclivities. We tend to choose our friends because they think like us, not because they think differently. We choose friends with our egos, generally. In a society that is increasingly polarizing, we need our armies around us to make us feel better. In a society that increasingly insular, we mistake the slightest hint of personal niceness as being hit on or being courted for, well, becoming a courtier. It can’t be stated enough that we don’t bring the outside world into Freemasonry and expect it to adapt. Likewise, we shouldn’t misconstrue the hospitality and fraternity of Freemasonry for friendship.

As you move through the path that is Freemasonry, your responsibilities, duties, and obligations become greater, wider reaching. Your duty grows, and your mind must be set to think of not only your own Lodge but your District, your Grand District, and perhaps your entire Order; it may even grow so far as to be responsible for the growth of Freemasonry itself. While a true, authentic friend would never ask you to compromise your avocation for them specifically, it places everyone in a precarious balance if you mix responsibility, duty, and obligation with going out for a few beers on a Saturday night with a single Brother. One has to be very careful where one boundary ends and another begins. How one comports themselves is in direct relation to how they have obligated themselves to a position within Freemasonry.

The largest and most difficult challenge is being “friends” with people early in your Masonic career and then weighing that with greater obligations as you grow. As we change, sometimes our friends do not. Maybe we don’t go out for beers any longer but stay home and enjoy a good study group online. There may be a bitterness about placing Freemasonry above friendship. There might be sadness because you spend time with a Lodge instead of a single person. I know of one person who became the head of their local Lodge. When that happened, people flocked to her to place them in positions of seeming importance in the Lodge, offices they desired. She succumbed to putting them in these positions and the Lodge suffered because of it because they weren’t equipped to do the jobs they desired; she thought of their desires and not the needs of the group. Friendship above Freemasonry. She learned a valuable lesson that first year.

In some cases, maybe you never were friends and simply Brothers, but that is where the niceties and hospitality of Freemasonry confuse with the outside world. When you first enter into Freemasonry, maybe you are looking for friends or even family. You might be looking for those like-minded people and hope for friendship. Going and getting coffee and talking about esoteric subjects may be something you do with friends or with Brothers; it is the building of the relationship, and context, that makes the difference. It is not impossible to be a friend with a Brother – not by a long shot. Yet, what I see work is when Freemasonry is the basis of the relationship and that takes precedence. I can think of many instances where the reverse does not work.

In Co-Masonry, there is the added, extra challenge of mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, and other family members becoming Freemasons, sometimes in the same Lodge. This seems to take the modern familial relationship and make it even better. You have the common purpose of becoming better people, together, with a deeper grasp on your relationship. Perhaps it is because that “friendship” relationship never existed between siblings or parents – after all, it’s family. It was family first, even if the adults are friends, too. Freemasonry, in its familial format, supports those ideas and relationships deeply and helps them, in my opinion, become richer. I have seen whole families join Freemasonry and it creates a very strong, lifelong bond.

I have seen more than a few people who have given their entire adult lives to helping Freemasonry grow, and it is not an easy path. They are on the phone from 6:00 to 18:00, backed up in emails and meetings, planning and executing all the time. If they are lucky, they are able to carve out time for family and some close friends, some travel, and laughter. They have raised families who were nearly all Freemasons and have maybe raised some who were bitter about Freemasonry’s influence. Some have worked for decades to improve the lives of all Freemasons, with no thought to their own service or sleep. It is all a choice, and that sacrifice can be as hard as those that give up their individual lives to raise a family or a flock of parishoners. For these dedicated few, they have very few friends but many, many Brothers. For them, that is satisfying and healthy, and it helps them create the True, the Good, and the Beautiful in the world.

So, Friends? Or Brothers?

Symbolism & The Literalists

Symbolism & The Literalists

Fundamentalism is everywhere.

Let’s be clear: fundamentalism is strict adherence to the basic principles of any subject or discipline. In most cases, people use it to discuss religious adherence to the “word” of any particular religion as being absolutely true and literal, in all sense. You can be, however, a fundamental ballet dancers, barista, or car mechanic. And, also to be fair, being a “fundamentalist” isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It comes down to one additional feature: an open mind. Tolerance does not mean you walk away with someone else’s views being your new truth or a completely changed mind. It only means being able to accept that which fills the universe might be slightly bigger than your own fundamentalism.

What has this got to do with Symbolism? I just read a recent article on the symbol of the skull in Freemasonry. The article, is well written and somewhat shocking to me. How could anyone who has been a Freemason for any length of time, at all, think that the skull represents something horrible and to be feared?

Then, I realize, there are literalists in Freemasonry, like there are everywhere. They might not understand the idea of teaching via symbolism or that symbols are human communication mechanisms meant to stir the deep unconscious and subconscious, ala Joseph Campbell. So, let’s take a look at the purpose of symbolism.

Books, tomes, volumes, caves, papyrus, walls, and stele have been written about symbols, their meanings, their other meanings, and still stranger meanings. You cannot spit in a metaphysical bookstore without hitting a volume about that author or society’s view of what a particular pictograph meant. A cat means the afterlife and it means cleanliness, or attentiveness, or patience.

That’s well and good, but what is symbolism? What is a symbol? Symbolism is using symbols to represent ideas or qualities. A symbol is something that simply is a picture that stands in for something else. It isn’t what it is, but what it might act like, or a quality it exudes. So a picture of a cat can be a cat. It can also stand in for the idea of patience, observance, or hospitality. What matters here, is context. Sometimes a cigar really is just a cigar. Sometimes, as Freud so eloquently poked at, it is not.

By their very definition, a literalist cannot understand symbolism. A literalist does not, can not, see that cat as anything but a cat. A fundamentalist takes words for their exact meaning; there is no such thing as allegory, metaphor, or symbolism. There cannot be, else it breaks the very idea of their fundamentalism. Fundamentalists must have a very difficult time at comedy clubs. The point is that many conflicts come from a literalist and non-literalist arguing over meaning. Religions splinter and fragment based on a symbolic or literal meaning of a single text. The two ways of approaching thought, mind, discovery are challenged every day to come together.

Symbols are there for the explorative mind. Symbols expand our ways of thinking about something and break us out of following a single track. It cracks fundamentalism and provides new neural pathways of consciousness. What does it take? Yes, an open mind. It takes a curious mind. It takes a mind that is us afraid of being different than it once was. It might even take a little comfort in the chaos and disharmony of discovery.

The Freemason is an adventurer, an explorer. She is looking for a world bigger than herself, bigger than her current roadmap. She’s looking to build a map of imagination and wonder. Freemasons discuss and debate symbols because to the Freemason, a symbol is only a beginning point. The symbols take on myriad meanings, all being correct at some level, right at some level. When we share our discoveries with others, we’re offering a guidepost in a new land. We’re opening portals to a wider existence, not just for one but for all. The goal is the search for Truth. Not one truth, or a person’s opinion, but Truth – the fundamental idea of why we are here.

Thus, I think it would be very difficult for someone who is a literalist or fundamentalist to be a Freemason. Even “Fundamental” Freemasons are struggling in decay. Discovery breeds creativity and creativity is growth. Can a literalist be a discoverer? My open, inquiring mind wants to know.

The Dionysian Artificers – Part 2

The Dionysian Artificers – Part 2

We discussed briefly, in Part 1, the text of the book, “The Sketch of the History of the Dionysian Artificers,” by Hippolyto Da Costa. The book, written in 1820, is the author’s take on where Freemasonry originated, and what the “guts” of Freemasonry’s teachings are about. However, no where in the text does Da Costa state this is about Freemasonry nor does he use the term Freemasons. What is this text attempting to say, and why should Freemasons care?

Let’s return to the myth of Dionysus. According to Mackey’s “The Symbolism of Freemasonry,” there were two myths of Dionysus and the one particularly noted to Freemasonry and the Dionysian Artificers is the one which involves the Titans. Dionysus had two births, according to some, including the Greek poet Nonnus, who has provided the account of his first birth and death. From Wikipedia…

“The Greek poet Nonnus gives a birth narrative for Dionysus in his late 4th or early 5th century AD epic Dionysiaca. In it, he described how Zeus “intended to make a new Dionysos grow up, a bullshaped copy of the older Dionysos” who was the Egyptian god Osiris. (Dionysiaca 4). 

Zeus took the shape of a serpent (“drakon“), and “ravished the maidenhood of unwedded Persephoneia.” According to Nonnus, though Persephone was “the consort of the blackrobed king of the underworld”, she remained a virgin, and had been hidden in a cave by her mother to avoid the many gods who were her suitors, because “all that dwelt in Olympos were bewitched by this one girl, rivals in love for the marriageable maid.” (Dionysiaca 5)[162] After her union with Zeus, Perseophone’s womb “swelled with living fruit”, and she gave birth to a horned baby, named Zagreus. Zagreus, despite his infancy, was able to climb onto the throne of Zeus and brandish his lightning bolts, marking him a Zeus’ heir. Hera saw this and alerted the Titans, who smeared their faces with chalk and ambushed the infant Zagreus “while he contemplated his changeling countenance reflected in a mirror…”

However, according to Nonnus, “where his limbs had been cut piecemeal by the Titan steel, the end of his life was the beginning of a new life as Dionysos.” He began to change into many different forms in which he returned the attack, including Zeus, Kronos, a baby, and “a mad youth with the flower of the first down marking his rounded chin with black.” He then transformed into several animals to attack the assembled Titans, including a lion, a wild horse, a horned serpent, a tiger, and, finally, a bull. Hera intervened, killing the bull with a shout, and the Titans finally slaughtered him and cut him into pieces. Zeus attacked the Titans and had them imprisoned in Tartaros. This caused the mother of the Titans, Gaia, to suffer, and her symptoms were seen across the whole world, resulting in fires and floods, and boiling seas. Zeus took pity on her, and in order to cool down the burning land, he caused great rains to flood the world (Dionysiaca 6).” 

Wikipedia: Dionysis

The first dating of Dionysus comes from approximately 13th Century BCE in Thrace, possibly migrated from Ionia. Mackey discusses in his chapter, “The Dionysiac (sic) Artificers,” how the rites of Dionysus, as it relates to the first death of Dionysus are nearly ubiquitous throughout the ancient world and how, over time, they have morphed into several rites which we are also familiar with – those of Osiris, Orpheus, and Mithras. After reading the passage above, it is hard not to see the connections in the death and symbolism connecting them together.

In one version of the myth, the events described above are directly attributed to Isis, Horus, and Osiris, with Horus taking the place of the Titans.  From some sources, it is speculated that Dionysus was the only foreign God to be accepted into the Greek pantheon, and that many believe this myth of Dionysus to be the source of all other mystery schools. What is fascinating is we have a 4th or 5th Century CE author, Nonnus, writing about a God that has been in human consciousness for nearly 2000 years, at the very least.

What does this have to do with Freemasonry? Much, if you take Da Costa’s take. From Pgs 5 and 6 of the “Dionysian Artificers,” we read:

Amongst those mysteries are peculiarly remarkable the Eleusinian. Dionysius, Bacchus, Orisis, Adonis, Thamuz, Apollo, etc., were names adopted in various languages, and in several countries, to designate the Divinity, who was the object of those ceremonies, and it is generally admitted that the sun was meant by these several denominations.

Let us begin with a fact, not disputed, that in these ceremonies, a death and resurrection was represented, and that the interval between death and resurrection was sometimes three days, sometimes fifteen days.

Now, by the concurrent testimony of all ancient authors the deities called Osiris, Adonis, Bacchus, etc. were names given to, or types, representing the sun, considered in different situations, and contemplated under various points of view.

Therefore, these symbolic representations, which described the sun as dead, that is to say, hidden for three days under the horizon, must have originated in a climate, where the sun, when in the lower hemisphere, is, at a certain season of the year, concealed for three days from the view of the inhabitants.

(sacred-texts.com: Dionysian Artificers)

The conjecture that the worship of the sun came from a climate (Persia, for example, Mithraic Rites) is, in Da Costa’s view, erroneous. The worship of the sun came from the northern-most climates, and thus came from Atlantis, as documented by Plato and, according to him, Socrates. While the origin of the Sun Worshiping rites is still open to debate in Da Costa’s work, he emphasizes that the numbers, in accordance with the Order of Nature, are important and that the mysteries themselves are teaching their initiates about the cycle of life and death. If we are to believe that these mysteries came from Atlantis, then the one common language that could have been passed through the ages is numbers and symbols, as expressed through the laws of nature which all Earth inhabitants share.

Da Costa continues to trace the lineage of the mystery schools through the modern day, including how the worship of the Sun and Dionysian Rites in particular became associated with the art of building and architecture. From the book, again, pages 30-32:

About fifty years before the building of the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem, a colony of Grecians, chiefly Ionians, complaining of the narrow limits of their country, in an increased population, emigrated; and having been settled in Asia Minor, gave to that country the name of Ionia. 

No doubt that people carried with them their manners, sciences, and religion; and the mysteries of Eleusis among the rest. Accordingly we find that one of their cities, Byblos, was famed for the worship of Apollo, as Apollonia had been with their ancestors. 

These Ionians, participating in the improved state of civilization in which their mother country, Greece, then was, cultivated the sciences, and useful arts; but made themselves most conspicuous in architecture, and invented or improved the order called by their own name Ionian.

These Ionians formed a society, whose purpose was to employ themselves in erecting buildings. The general assembly of the society, was first held at Theos; but afterwards, in consequence of some civil commotions, passed to Lebedos. 

This sect or society was now called the Dionysian Artificers, as Bacchus was supposed to be the inventor of building theatres; and they performed the Dionysian festivities. They afterwards extended themselves to Syria, Persia, and India. 

From this period, the Science of Astronomy which had given rise to the symbols of the Dionysian rites, became connected with types taken from the art of building.

(sacred-texts.com: Dionysian Artificers)

As the migration of the Artificers coincided with the building of the Temple of Jerusalem, Da Costa speculates that the building afforded a new way to communicate the mysteries, and thus tied together the mysteries of ancients with a legend of Hiram Abiff. Additionally, Da Costa alludes to the idea that the Artificers might have had a hand in building or advising on the Temple’s completion. He states that the Temple represents the “Universal System of Nature.” In other words, the study of the Temple’s actual layout may symbolize the whole of the cosmos in the Hermetic principle of correspondence: “As Above, So Below.”

Da Costa concludes his paper very quickly and simply: With the advent of religions, and science, the ideas of the ancients faded into obscurity.

In the tenth century, during the wars of the crusades, some societies were instituted in Palestine, and Europe, which adopted some regulations resembling those of the ancient fraternities. But is was in England, and chiefly in Scotland, where the remains of the old system, identified with that of the Dionysian Artificers, were discovered in modern times.

sacred-texts.com: Dionysian Artificers

Again, without discussing Freemasonry, Da Costa specifically calls out Freemasonry as a repository of the Dionysian Artificers and any student of modern Freemasonry would recognize many of the hallmarks of the mystery schools. In many places, and some even to modernity, regard these ancient mystery schools as heresy, atheism, or paganistic idolatry. A fascinating read, to accompany reading the Dionysian Artificers, is a section from the Theosophical Society’s website, entitled “Part 1 – The Mystery Schools” from the book “The Mystery Schools,” by Grace F. Knoche (Second Edition: 1999). While this is, of course, a decidedly Theosophical take on the origin and meaning of Mystery Schools, it can give the reader a very different view from the propaganda that has been surfaced through the ages and has influenced our modern thinking about Mystery Schools.

My take is, that in short, the Dionysian Artificers were and are those who are working to keep the venerable Mysteries alive; this is ancient knowledge passed down to us to use to live and to prepare for our own deaths. It’s knowledge of the world we are a part of, and if we listen closely can affect us in profound ways. Nature teaches us to live but more importantly, She teaches us to move through life to our inevitable destiny, and beyond. The stories repeated by the Artificers are not necessarily meant to provide profound enlightenment and help us all transcend to a perfect heaven or afterlife. The Artificers are those who work to continue the refinement of the human species and, over time, help us to move in concert with Nature & Science, and be the best version of Humanity. If that is the goal of the Artificers, perfecting humanity, then it seems that Freemasons are the modern Artificers, just as Da Costa, 100+ years ago, theorized.

How to Attend an MPS Meeting

How to Attend an MPS Meeting

The Masonic Philosophical Society (M.P.S.) has officially been active for more than five years now. It has grown to over 30 Study Centers across the globe, in at least five different countries. There are even online Study Centers for North America and International seekers. Many people come to this blog without knowing that there are actual live meeting that you can attend to discuss nine very broad areas of study in a philosophical format. Why did the M.P.S. get created, and what is the goal? How do you go about attending one?

If you read the Mission Statement for the M.P.S., it states:

“The Masonic Philosophical Society is an institution which aims to provide an environment of exploration within the framework of Masonic principles and to inspire individuals to self-awareness. Dynamic study centers foster a culture for discussion and questioning with each center going beyond traditional education by delving deeper into the mysteries of the individual and his or her universe.”

While that might seem like an abstract goal, it has very concrete applications. Gone are the days of Pythagoras when men, and women, would learn the arts of astronomy, music, mathematics, logic, and rhetoric. It is a fact that over the course of the past 200 years, the Liberal Arts education has fallen in esteem and in attendance. Liberal Arts colleges are struggling to find validation. As we see in our media, on our Senate floors, and even in sporting events, human beings are losing the ability to express themselves in positive, constructive ways. While we may deliberate the individual merits of specific areas of study, it is not wrong to say that studying the Liberal Arts and Humanities creates a better society, a more positive, engaged, and enlightened civilization.

head1In the United States, it is the rare place where people may go and discuss freely, with informed beliefs, and expand their intellectual horizons. These M.P.S. Study Centers provide the interested individual with access to a wide range of topics, some controversial, into which they may dig their “teeth.” In general, we laymen may sit around with friends over a bottle of wine once in a great while and discuss the finer points of politics, religion, and solving the world’s problems, sometimes even with success. In the cases of the Study Centers, there is structure and content, and an easy place to learn more about the world and ourselves. The Study Center infrastructure supports keeping an open mind, listening, and healthy debate. We hopefully leave with more than what we carried with us into the meeting.

Many people hear the word “Masonic Philosophical Society” and believe that this is a Masonic organization. It is not. Let me say that again – it is not an official Masonic Organization. The M.P.S. is an independent 501(c)3 non-profit organization, built off the principles of Universal Freemasonry,  a Masonic organization that has been in the United States for more than 100 years. The ideals and ideas of Universal Freemasonry were the foundation for the building of the Masonic Philosophical Society Study Centers, where Freemasons and non-Freemasons may go to have enlightened discussions on a wide, and I mean WIDE, variety of subjects.

These Study Centers provide a place for people to discover what subjects are of interest to Freemasons and dispel myths about what Freemasonry may be; of prime importance, they further the ideals of helping humanity rise above the petty squabbles that pepper our daily life by providing thought and fodder for personal action. This isn’t a call to arms or a recruitment station. This is a place where all people can discuss on equal footing difficult, complex, and maybe unknown subjects within a group.

Most M.P.S. Study Centers are located in a library or public location. The times listed in the notices from meetup.com or from the Facebook Masonic Philosophical Society page are the actual start times for the meetings. No food is served at the meetings but you may choose to bring water or a drink, and most public locations allow for this. If you have questions about the topic or the location, the best place to access this is from the meetup.com links on the philosophicalsociety.org website. Here is an example of the meetup.com site for Santa Cruz, California. You may want to “like” the Facebook page and then you will see a continuous feed of blog posts, polls, questions, and inspiring quotations.

sepiaSo, you might have found an M.P.S. Study Center and now you want to attend? Excellent!  The discussions are led by a “Presenter” and a “Moderator.” While there may be handouts on the topic, with information and points of discussion, there may also be videos, art, music, or other displays to help foster the discussion. Topics really run the gamut; the group may be discussing climate change or Spinoza’s ethics or the Mona Lisa. The question that is the title of the Study session will normally be a yes or no question, providing the opportunity for debate and informed discussion on the merits of each side. The Presenter will provide the information up for debate and pose questions to the group to stimulate discussion. The Moderator will ensure that the guidelines of the Study Centers are kept in mind and will help foster the discussion should it either turn away from the original topic or slow/falter.

For those who are nowhere near a physical Study Center, there are three online Study Centers which may work for you. One is for all of North America and another is International. There is also a Spanish-Speaking Study Center. All of these online forums use Zoom as the online platform for voice and video. If you do not have a camera, that is okay – you can use your computer, phone, or even a landline to dial in. Video makes the experience more interactive and you can see what a Presenter is offering. It is important with online Study Centers to make sure that you are on time, and have as good of access as possible, and are in a location where you can talk for 90 minutes without interruption. You should mute yourself when you are not talking during the meeting. Make sure you have the Zoom app or desktop setup complete before the beginning of the meeting. If you have questions about how to access the online Study Centers, use the Contact Form on the website or contact the M.P.S. Director, Dennis Garza at dennis.garza@philosophicalsociety.org.

There is no need to come to the Study Center with deep experience in the topic being discussed. However, it does help to come with at least an idea of the topic being discussed. Google the question and inform yourself of some of the aspects that may be brought up. I will stop here, briefly, because there is something to say about belief, opinion, and fact. Many Study Centers have debates on potentially “hot” topics.

The purpose of the debate is to not change someone else’s mind; the purpose is to have an informed discussion that helps enlarge and enliven your own world view. M.P.S. does not adhere to any dogma and everyone is free to think what they wish. Opinions are informed by facts and knowledge; beliefs are unstudied theories in our minds. Facts are, well, just that. To come to an M.P.S. Study Center with the idea that you would change the minds of individuals is not its purpose. While you may not need to come informed in detail about a subject, you also should not come with a personal mission to recruit the group to your personal beliefs. Keeping an open mind is extremely important and, as we all know, sometimes difficult to do.

There might be an impassioned debate or there might be quiet discourse. In all cases, the Moderator will ensure that no one talks over another, that no one expresses hate or intolerance, and that each person is respectful of the beliefs and opinions of others. The goal is to listen, and anyone who cannot listen will not gain very much from attending these Study Centers. Being respectful of the general rules of the discussion will ensure that you and the rest of the attendees get the most out of your time together. No one will be selling or lecturing at an M.P.S.; anyone doing either of these activities will be expected to retire to a more suitable location.

Everyone is welcome to an M.P.S. Study Center and no fees are ever accepted or expected. This is a free forum discussion and people of all walks of life, education, religions, work background, ethnicity, or locale are welcome to attend. In fact, diversity delivers a far more stellar discussion than if everyone is sitting in a circle agreeing with everything. Don’t be afraid to speak up if you disagree; bring your experience and knowledge to the fore to share. Attendees do not get a full picture of a debatable question aristotleif they don’t have all opinions.  Do your best to keep a very open mind about a subject, especially those that you feel strongly about. Listen carefully and feel free to take notes or bring your own materials for reference. Many times, this is the key to a very healthy debate – many sources forming a single view of a difficult question.

You may want to become a member of the M.P.S. It’s free, and it shows your support for the continuing efforts of the M.P.S. By signing up, you state that you are behind three Grand Objectives of the organization:

  1. To destroy ignorance in all its forms; and
  2. To encourage the study of Culture, Philosophy, and Science; and
  3. To work for the Perfection of Humanity.

Additionally, you can support the M.P.S. by using your smile.amazon.com account to donate proceeds from Amazon sales to the M.P.S. Again, it’s a small way to show your support for this important educational and community service that is so lacking in our lives.

Lastly, don’t be shy about asking to know more about Freemasonry. Many of the attendees are Masons and are happy to discuss the merits of Freemasonry. You may be able to stick around and continue your discussion to your satisfaction. The Moderator will be happy to also provide you further contact information should you desire it.  Interaction is great; and curiosity is even better. Check out some of the links above if you want to know more; it only takes one step to dive into a wider world.

Additional Note (8/12/19): There is also an online Study Center in French. For those interested in this, please contact dennis.garza@philosophicalsociety.org.

The Illusion That Is Caste

The Illusion That Is Caste

The word “caste” comes from the Portuguese word casta, meaning “race, lineage, tribe or breed.” It originally comes from the Latin word castus meaning pure. The Spanish and Portuguese used the word differently in the Renaissance period; to the Spanish, it was applied more in a hereditary way, indicating family and/or lineage. For the Portuguese, it leaned toward something more akin to “breed” or social standing.

Many know that India was a British Colony but what many do not know is that it was a Portuguese one as well. From the beginning of the 16th century, the “Estado de India” or State of India was a Portuguese colony until 1961, when the country of India invaded Portuguese India and a treaty was signed. In fact, the Portuguese had a far longer history as a colonial power in India than did the British. For an American, this is nearly unheard of unless you are a history buff. While this is as oversimplification of the complicated workings of colonialism in India, we will delve into this to make a point, I promise.

This same time period of Portuguese rule (Early 1500s to 20th Century) is marked by British rule in India, which ended in 1947. While the Portuguese were the first, after the Romans, to begin trading with modern India, it was the British who seized dominance by the mid-19th Century. In 1661, Portugal was at war with Spain and needed assistance from England. This led to the marriage of Princess Catherine of Portugal to Charles II of England, who imposed a dowry that included the insular and less inhabited areas of southern Bombay while the Portuguese managed to retain all the mainland territory north of Bandra up to Thana and Bassein.

While the British were in India before this, this marriage marked the beginning of rulership, not just trade, within India. What is interesting to note is what while the Portuguese were using the word casta to denote the hereditary social groups they perceived in India almost as soon as they arrived, it wasn’t until 1613, during the time of British interest, that we see the word translated to “caste.”

BrahminPriestAssistantChristopherPillitzImageBankGetty-56a0428f5f9b58eba4af9280What may surprise some people is that there is no Hindu word for “caste.” In Hinduism, rising from ideas within the Rig Veda, the term associated with the Vedic social structure is varna.

According to one author, “The Four Varna system reflects a deep ecological and yogic vision of social and universal unity very different from the divisive idea of caste by birth.” This is an organic and natural social order that does not coincide with a hierarchy of rule which was applied by both the British and the Portuguese. The term varna is not specifically found in Hindu writings until later, possibly as an add-on in the Purusha Sukta. The text noted to discuss this social structure is:

When they divided Purusa how many portions did they make? What do they call his mouth, his arms? What do they call his thighs and feet? The Brahman was his mouth, of both his arms was the Rajanya made. His thighs became the Vaishya, from his feet the Shudra was produced.

The basic idea of this is that we, humanity, are one construct made up of different, outward talents. The one construct, the Purusa, is the cosmic being, or some say, the cosmos itself. All human structure is built off this Purusa. Some may have an inclination toward knowledge and thought (Brahman), like a philosopher or religious person, and some way have an inclination toward service (Shudra) like a fireman or waiter.

However, all are part of the same construct called humanity and all have a part to play in helping the body move. No one of these is higher than the other – they are all necessary. Additionally, there was never the idea, in Vedic writings, of a non-Varna, or outcast/out caste member. Everyone is part of the whole. It would not make any sense to have a whole and then have something that is not part of the whole. To quote another author, “There is in this original Vedic model no outcaste, Dalit or untouchable. Each Varna constitutes a necessary part of the whole and all are mutually interdependent. Each is a manifestation of the same Divine consciousness working in humanity.”

Basor_Dalit_casteIndeed, this is an application of the British and Portuguese who were exerting control over the Indian population.

Either through misunderstanding or, perhaps, intentional co-opting, the Varna outline was translated and Westernized into a caste-oriented system where everyone fell into a suppressive class system, one type of human being better than the other. The adoption of these changes, from varna to caste, caused the dalit to be “created,” those that were considered outcasts and not part of society.

Dalit was a term coined about 1873, by the leader of a non-brahman-centric movement called Satyashodhak Samaj. Over time, this rigid caste hierarchy became the consciousness of a country. I remember being younger and hearing the words, “there is no caste system in India.” Yet, every Indian person I had met had embraced the idea of perhaps one group being above all others, superior to them, and others not being of equal value. The term unclean was part of the vernacular.

It’s important to know the origins of this, I think, not because of the events of history but because of the corruption of something uplifting and universal into the tool to create an oppressive society. Said clearly, from the American Institute of Vedic Studies:

“The Vedic social order was meant to instill an intrinsic feeling of unity in each individual with the greater society, and human society with the greater universe. The Varna system was based upon a transcendent ideal of human unity in the Divine, not an effort to give power and domination to one section of society.”

What was once a purely unifying religious concept was co-opted to create disharmony and foment discord among people.

gahndiWe have all seen this, as base, human need to tear down another group, using religion, education, resources, or a combination of all three in order to build the suppressive group up – whatever ‘up’ means.

Freemasons care about these things because, in the search for Truth, the goal is to build up and not tear down. It is to seek truth and Truth. In order to do this, we need to understand not only human history but the motivations behind the scenes. It doesn’t hurt to dig and explore the perhaps little known histories of the world.

One of the best podcasts recommended in this is “Revisionist History,” by Malcolm Gladwell. He does an excellent job bringing out about the little known facts of what we have taken to be “truth” and made the visible. Would that we were all as curious.

There are many things which are, I think, of interest to those who want to know Truth and build a better world, things which are knowledge gaps for us. Curiosity and an open find fill those gaps and shed light.  I know that I will never again think of the caste system as something arising from Hinduism, and I think this gives me the tools to help others think differently as well.

St. John the Evangelist, Involution, and Freemasonry

St. John the Evangelist, Involution, and Freemasonry

There’s been much written about the patron saint of Freemasonry, Saint John the Baptist. His feast day, celebrated by Freemasons over the world, is in June – the time of greatest light in the northern hemisphere. This feast day, June 24, is typically the time of Summer Solstice celebrations.

There is another patron saint of Freemasonry, Saint John the Evangelist, of which less is spoken or discussed. St. John the Evangelist has as his feast day December 27, roughly the time of Winter Solstice. There is an excellent paper on the Saints John in a popular Masonic site called Pietre-Stones. In it, the author discusses the possibilities of how the Saints John became the patrons of Freemasonry. In the end, he concludes that we really don’t know the actual reason that they are Freemason’s patrons.

One thing, though, that Freemasons are wonderful with is speculation. After all, it’s what we are – speculative Masons. So, let us speculate.

Freemasonry itself has a lot of analogies related to light and with Light. There’s an archetypal idea, mostly associated with Plato and the allegory of the cave and the analogy of the sun, which associate Light (in the form of the Sun) with Truth. These archetypical forms are what Plato (via Socrates) considers to be that for which the philosopher-king is ever searching. These ideas have been incorporated into Freemasonry in myriad passages and ritual elements. Many Freemasons consider Freemasonry to be a “solar” ritual, as opposed to a lunar ritual. In this aspect, they see “solar” as an active, outgoing, and Western in nature, whereas a “lunar” type of ritual is receptive, inward, and Eastern. Where some initiatory schools are inward looking, solstice1Freemasonry is outward viewing. Like the symbol of Yin and Yang, this does not mean it is devoid of lunar aspects; however, the primary focus of Freemasonry is the improvement of mankind.

It makes sense, then, that Freemasonry would concern itself with solstices. The word solstice is derived from the Latin sol (sun) and sistere (to stand still), because at the solstices, the Sun stands still in declination; that is, the seasonal movement of the Sun’s path (as seen from Earth) comes to a stop before reversing direction. These are trajectories of the sun’s path and in understanding these movements, we understand more about how our world, how nature, works. In understanding nature, we are able to move through it with easy and achieve greater good. However, Freemasonry goes far deeper than the simple knowledge of nature. These movements become metaphors and analogies for the “a-ha” moments which make up a Freemasonic life.

For thousands of years, mystery schools and myths taught humanity about the cycle of life. When we moved away from superstition into speculation, we realized that special gods did not bring back the sun to continue life – it was simply the way that Nature worked. Humanity learned that while there might or might not be a Divine hand behind the creation of the world and the Nature it housed, we could learn to understand how it worked to our advantage. We learned to move away from fear and into exploration. The myths and mystery schools became a way to explore not only what happened in this world but perhaps what happened after we die, and help us contemplate the reasons for our existence, humanity’s existence. The greatest time of philosophical and physical exploration within these schools of thought came during the Age of Aries. The Age of Aries was a time of identifying humanity into civilizations, when there was the fire of invention, innovation, and inspiration.

With the onset of our current Piscine-age, mystery schools and myths faded in the bright light of more dogmatic and directive religions. With the rise of Abrahamic religions, our concepts of Light have morphed. In the Western Hemisphere, we began to associate people which archetypes. Jesus, the “Light of the World.” Muhammad, who said “I am the light of Allaah and everything is from my light.” Gods of all locales had and have been associated with the Sun or Light, but this Piscine age was the beginning of a time when living human beings began to be associated with light, and Light from divine sources. As Christianity spread, it sought to incorporate many cultures into its fold, thus continuing the influences of the Roman Empire – conquering with assimilation rather than johns5domination. In this assimilation, many “feast days” and “saint’s days” were integrated with, and overtook, colloquial celebrations. It is not a coincidence that the Feast day of Christ (the Light of the World) is also the celebrated feast day of Mithras, a Sun God worshiped in Ancient Rome.

Two of the most important figures of the Christian Bible, and specifically the Christian religion, are Saint John the Evangelist (John of the gospels) and Saint John the Baptist. An extremely good overview of St. John the Evangelist is located at this link. According to this, since the fifth century, December 27 has been the acknowledged feast or celebratory day of St. John the Evangelist.

Every Christian knows, at the very least in passing, about John the Baptist. They might say different things, but the core of the story is essentially that John the Baptist was born to a woman named Elizabeth, six months earlier than Jesus’ birth. There is some speculation that Elizabeth and Jesus’ mother Mary were related in some way. John was a bit of a wild man, calling on the nation of Israel to repent because “their savior was nearly upon them.” John began baptizing people by way of water, to “wash away their sins” and be ready for the Christ. Thus, John the Baptist was the herald of the coming of the Christian savior, even before knowing who he was. John the Baptist is known as the one who recognized the “son of God” and identified him to the world. (John 1:31-34)

John the Evangelist was a different story. John The Evangelist, brother of St. James, was one of the first disciples of Jesus and was the only disciple not to be martyred for his faith. This John wrote his gospel, letters to leaders of the early church and later, in Patmos, his Revelation. He apparently died in Ephesus, a priest and scholar. He was known in the Byzantine Church as “John the Theologian.” What we know of this John is only what he himself has, ostensibly, written.

This does little to explain why these two disparate personalities are linked to Freemasonry. My speculation goes on here. I believe these two Johns are archetypes in which Freemasonry has housed certain ideals and, perhaps, more esoteric teachings. John the Baptist is a fiery personality, who used water to cleanse the people for the coming of “the True Light.” He was vocal, verbal, an expression of the element of air and yet, he was a man of the wilderness, whose earthiness lead people to belief and faith. In other words, he was an elemental man, full of life of this material world. He shone during the highest point of the year, the time of most Light in the material world. He is the archetype of material expression in its highest form. It could not be clearer why he is the Patron Saint of Freemasonry at the brightest time of the year.

John the Evangelist, however, was none of these things. He is a reflection of the teaching of the Christ, someone who took the Light and transmuted it into thought. He was a scholar, someone for whom thought created life. He represents the mental aspects of humanity, the time when contemplation and reflection are necessary to achieve progress. He was the energy of the Light transferred to thought and in its purest form, the Mind. Where John the Baptist represents Evolution, John the Evangelist represents Involution. These two Johns are the boundaries of the circle of human attainment – maximum involution and maximum evolution – the spirit turned to word and the word turned to spirit again. We see this as a icon of Freemasonryjohns1 when we see the two Johns displayed beside a circle with a point in the exact center. This center is the point of pure Light within the human form, from which perfect balance of humanity is attained. These two Johns are the archetypes of the best of two facets of mankind, icons of the Piscean age.

This current age, in the procession of the equinoxes, is coming to a close and we find ourselves beginning a new age – an Aquarian age. While there is a technological overtone to the age, this is also the age of consciousness. The influences of nature continues to push us toward new ways of thinking, new influences. They push us away, perhaps, from the avatars and archetypes of an earlier age. The pictures that humans need vary and perhaps these two will become even further abstract in their meaning as we progress. Humans will continue to look to nature, and need to look to nature, to understand their own progress. Perhaps these archetypes of Involution and Evolution will change in the new age, and Freemasonry’s symbols will change with it. For now, these two Saints’ John stand guard and the highest and lowest moments of Light, reminding us that both edges of the spectrum are necessary for progress to be achieved and nature to be understood.

Fear and Freemasonry

Fear and Freemasonry

I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.

Frank Herbert, Dune

In our youth, we rail against the unfairness of the world. In developing our philosophies, we also develop our fears. In a recent discussion group regarding specific symbolism of Freemasonry, the question was asked, how do we get rid of fears, which are really false gods? Fear, one person postulated, is that which motivates negative behavior. Another postulated that fear motivates all behavior. After much discussion, we never really came to a solid conclusion about how to mitigate fear.

Fear is the unpleasant sensation caused by the belief that someone or something is dangerous, threatening, or likely to cause pain. That definition is ripe with opportunity for dissection, to pull apart the chunks that create philosophical reasons for fear.

First of all, it’s an unpleasant sensation, and humans hate unpleasant feelings. No one really wants to feel icky, and yet, that icky feeling is built on a belief ― it is not necessarily based in fact or reason. It is simply a belief. By definition, a belief is a “trust, img_0142faith, or confidence in something.” Taken apart and put back together, we can say that fear is an icky feeling caused by a trust, faith, or confidence that someone or something is out to cause some kind of harm to our person, our connections, or perhaps, our way of life.

This explanation is not to trivialize fear, or some major manifestations of fear, like post-traumatic stress syndrome. This is simply to discuss common fears that most, if not all of us, experience. Are fears founded? Some, yes. Some, perhaps not. In the face of an immediate disaster, fear is certainly appropriate. Sigmund Freud said, about real fear vs. neurotic fear:

You will understand me without more ado when I term this fear real fear in contrast to neurotic fear. Real fear seems quite rational and comprehensible to us. We may testify that it is a reaction to the perception of external danger, viz., harm that is expected and foreseen. It is related to the flight reflex and may be regarded as an expression of the instinct of self-preservation. And so the occasions, that is to say, the objects and situations that arouse fear, will depend largely on our knowledge of and our feeling of power over the outer world…   

Proceeding now to neurotic fear, what are its manifestations and conditions…? In the first place we find a general condition of anxiety, a condition of free-floating fear as it were, which is ready to attach itself to any appropriate idea, to influence judgment, to give rise to expectations, in fact to seize any opportunity to make itself felt. We call this condition “expectant fear” or “anxious expectation.” Persons who suffer from this sort of fear always prophesy the most terrible of all possibilities, interpret every coincidence as an evil omen, and ascribe a dreadful meaning to all uncertainty. Many persons who cannot be termed ill show this tendency to anticipate disaster.

That is, fear is simply the lack of feeling powerful over our own world, whether it is caused by an oncoming tornado or by feelings of inadequacy. What we’re concerning ourselves with here is what Freud called neurotic fears. Yet, the basis for our reactions, that lack of control, does come from the same “fight of flight” process of survival. Both have their roots in control.

It was once explained to me that all vices – Sloth, Envy, Greed, Avarice, Gluttony, Pride, and Lust – are all major manifestations of fear. Aristotle, in Nichomachaen Ethics, made similar statements – explaining that virtues and vices were a spectrum, and deficiencies were the expressions of the ends of the spectrum. Management courses in many places talk about how to address employees fears with some of these same techniques but, again, no one really gets to the heart of dealing with fear head on. So, we know what fear might be and how it manifests, but how do we actually deal with it?

In younger days, I read a series of books based on “The Michael Teachings.” These teachings are channeled thoughts on life and living, how and why people do what they do, and general human relations. One aspect that stayed with me had to do with fears. Many people have a dominant negative attitude which they must overcome in their lives.

Some examples of these are 1) self-depreciation, 2) self-destruction, 3) martyrdom, 4) stubbornness, 5) greed, 6) impatience, and 7) arrogance. Many of us go through all of these at some time in our lives but, in general, we stick with one (maybe two) when we’re tired, depressed, feeling overwhelmed, or just not working at our peak. When our sense of comfort, our inner child, is attacked or feeling vulnerable, we resort to these attitudes which are really manifestations of fear.

These are born from our childhood and are placed there by our reactions to environment and experiences. Each of these blocks is based in a very specific fear and can be overcome, with conscious effort. These are the dominant negative attitudes with their spectrum of manifestation, to use Aristotle’s idea of a sliding scale of virtues and vices.

  1. Self-depreciation is the fear of not being good enough – manifests as Humility (positive) to Self-Abasement (negative).
  2. Greed is the fear of not having enough – manifests as Egoism | Desire (positive) to Voracity | Gluttony (negative).
  3. Self-destruction is the fear of losing control – manifests as Self-Sacrifice (positive) to Suicide |Immolation (negative).
  4. Martyrdom is the fear of not being worthy – manifests as Selflessness (positive) to Victim Mentality (negative).
  5. Stubbornness is a fear of change, of new situations – manifests as Willfulness |Determination (positive) to Obstinacy (negative).
  6. Impatience is the fear of missing or losing opportunities – manifests as Audacity (positive) to Intolerance (negative).
  7. Arrogance is the fear of being vulnerable – manifests as Pride (positive) to Vanity (negative).

In taking a deeper look into our own behavior, it may be easier to see how a reaction to one situation or another traces backward to one of these negative attitudes, and the fear which grounds it. When one swings from pride in a job well done to believing that the job done was the best job anyone has ever seen, there might be some fear going on there. That line that separates the two extremes can be different for different people, and it is clear that we all have different levels of tolerance and abilities to process reactions when we encounter fear. When we start delving beyond the surface of our own psyche, introspection uncovers, perhaps, those negative attitudes based in experiences of childhood.

Children create, depending on environmental experience and personal proclivities, distorted world views. We all create these distortions (big and small) and they eventually become our personal myths. Think: “I’m ugly,” “I’m stupid,” or “I’m not going to eat tonight.” Repeated situations or traumatic events reinforce this myth. Driven by a deeply-held fear, and steered by a distorted worldview, the emerging, dominant negative attitude springs into action in their lives, even unto adulthood.

The child thinks for instance, “I will stop life from hurting by taking control of my pain. I will hurt myself more than anybody else can.” The child’s chosen survival strategy involves some sort of conflict, a war against self, against others or against life. It is a defensive behavior pattern which looks irrational from the outside but from the child’s perspective is perfectly rational. As we mature, we must address these dominant negative attitudes or they will endanger any chance of self-improvement. They hide our true nature. *

–  Excerpt from, The Michael Teachings

When someone lashes out, at me or others, I believe the reason is always fear. Fear is not the motivator of all activity we do. It always seems, though, that fear is the core of truly negative and destructive behaviors. Hatred, lies, and fanaticism are true fear-based reactions and attitudes. In dealing with these reactions in the world, we need to keep in mind that fear is the motivator, and that perhaps by making the person feel safe, by letting them air their real fears, healing can begin.

At another study group, we discussed fear and how to use it to unravel truth. It struck me then that Freemasonry provided us opportunities to run up against our own and other’s fears. From speaking in front of a group to taking charge of ritual work to providing leadership for volunteer work, Freemasonry offers us a chance to continually transmute fears into relationship gold by providing the types of experiences that test us and force us to face those fears.

Why does the Freemason care about fears? There is a lot of the world that runs on a steady diet of fear. The only way to find a better world and improve humanity is to rise above those things which cause us to live a base, irrational, and mundane life. By addressing and recognizing when people are moving in fear, we can possibly stop the cycle for them and for ourselves.

Additionally, Freemasons strive to be leaders. Leadership is about learning what motivates people; by learning their fears and helping them maneuver around them, we find talents and skills waiting to be uncovered. Leadership is shedding light on that which holds people back from being the very best they can be. Addressing fears is difficult unless we create true, honest dialogue. Freemasonry provides an environment to express honesty and be supported.

This honest dialogue extends to ourselves. What are our fears? What is our dominant negative attitude. and how does it affect me, my family, and my connections? What relationships are healthy and positive and which are not?

Asking “why” is a good start. Perhaps by looking at the motivations within us which cause us to have painful relationships with others, we can come face to face with our fear. In order to do that, we need to be able to actively look at our behavior, assess any damage we cause ourselves, and like Paul Atriedes from the Dune Series, turn an inner eye to the path it has taken, and find ourselves in its wake.

Try looking into that place where you dare not look!

You’ll find me there, staring out at you!  

― Paul-Muad’Dib to the Reverend Mother, from Frank Herbert’s “Dune”