Freemasonry and the Individual Collective

Freemasonry and the Individual Collective

In a recent conversation with a long-time Freemason, she mentioned that people misunderstand the meaning of being a Freemason, and what Freemasonry is really doing in the world. Deeper into the conversation, what she was talking about was the current trend of all this “personal journey” hubbub. A lot of people join Freemasonry to find a way to enlightenment or expand their consciousness or become a better person. When people join Freemasonry, they want to find something – spiritual awakenings, meaning, purpose, secrets, a way to some secret treasure, power, sometimes even a business partner. Some people want to join to find a mate or get rich. Yes, there’s every type of something out there that people are seeking. Yet, that’s not why Freemasonry exists. The tenets, rituals, symbols of Freemasonry do not speak to these personal journeys.

Freemasonry doesn’t exist for the individual. It exists for the individual collective. Taken another way, Freemasonry doesn’t care about your personal journey. Your personal path and reason for joining Freemasonry doesn’t matter. Really. It doesn’t.

Freemasonry’s goal is not to perfect the human. One stone a temple does not make. Freemasonry’s goal is to “perfect humanity.” To perfect humanity, it needs a group of individuals that are willing to work and abide by its principles. Freemasonry’s principles are not those of a specific individual, religion, or philosophy. These principles are moral and ethical in nature; morality and ethical behavior are for the collective and affect the collective. Religion, politics, civil obedience – these are preferences which affect the individual. There is a reason that individual preferences are kept out of the Lodge room; the individual ego and desire doesn’t have a “special snowflake” place within Freemasonry.

I hear the rustling in the columns now: “No, just hold on. We’re asked for opinions and thoughts. We are supposed to express our individual thoughts and develop our own ideas and strength of mind.” True enough. However, we are asked in a context of opinion to be shared with the whole, and discussion and healthy debate, which in turn illumines the mind. A mind stuck in dogma or rigid behavior finds a difficult path in Freemasonry. Dogma and rigidity are the ego speaking through the personality. They are not the collective working through the individual but the individual trying to work through the collective.

Another Freemason that I know is fond of saying “Freemasonry is an individual path in a group setting.” In discussing this idea, he thought I was crying foul on this statement. Actually, I’m not. What I am saying is that the individual path does not effect or affect Freemasonry. It is a fixed set of landmarks and rituals with guiding principles that the individual may interpret and apply to their own life. The individual’s life and purpose for joining the group does not impose itself on Freemasonry.

This is not to say that Freemasons should be automatons and blindly follow leadership. Absolutely not. In fact, quite the opposite: they should feel comfortable enough in their individuality to share it with the whole, taking what works for them and discarding, but img_0176-1not dismissing, the rest. Yet, in the end, they work toward the good of the collective, which in turn, works towards the good of Humanity.

The individual Freemason struggles sometimes to see himself as a part of something greater. Perhaps it gets easier as one progresses in Freemasonry, when the message is provided again and again about humanity, not the individual. We cannot divorce ourselves from being individuals – that is physically, emotionally, and mentally impossible. However, we can see ourselves as part of the greater society, taking our mind and emotions outside of our own comfort zone and do what is necessary for the greater – good, Lodge, group, whatever.

I was struck by a recent commercial for a popular TV show. The show was about police officers, and their dedication to their city, country, and community, to the point of putting their lives on the line for any and all of those things. Not all of us can do police work, or be fire fighters, or doctors and nurses. There is a deep dedication in these people that goes beyond a nine-to-five job. We applaud those people because they actually save lives – regardless of danger, pain, or even their own death.

But, who is to say something like Freemasonry is any different? Bold statement, to be sure. Yet, what happens if Freemasons, through their Lodge or Order, strive to make the world a more educated, thinking, devoted, and aspiring place? If that striving for education produces one more doctor where perhaps there was none before, haven’t we made humanity better? What if the work of an Order creates a publishing company, and one of those books inspires a young reader to go on to a career in science, and they create a cure for a devastating disease? What if a Lodge has an outreach campaign to their older members and they are able to bring some bright light to their fading days? What if their family sees this and recognizes compassion, and in turn, creates a foundation to help others with the same disease?

Sure, the individual can do all these things. In fact, these examples are all accomplished by individuals working with a collective mind, a collective heart, and a collective intention. The Lodge is an entity of individuals but it too is “a single mind.” It is an individual collective, like a brain filled with firing neurons. It is not the Borg, there is no assimilation or lack of individuality; it is a melting pot. It is a collection of living stones, all in the process of perfection to create something greater than themselves. We are not stones that stand alone. There is no purpose in that. It’s in the group, the collective, that we can build that place that “shelters humanity” and provides a place of advancement for the entire human race.

How Do You Know?

How Do You Know?

Our modern times have brought us many great advancements. We find ourselves living longer, becoming more globally connected, and enjoying medical ingenuities, such as antibiotics, blood transfusions, and artificial organs. There are many amazing necessities and niceties that are enjoyed by the human race in varying degrees because of Science. Science has given us a lot to be thankful for. Or has it?

In recent years, there have been debates, and at times heated arguments, over the likes of genetically modified foods, vaccinations, and global warming. Even the effectivenessFlat Earth of Western medicine has cropped up in many personal conversations over the years. Ideas such as Flat Earth have come back to the scene in modern discussions and often with contention.

Once thought for certain by the general populace, many scientific concepts are met with skepticism. But before you believe this blog is about winning you over to one side or the other, I ask you read on, because it not. There is something greater underneath these debates, and it has everything to do with you.

When researching the Philosophy of Science the other day, I came upon a very intriguing
question: How do you know your knowledge is authentic?

What a wonderful question, and it has given me more than a pause. Now before we reduce this question to reducto adsurdum, and say how can we really ever know anything, let’s try to accept the question for what it is: an invitation to know ourselves a little bit better.

Knowledge. It is a formidable due to its ubiquitous nature. It is an invading species that finds life in the uninhabitable regions of our brain. It plants its roots and digs deep so it cannot be easily removed, often without our realizing it.

Thus, when we allow “knowledge” to pass our acceptance filters and impregnate itself in our world view, it becomes almost impossible to remove. Especially if it comes from an authority – like science, religion, or a person of a particular importance. But are these sources enough to make an idea become an organism of knowledge?

One of the greatest lessons science has taught me is that it is only at its best when it is being challenged, and I find that this true of human knowledge in general. Authenticity cannot exist if challenge is not present. Growth is a product of conflict, not peace. Knowledge that is real will survive and become stronger; the ideas that do not deserve to be uprooted and replaced with a more genuine concept.

How do you know your knowledge is real? We listen and we give the other side their due. This is a very Masonic and scientific principle. In doing so, the only danger we will face is the danger of becoming more authentic in what we know. That doesn’t sound so bad, does it?

 

Is Death Necessary? Or Inevitable?

Is Death Necessary? Or Inevitable?

Death. A foregone conclusion to this life. Maybe. What does science say?

“Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me, Albert Einstein wrote in a condolence letter, upon the death of his close friend Michele Besso in 1955, “that signifies nothing. For those of us who believe in physics, the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.” Einstein was on to something, according to a contemporary scientist.

A theory… a philosophy, really, called “Biocentrism,” explores this question and many other fundamental reality-based questions. Introduced in 2010 by Robert Lanza, a scientist, doctor, and “influential thinker” who felt that consciousness is a problem for not only biologists, but physicists as well. Nothing, according to Lanza, can explain the “molecules of consciousness bouncing around in our brain.”

Biocentrism is sometimes the view or belief that the rights and needs of humans are not more important than those of other living things. This is not that theory of philosophy; it is something entirely different.

The theory postulated by Lanza is that nothing exists outside of consciousness and life. Biology is the great creator. In Lanza’s view, we humans have become very good at understanding the mechanics of our universe. We look at the rotations of planets, and we know chemical properties and can explain how apples fall from trees.

What we can’t explain is why. Why does the universe work as it does? Why can we not explain yet why we have consciousness, or what we should be doing with it? Biocentrism explains the why.

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness.” Said Max Planck, Nobel Prize-winning physicist, “We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”

Lanza, with biocentrism, seeks to explain the difference between what we all perceive to be an objective reality versus a life-centric reality.

“If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?”

Objective reality says, why yes, of course it does. Biocentrism reality says, not unless brainthere is an ear nearby. The science is lengthy but makes a point – without the ear to hear, the sound does not really exist. The tree falling creates puffs of air which stimulate aneardrum that translates the shift of air into a sort of sound. The sound is entirely held within our brains. The sound requires life and consciousness to comprehend it. The human must remove themselves from the equation to see the validity of the argument, and put themselves back in to understand the human place in creating the universe.

  • The First Principle of Biocentrism is that “what we perceive as reality is a process that requires our consciousness.” Or, said slightly differently, requires “any” consciousness. If I ask you, where is the universe, most might answer, “out there.” What many struggle with is that we are part of the same universe; what is out there is what is in here.                                                                                                                                                                     
  • The Second Principle of Biocentrism is that “internal and external perceptions are intertwined; they are different sides of the same coin and cannot be separated.”

In a complex explanation, Lanza says the general idea is that our brains create the reality we see. In this book, “Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe,” Lanza explains all of this in an answer to the question: “Where is the Universe?”

In total, there are seven principles to Biocentrism, according to Lanza.

  • The most interesting one, in relation to death, is the Fourth Principle of Biocentrismwithout consciousness, “matter” dwells in an undetermined state of probability.

Any universe that could have preceded consciousness only existed in a probability state. This seems to state that we, as are in that undetermined state of probability, and that our matter never really “goes away” but is folded into and part of the ongoing reality of the universe. Our consciousness separates from matter but doesn’t cease to exist because it’s all part of the same consciousness. This reminds me of Neil Gaiman’s story, “American Gods.” Gods exist and thrive because of our consciousness of them.

Life creates the Universe. The Universe (Darwinism, the Big Bang, etc) did not create life. We’ve got it backwards.

Mind. Blown.

It seems like such a simple turn of phrase, one which everyone can identify with. Lanza brings to bear all the science and experiential anecdotes to back it up. He picks us up, biocentrism-turning-the-universe-outside-inkicking and screaming, from seeing the universe one way and to standing on our heads, viewing it another. These theories harken back to the ideals of Eastern Philosophies and Freemasonry.

Freemasons, Buddhists, and Taoists seek balance and unification, we see an understanding of nature and science, and a middle path. For the Buddhist, our consciousness allows us to connect with the One – the whole. For the Taoist, the focus is a seamless flow of life – where there are no individuals but a single existence. For the Freemason, we seek unity and harmony, and the idea that as a unit, we are also creators. None of this is incompatible with Lanza’s scientific and philosophical approach to how the universe, physics, works.

So, to the original questions: “Do we die?” and Is it inevitable?” 

According to Lanza, we are already dead, alive, past, future, and creators right now. The limitations are in our own perceptions and ideas of reality. All of it is right now because we, and all matter, are conscious. Lanza himself addressed this question in a Psychology Today article, located here.

Perhaps if more people could look at the universe from this new paradigm, we would become the creators we already are; we create and destroy together, whether we believe it or not.


  1. For a really good read, try out Lanza’s book on Biocentrism and his follow-on book, “Beyond Biocentrism.”
  2. For an interesting Buddhist view of Biocentrism, look to “The Endless Further,” a Buddhist’s blog.

The Great Race

The Great Race

RACE – noun

Definition of race (Merriam-Webster)

  1. a breeding stock of animals
  2. a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock
  3. a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics
  4. an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic category (such as a subspecies) representing such a group
  5. breed
  6. a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits
  7. obsolete : inherited temperament or disposition
  8. distinctive flavor, taste, or strength

The use of the word ‘race’ began about 1560, in Middle French, from the root word for “generation.” It comes from an older Italian word, razza, which, might be speculated, came from ratio, which originally meant idea or “conception of something.” The word does not have certain origin, but it certainly has certain meaning in our modern world.

Early American colonists struggled with race as much as we do today. With a radically different foundation of daily life, religion served as the basis for racial divide.

‘Race’ originally denoted a lineage, such as a noble family or a domesticated breed, and concerns over purity of blood persisted as 18th-century Europeans applied the term —which dodged the controversial issue of whether different human groups constituted “varieties” or “species” — to describe a roughly continental distribution of peoples. Drawing upon the frameworks of scripture, natural and moral philosophy, and natural history, scholars endlessly debated whether different races shared a common ancestry, whether traits were fixed or susceptible to environmentally produced change, and whether languages or the body provided the best means to trace descent. Racial theorization boomed in the U.S. early republic, as some citizens found dispossession and slavery incompatible with natural-rights ideals, while others reconciled any potential contradictions through assurances that “race” was rooted in nature.

Oxford Encyclopedia, The Idea of Race in Early America

While founding fathers could not get over this hurdle of the nature of “race,” the entire nation has trudged onward trying in several corners to face it, with very little success.

From Jim Crow laws stating “separate but equal” to the civil rights movement of the 60’s onward, people of all colors and backgrounds have struggled to be treated like human beings. Simply human beings. In the early 2000’s, racism, the idea of separation of peoples, is alive and well.

“What has changed since the collapse of Jim Crow has less to do with the basic structure of our society than with the language we use to justify it. In the era of colorblindness, it is no longer socially permissible to use race, explicitly, as a justification for discrimination, exclusion, and social contempt. So we don’t. Rather than rely on race, we use our criminal justice system to label people of color “criminals” and then engage in all the practices we supposedly left behind.”

The New Jim Crow

While the U.S.A. might have had an African-American President, we were quickly followed by this:

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending the best. They’re not sending you, they’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bring crime. They’re rapists… And some, I assume, are good people.”  — President Donald Trump

Well, then, let’s bring the subject out for discussion into the light of day.

There are many people who would argue that they are not racist. I disagree. Everyone is racist to some point or another; whether it be national pride, cultural or heritage pride, seeing yourself as a separate from another human being in any way is racism. We all have, in our heads, the idea of “other,” whether it is gender, cultural, language, sexuality, skin color, or what have you. Human beings separate themselves in order to find security. Surely someone who is “not other” will protect and care for us, keep the tribe safe. We look for security in our chaotic world and in a sea of humanity, we cling to what we know.

Even Freemasonry has been subject to racism, and continues to be so. In 2009, the racism of some Georgia Masons was brought to light in Masonic and Civil courts. The rituals and foundations of Freemasonry are not racist; in fact, its precepts are strictly very non-discriminatory. Several Freemasonry orders admit people of all genders, races, creeds, and religions, including atheists. Yet, grand ideals and all, like any institution it too can be subject to human bias.

The question is, “what do you do with this sense of ‘other?'”Are we even aware that we have a sense of “other?” We all have preconceptions of traits, habits, or mores of certain peoples that are not of our own “tribe.” We have ideas and thoughts about other human beings from different places, different regions of the world. To say we don’t shows an ignorance of our own upbringing. My parents were not openly racist but my grandparents were – and they were active Freemasons. How could those traits have not been passed down to my parents? How could they not have been passed down to me, consciously or not? You don’t get all the good and none of the bad.

I would state this unequivocally: it’s our responsibility as decent human beings to treat everyone fairly, equitably, and justly, regardless of what is in our thoughts. Perhaps despite our thoughts.

It is the actions of people which determine their active racism. A middle-aged couple walk on the other side of the street to avoid a group of young African-American men walking towards them. A white man sitting on the bus who ignores an aged Hispanic woman who is standing and holding heavy grocery bags, yet offers his seat to a well-dressed white woman. People who blatantly ignore a group of Asian families waiting to get onto a train and push right past them.

We see these acts all the time, sometimes several moments in a day are filled with them. Maybe we do them. These could be the acts of people who are just horrible human beings, treating other human beings with contempt. They could be the acts of the completely ignorant. They could be racist acts. Only the human being committing them knows. Consciousness requires a lot of self-reflection. If the perpetrator isn’t clear about how they move through their day, they will continue to effect human beings with racist, demeaning, or fearful actions. Fear, the great motivator, is rooted in ignorance.

For those that think they are not racist, or that we don’t live in a racist society in most of the world, one would ask why these acts still happen? Racists and decent human beings come in all shapes, sizes, and colors. They come from all religions, all creeds, all countries. They are educated and uneducated; they are Presidents; they are businessmen, farmers, doctors, and Wal-Mart employees. We are surrounded by decent and indecent people. And yet, these acts still happen. Do decent people stand up and say something?

It seems like it might require the sound of voices to rise up when these acts of ignorance are being committed. It takes courage to overcome ignorance. It may be our own education that needs to be rounded out. It may be spending time with “another” to get a sense of what it’s like to walk a mile in their shoes. To say that one should be “colorblind” is ignorant and unnecessary. We should not be colorblind; we should be aware, conscious, and active in our support that all human beings are the same, regardless of any thing that took place before we met them, regardless of who their parents were, what gender they were born with or are now, and regardless in whom they place their trust, their destiny, or their faith. We need to stop being afraid. Tolerance is not homogeneity; acceptance does not mean giving up identity. There is nothing superior about acting so.

Only one sort of racism should be tolerated: the human kind. However, our cats may have something to say about that.

“Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”

— Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Apprentice, Journeyman, and Master: The Medieval Guild

Apprentice, Journeyman, and Master: The Medieval Guild

I became fascinated with guilds when I moved to Germany. Being an avid reader of all medieval history I could get my hands on, I was well aware of the Hansa (slang for Hanseatic) League’s rise in the 1100s in northern Europe – mainly Germany. The word Hansa is Low German for “convoy” – thus, this league of towns and merchant houses was a consolidated group of merchants and businessmen who strove to create their own answer to feudal Europe. The members of the League had their own legal system, their own armies, and had direct allegiance to the Holy Roman Emperor. Landed Barons and Earls did not stand a chance.

The rise of these independent towns and merchants also gave rise to the guild system. Where the Hansa League was a merchant’s guild, craft guilds began in a like manner around the same time period. The craft guilds were a system to protect knowledge that heretofore had been handed down by father to son, or nephew, or random laborer. Prior to the rise of larger towns and cities, just after the Dark Ages, it was difficult to form a “convoy” of skilled craftsmen because there was no system or codification of work. As towns grew, and more independent towns grew, the need for a steady flow of crafts began. Thus, craft guilds provided the goods and merchants fed the need: the beginning of real capitalism.

Both types of guilds, Merchants and Craftsmen provided a variety of important functions, very similar: “They established a monopoly of trade in their locality or within guilds1a particular branch of industry or commerce; they set and maintained standards for the quality of goods and the integrity of trading practices in that industry; they worked to maintain stable prices for their goods and commodities; and they sought to control town or city governments in order to further the interests of the guild members and achieve their economic objectives.” (Encyclopedia Britannica) 

The craft guilds are of interest to Freemasons and those interested in Freemasonry because they have like terms. The use of the terms of Apprentice, Journeyman, and Master is well known, with slight variation, to Freemasons as well as to any member of a guild in the middle ages in Europe. These were the common terms to designate the proficiency of a laborer. Guilds in Medieval Europe employed the apprenticeship system of hierarchy, which has its origins in the Roman Empire and possibly Mesopotamia.  From young ages, boys (and in some cases women, depending on the profession) were brought in to learn the craft, ensuring that an adequate number of skilled craftsmen were able to supply the growing towns with goods and services of equal and competitive quality. Standardization and quality were the driving force behind a steady stream of apprentices bonded to masters, and journeymen sent out to learn their craft.

The Apprentice was one who “apprehends” or takes hold of learning. One might also say it is one who is taken hold of, as he is bound to a Master to learn his trade. The term Apprentice does come from the Latin root of “apprehend,” and it does indicate in the guilds4most basic terms “someone learning.” An Apprentice was one who learned for a specified amount of time, learning specific skills and techniques of both hand and mind. He was, however, not allowed to be an official member of the guild until he had satisfied the requirements set out by the guild and even more importantly, by his Master.

The word Journeyman has a more interesting etymology. A Journeyman is someone who does work for “another.” That is, he is an Apprentice who has been sent out into the world to work, generally for other Masters or shops. An original meaning of the word “journey” was “a day” and a Journeyman was someone who performed work for a day and then moved on, as it were. The Journeyman was no longer bonded to a single Master and could choose the work they wished to do. The Journeyman’s former Master, however, still guaranteed the Journeyman’s character and abilities. Shame on the Journeyman meant shame to the Master, and to the guild in which the Journeyman had become a member. Perfection in work and bearing meant the same perfection to the associated Master and Guild.

Master is an even more interesting term as used in the same time period (mid-16th Century) as these other two definitions. At this time, the term Master meant “one who controls or has authority.” It also meant “one who subjugates.” This means that a Master has perfected and honed his skills to the point of being competent in all areas of his craft, under all variety of conditions, with a variety of materials. A guild member might go their whole life being a Journeyman; Master’s were few and far between. A Master, then, is partially self-determined and partially a bestowed title. “A journeyman who could provide proof of his technical competence (the “masterpiece”) might rise in the guild to the status of a master, whereupon he could set up his own workshop and hire and train apprentices. The masters in any particular craft guild tended to be a select inner circleguilds3 who possessed not only technical competence but also proof of their wealth and social position.” (Encyclopedia Britannica) 

The interesting thing is that the main function of the guild was not to produce goods or fix techniques ‘per se’ – those were supporting roles to the main function of the guild. The guild existed to serve a singular purpose: to train Apprentices. Bringing in and bonding Apprentices ensured a continuity of quality workmanship, consistent goods being produced, and traditions being maintained. Thus, the role of the Guild was not to form rules, mores, regulations, and laws with respect to their crafts; their role was to introduce a system of art or craft to a new individual, to instill in them the idea of standards, quality, consistency, and perfection. Their goal was to expand their horizons and technical knowledge in a specific area so they might provide for their towns as well as their families. Guilds and guild members served the community as much as they served themselves.

St. John the Evangelist and Involution

St. John the Evangelist and Involution

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 isjohns2 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 Freemasonry 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.

Is Freemasonry a Spiritual Practice?

Is Freemasonry a Spiritual Practice?

In keeping with the discussion surrounding soul and spirit, I wanted to complete the examination in a part 2, looking at Freemasonry as, to use the “new age” term, a spiritual practice. Freemasonry has been called many things in its lifetime: a fraternal group, an esoteric organization, a cult, a charity organization, and a religion, among other things. Whatever the masses call Freemasons or the Freemasons call themselves, their mission has been the same from the beginning: to create a better world starting with the improvement of humanity at the individual level.

“Remember always that all Masonry is work”, says Albert Pike, a prominent 19th Century Freemason. The Masonic “work,” in my view, is the internal, oblique ritualistic work by which Masons are made and educated for the exoteric work, which consists of activities for the welfare of mankind according to Masonic principles. It is in this mysterious, hidden ritualistic work where much of the speculation of what Freemasonry does and does not do begins. Indeed, sometimes Freemasons themselves may have a difficult time understanding what the “secret” things of Masonry are all about.

In at least one Masonic Order, and probably many others, it is specifically stated that Freemasons have a special charter to input esoteric knowledge into the Masonic members. By esoteric, let’s use the basic form of the word, meaning “knowledge meant only for a few.” Freemasonry, being a select organization, is “esoteric” in this way. That is, generally speaking, the percentage of the overall, human population that belongs to Freemasonry is extremely low. Esoteric, in its uncomplicated form, does not connote anything spiritual, religious, or occult. While some aspects of those forms of study may be “esoteric,” the word “esoteric” does not mean spiritual, religious, or occult.

AstralProjection3Be that as it may, many people find that Freemasonry lends itself toward “spirituality.” “Spiritual” means, quite simply, “pertaining to spirit.” This begs the question, then: what is spirit?

To be simple and clear, for this I’ll use the dictionary.com definition, which is “the principle of conscious life; the vital principle in humans, animating the body or mediating between body and soul.” Could it mean “the soul as it is separated from the body at death” or even “an angel, demon; sprite?”

Yes, absolutely; however, when speaking in relation to philosophical discussions, the first definition is the one to which most people seem to refer. It is the one that for the purposes of this exposition that we will accept and use. The “principle of conscious life” or spirit, and its existence or non-existence, has been for all of human existence the core of much conflict.

What is spirit? Why do people, cultures, and religions view it differently? Is the spirit of humanity divine? Why is this so important? What about the spirit of animals, trees, and rocks? Whence does this spirit emanate? What is its birthplace? The source of many people’s idea of “spirit” seems to be either what many would call God, or gods and goddesses, and the qualities or virtues we assign them accordingly. If we are animated by this “spirit,” and we ascribe this to “God” and say that this part of our being has “godly attributes” or it is “divine.”

However, as is defined above, the term “spirit” is not demarcated by some kind of divine or godly source. It simply is an animation or “vital principle in humans.” It is when we ascribe this spirit’s existence to a specific external entity – be it God, Allah, the Tao, Jehovah, or Zeus – that we run into human conflict. If one is right and true, all others must be wrong and false. Wars have been and continue to be fought over such questions as the origin of “spirit.” Yet, do humans fight over “spirits,” or do they fight over “souls?”

This is where the subject of spirit becomes confused and perhaps convoluted; it is when the word “soul” is interchanged with “spirit.” Wars have been fought over “souls,” not “spirits.” When we discuss soul, I feel we must continue to be very clear about the terms that we’re using, and that the meaning of the word should be as neutral as possible.

“Soul” to a Catholic is very different than a “soul” to a Wiccan, Neo-Platonist, or an Atheist. Resorting to Merriam-Webster for common ground, and looking at this from a purely English literary and linguistic sense, both “soul” and “spirit” originate from a core meaning of “breath, life.”

The major difference between the two seems to be that one is immortal (soul) and one is pure animation and life (spirit) with a specific beginning and ending event. The idea, from these definitions, is that the soul lasts forever while the spirit comes into existence at birth and expires at the death of its human host.

In the base meaning of the word “soul,” there is also the inference of “life giving” qualities. Given that both concern themselves with the essence of life and seem to inhabit the same physical space, it is easy to see that these could be confused and muddled in discussion, debate, and theology. I hear many Freemasons refer to Spirit and Soul interchangeably, but I am unclear whether or not they mean the same thing or spiritual eyesomething different. I do believe that Freemasonry helps provide us a path toward an answer.

We do not normally say we perform a “soul practice”; what we are concerning ourselves here with is the idea of a spiritual practice, as most Westerners use the term. As a verb, to practice is to do something again and again until we’re better at it.

Interestingly, the word “practice” is not a noun – it is in all cases a verb. It is an active principle; as we’ve noted above, so too is Freemasonry. A spiritual practice, using the terms we’ve outlined here, would really indicate “to regularly or constantly work at bettering the vital principle of conscious life.” The term “spiritual practice” is something which we might say develops, by repeated efforts, that vital principle animating humans, “animating the body or mediating between body and soul.”

As the soul is the vital “breath” of humans, one must ask whence it comes, in order to understand if it can be developed. Yet, if this principle is just that, a principle, can it be “trained?” Is it not already perfect how it is? There have been many philosophers, Aristotle, Plato, Plotinus, and Socrates that have all debated this very question – the immortal and thus incorruptible nature of the “soul.” Can something which is, at its core, incorruptible and pure, be “trained?”

Again, if we examine the word soul, as a vital and immortal principle emanating from a divine source, then one must assume that it is something that is pure and pristine as it is. If the Divine is infallible, is not the soul then also infallible? However, if the spirit, being that conduit between or mediator of the body and soul, is truly a breath that can expire at death, then perhaps it is this part to which we are seeking refinement. It would be the washing away of the film of emotions and desires that cloud the conduit that would be the province of a spiritual practice. This is very clearly outlined in some allegorical journeys of English Rites, particularly the higher degrees. In truth, we see it in all allegorical journeys, and stages, that the Freemason takes throughout their entire Masonic career.

Perhaps, what we call a spiritual practice is something that is not to improve or better the spirit itself but to find a way to remind our bodily world of what spirit, and soul if one believes in this, really is. Perhaps it is not to develop the spirit or even a relationship to the spirit but to be conscious and aware of it, to be cognizant of what clouds, conceals, obstructs, or harms that clear pathway of information between body and soul.

If our Divine self, as the soul, is to speak in the material world, the spirit must be clear to enable this to happen. Perhaps this is the reason that Freemasonry does not concern itself with a single religion but with Religion as a whole; if one is to know there is a soul, then there must be a reason for its existence. Perhaps this is also the reason that one must have a belief in a divinity to even be a Freemason. Why would you want to improve Stone_Masons copythe channel between body and soul if you did not believe that one of these pieces did not exist?

To develop the spirit first means to remove those things which impair the conduit and support that which assist the spirit in its duties. This practice would not concern itself with the reason for the soul’s existence – only that it would be able to communicate clearly with the other members of the human world.

This is where Freemasonry interests itself, specifically. As we progress through the degrees, different stories and symbols speak to us; based on our experience, one may find resonance more in one than in the other. They bring forth ideas and discoveries that enhance the channel between body and soul; by bringing forth triggers which illustrate our own blockages, we can identify the reasons and clear the path.

Being self-aware is the first step. As we rise in Freemasonic degrees, the perception and understanding of what bars our way becomes more subtle and refined, and practice of clearing the way becomes more layered. Freemasonry teaches its adherents, with many varied messages and depths, how to clear and keep clear the conduit; it teaches us how to act according to “the Great Law” which permeates the idea of human existence.

One reason Freemasonry builds upon itself, in my opinion, is that you must be able to remove the common, grosser obstructions in communication before you can work on the subtleties. Yet, if we slip, we need to start again. Practice. Hence, the reason Freemasons consider themselves to “always be in the first degree.”

In addition, Freemasonry seems to concern itself with all aspects of the human being, refining and finessing as we progress deeper into its teachings. That is, it concerns itself with our mental, physical, and emotional well-being and actions. One must learn the fundamentals of the physical world, via ritual and memorization, before he navigates into the emotional world: subduing passions, for example. Then, only by understanding and mastering these worlds can he hope to achieve any sense of stability and growth in the realms of the mental.

Most, if not all of us, struggle at any one of these levels and have to pick ourselves up from a setback, working at their rough courser nature again and again. Is this not practice?

Perhaps, then, all of this work we do in all these degrees is the aspect of Freemasonry which seeks to refine the spirit. If one views the degrees as a spiral of life, then one can see the practice built into each of them, culminating in a birth/death. Not only does Freemasonry teach us how to improve the spirit it also tells us why.

Freemasonry does not ascribe a specific religious or theological source to the soul or the body or the spirit – it accredits the supreme & sovereign manifestation with the lessons of the degrees –  a divine source. It assists us to understand how to let the unique symbols_masonic_collagemessage of our individual Divine sparks to be heard and enables us, through the lens of Freemasonry, to understand why it exists in the first place.

There are many ways to understand the soul; religions provide manifold reasons for its existence and purpose of being. While some religions also teach us through their ritual how to access the soul, they may or may not allow for the rich diversity of human culture and multifarious modes of understanding.

I believe, in their dogmatic and rudimentary way, they seek to remove the moral obstacles which block the spirit (conduit) from achieving its goal, which is the free flow of Divine essence from the soul to the expression within this physical, emotional, and mental realm called Earth. Where they might fall short is the lack of cultural messaging that seeks to embrace all, with different messaging tailored to the different human stories that arrive at their doorstep.

Freemasonry seems to provide support for not only a diversity of “soul origins” but also finds that middle-path, the neutral ground in order to develop that pathway that connects between the world we live in and that world in which the Divine resides. The repeated journeys of the degree system seek to teach us, in a variety of ways, what the blocks might be and how to remove them, in straightforward, non-confrontational, and non-segregated language.

Freemasonry allows us as individuals find our own path to the Voice of whatever Divinity speaks to us, and encourages us to express it as who we really are – without pretense, illusions, or corruption. The Work of Masonry is the Work on our self – repeated trials and approbations, developing, cleaning, clearing, and recognizing the path which connects the Divine Soul to our human host. In this way, to me, nothing else could be more spiritual.

Trivium: Rhetoric

Trivium: Rhetoric

We’re back with the third part of the Trivium: Rhetoric.

Rhetoric is the art of persuasion through communications, either written or spoken. There are always two components to rhetoric – the rhetoric and the audience. Rhetoric’s aim is to make comparisons, evoke emotions, censure rivals, and convince their audience to switch a point of view. Rhetoric takes the form of speech, debate, music, story, play, movie, poem; nearly anything that can be written or spoken may be a piece of rhetoric. In fact, it may be the rhetoric that makes the art.

In the poem, The Road Not Taken, by Robert Frost, the author provides a brief insight into life’s travels:

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;
 
Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,
 
And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.
 
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
 

The rhetorical line of this poem is: “I took the one less traveled by / And that has made all the difference.” Frost has set a scene for us of decision, or indecision, and given us a glimpse into his thoughts, which may be our thoughts at any given moment. His work is convincing us that in order to perhaps make a difference in our lives, we should tread whether others have infrequently traveled.

When we talk about skilled negotiators, people with “charisma” and “charm,” we are really talking about the art of rhetoric. We use rhetoric in our everyday lives when we create a job resume, negotiate to buy a car, when we debate politics, or even when we are convincing a teenager to clean their room. We may do it every day, but do we really understand the finer points of rhetoric? It seems to be the pinnacle of the Trivium and the highest goal we can work toward in order to communicate our ideas with one another effectively.


A nod to this blog for providing the Cornelis Cort images.

Grammar and the Trivium

Grammar and the Trivium

Previously, I posted about the Seven Liberal Arts in general and the Trivium in particular. Recently, a challenge was given to me about providing examples of how the liberal arts are part of our everyday life, and why the human seeking to enlighten their mind might care about them. The challenge was to provide short essays on each. Three-hundred word essays are always a challenge but the gauntlet has been picked up. We’ll call these Liberal Arts: petit fours.

Therefore, for today, I give you Grammar.grammar


Grammar is the skill of knowing language. In order to form sound reasoning, one must be able to learn the words, sentence structure, and forms that make up their language and thereby, communicate clearly and with confidence. In classical training, Grammar is the “who, what, why, when, and how” of understanding and knowledge. Grammar is taught more mechanically in the modern age, which does a disservice:  humans need more than nuts and bolts to create clear ideas and communicate them. Much of what we need to learn goes beyond the adverb or adjective.

An example of this is figures of speech.Cornelis Cort 1565 Grammar Figures of speech are the use of any of a variety of techniques to give an auxiliary meaning, idea, or feeling. An example of this is dysphemism. This is the use of a harsh, more offensive word instead of one considered less harsh. Dysphemism is often contrasted with Euphemism. Dysphemisms are generally used to shock or offend.

Examples of dysphemism are “cancer stick” for cigarette,  “belly bomb” for doughnut, and “treeware” for books. Examples of Euphemisms are lighter, such as “between jobs” for unemployed, or “passed away” for death. Knowing the difference of these two figures of speech allows the audience to be placed in a certain frame of mind and creates a scene for the next stages of what is to be communicated.grandpa

As our use of grammar grows, we need tounderstand how figures of speech like this work and use them effectively when we will eventually make our case (rhetoric) via the tool of language organized into thought (logic). Thus, the well-rounded thinking man should understand not only the technical grammar of his own language, but also how the tools of grammar may be applied to the body of human knowledge for further study.

In order to communicate his own interpretation of the symbolism of any topic of organized learning, as well as what he learns from the natSocratic Methodural world around him, the study of grammar, regardless of the age of the individual, is pivotal.  Grammar is foundational to all problem-solving methods.

What would the Socratic Method be without proper grammar by which to understand and debate the ethical questions of nature?

As Socrates knew: to be able to instruct, to learn deference, and to be able to speak with authority, the enlightened human must concern himself with the very basic study of communication. That is, the study of the grammar of one’s language.

 

 

Complacency

Complacency

Are you comfortable? Are you warm, well-fed, and dry? Do you have enough to drink? Warm showers? Bathroom indoors? Excellent. This isn’t judgement. You, like me, are a benefactor of decades and centuries of prosperity, war, genocide, environmental support and ruin, negotiations, smart men and women, and incredibly ignorant men and women. Our life here in the United States is far more fortunate than most of the world. And for all this fortune and well-being, shouldn’t we be an example? A role model, if you will?

And we’ve moved into a time of just the opposite: officials and citizens of the U.S.A. who would have us cease to be citizens of the world. We citizens, in our Typical U.S.A. fashion, are dreadfully close to leaning back, away from the political and global world stage, and saying, “Yeah, not me. Not now. I’m okay right here.” There are those who think we’ve extended ourselves too far – being the military and financial might that we are. We’ve stuccomplacency-meaning-definitionk our noses into a lot of things – countries, business, trade, religion, and other government. It’s part arrogance, part global citizen, but do not believe it’s selfless. We are not by any stretch of imagination a selfless country.

Don’t get me wrong: there are many, many selfless people here in this country. Yet, we’ve not yet organized ourselves into a selfless mindset. We’re too fragmented, idealistic, narcissistic, egotistical, and fearful. With the new Republican administration sweeping our Nation’s capital, it seems we’re only going to continue down this road of fragmentation and insularity. We want to listen only to what we believe in. It’s too hard to stay in the game of change. We’re becoming immune and yes, I might say it, normalizing when it comes to the intense rhetoric. When a leading national policy maker, with the ear of the President says, that his personal agenda is the deconstruction of national administration, we should not be complacent. We should be attentive. These might be Fearful Words. I think that many of us who are idealists, moderate left to moderate right, hear this and think the sky is falling. A few might run protesting through the streets and ready to swing a heavy hammer back in another direction. Most wring their hands and hope that it will all go away. Maybe this IS the Twilight Zone.

But, hear me out… I think we need to stop and think. I mlkthink we need to understand the motivations behind the chaos and deconstruction and near-anarchy. I recently read an article on Politico regarding Bannon’s reading list. It’s fascinating. It’s really about the dissatisfaction with the status quo reaching a head. The country’s dissatisfaction has been waiting to burst for many people for sometime – else, the message would have fallen on deaf ears and Hillary would have been elected.  Many of us who would not and do not agree with Bannon’s ideology have felt this same way also for a long time but perhaps we were too locked-into a single mindset to think differently. Bannon’s is a mindset that says, “Rush the gates!” rather than “Tunnel under the wall.” It’s a system that’s advocating for intense chaos that instigates intense change. As I said in an earlier, non-related post about chaos, entropy is the death of life. And yet, it’s as necessary as the upset to our equilibrium.

I am not advocating for intense, hate-based change. I do not believe in hate, lies, bigotry, or ignorance. Quite the opposite. And I do believe these things that are being done are being done to shock and awe our consciousness. There are people on the Right who are, like some on the Left, taking the message too far. These are people who advocate for and commit acts of hate and ignorance. I am not advocating for that. What I am advocating for is that we all should listen closely to what is being said. I am hoping we can stop and listen. Listening is the only way that I have personally found to make change. We need to shift into our “thinking man’s” mindset and really listen. Can we sift through the chaos and hear the real message? Then, once heard, can we shift into non-complacency?

I think that is our clear danger here. We are on the brink of sitting back, as I said, and waiting for someone else to take the reins of the Four Horsemen’s steeds and slow the oncoming apocalypse – and yes, I mean that in a literal sense directed towards our “world” not THE world. Someone else can get bloodied. Someone else can be uncomfortable. Someone else can be at the center of the debate. I’m fine just where I am. This is what I think Dan Rather was saying when he first stepped out on the stage after the election last year. “To all of you I say, stay vigilant. The great Martin Luther King, Jr. knew that even as a minority, there was strength in numbers in fighting tyranny. Holding hands and marching forward, raising your voice above the din of complacency, can move mountains. And in this case, I believe there is a vast majority who wants to see this nation continue in tolerance and freedom. But it will require speaking. Engage in your civic government. Flood newsrooms or TV networks with your calls if you feel they are slipping into the normalization of extremism. Donate your time and money to causes that will fight to protect our liberties.”

complacency-quotes-7

I do not think Americans are generally a “fight” first people… generally, as individuals that is. These people who carry the message of antisemitism, bigotry, and racism are easy to hate and vilify and condemn. It’s easy to just fall into the same trap of name calling, topic deflection, and rhetoric. I think it’s a lot harder to stand up and understand them, and then fight back differently. I’m not talking about actual fighting or even some of the things that we “traditionally” do when government goes awry, like protests. I’m talking about seeking to understand and then counter their measures on their own terms. We’re already seeing some of it. We’re seeing people who would never have considered running for office doing so now – both locally and statewide. We’re seeing letter writing and phone calls and new manifestos. We’re hearing those who might have been silent in the past reaching out with a clear voice and measured, thoughtful ideas.  We’re hearing about corporations who are funding where government is dropping off. We’re hearing about rogue insiders in agencies posting the true comments and stories rather than hiding behind the media. These are all good – and we can do more. We need to get into the minds of these people and understand the source, so we can reverse the river’s course. We need weird solutions to whatever is put before us. We need, as Obama said, “smart ideas.”

Dan Rather recently posted an update to the original posting noted above. He said:

“The time for normalizing, dissembling, and explaining away Donald Trump has long since passed. The barring of respected journalistic outlets from the White House briefing is so far beyond the norms and traditions that have governed this republic for generations, that they must be seen as a real and present threat to our democracy. These are the dangers presidents are supposed to protect against, not create.

For all who excused Mr. Trump’s rhetoric in the campaign as just talk, the reckoning has come. I hope it isn’t true, but I fear Mr. Trump is nearing or perhaps already beyond any hope of redemption. And now the question is will enough pressure be turned to all those who enable his antics with their tacit encouragement. There has been a wall of unbending support from virtually every Republican in Congress, and even some Democrats. Among many people, this will be seen as anything approaching acceptable. And mind you, talk is cheap. No one needs to hear how you don’t agree with the President. What are you going to do about it? Do you maintain that an Administration that seeks to subvert the protections of our Constitution is fit to rule unchecked? Or fit to rule at all?

This is an emergency that can no longer be placed solely at the feet of President Trump, or even the Trump Administration. This is a moment of judgement for everyone who willingly remains silent. It is gut check time, for those in a position of power, and for the nation.”

This thoughtful, measured fight isn’t easy. Some people may think I’m crazy for listening to “the other side.” Truth is, I’m on the side of humanity. I’m on the side of human beings being better than they are. Sometimes, we need to go backward or sideways to actually move forward. Sometimes we need the shake up of thinking differently to get back on an upward trajectory. Look, most of us were unhappy with the government. Congress’ approval rating has been the lowest in history for years – YEARS! Did it change the way we hoped it would, with sweetness and roses? No. But, let’s admit, it wasn’t going to change itself. It needed a huge shock to shift. How many times have you or someone you know said “If only a bomb would drop on Washington?” People even made movies about it. Come on. It’s the metaphor for “I wish it would change but I don’t know what it will take to do it.” We’ve thought this for some time. The weird thing is, now it’s happening and we, most of the American public, didn’t actually instigate it.

We should not get over our revulsion of hate and ignorance, and the acts which are committed in their names. We should not ignore the lies and “alternative facts” which come out of our Nation’s capital now. As Dan said, “…these are not normal times. This is not about tax policy, health care, or education – even though all those and more are so important. This is about racism, bigotry, intimidation and the specter of corruption.” Do not ignore these. We must, though, look into the heart of what is really happening and learn their strategy. We rise above it by infiltrating it, understanding it, awalking-deadnd then, crushing it. We need to have the equilibrium unsettled, the boat tilted wildly, before we can learn how to right it again, and find a sea that we can sail swiftly.

The chaos doesn’t have a plan for what to put back in its place. Bannon doesn’t have a plan for rebuilding the Government in his image. Trump might, but it’s unlikely. Chaos seeks to break apart not put back together. We, the thinkers and the doers, are the ones who will put the fragmented ideals back together into a government that perhaps works better than a previous one did. Maybe it will be a Democratic Republic. Maybe not. Maybe it will be something new and better. If we choose to do nothing, nothing will change or happen. If we choose to ignore the rhetoric and take the path less traveled, we become the ones the current Government fears. We become the agents of the real new world.

That is who I want to be, and I’m guessing most of you, too. To that end, we cannot be complacent in these times. Two months in, do not sit back in your sofa and turn on The Walking Dead; else, you’re in danger of becoming so yourself.