# Can someone confirm these statements?



## hanzosbm (Mar 11, 2016)

A friend loaned me a book recently called The Freemasons by Jasper Ridley.  It is essentially a history of the Craft starting with operative Masons in the middle ages up to relatively current times.  The first thing I liked about it was the abundance of citations.  As we all know, books on Masonry are filled with theories and often times authors play fast and loose with their facts to support those theories.  I was hoping that this book, having so many citations, would not follow that path.  Sadly, I was mistaken.  The author does things like cite the origins of the legend of the third degree to things happening in the middle ages when we know that the legend was dramatically different than we know it today up until the 18th century.  So, when I went to look into the sources he cited, I ran into some further problems.  When I came upon some statements of his that I found questionable and I went to see where he got them, yes, he does give references, but they're all to modern books.  I suppose if I were so inclined, I could go down each of those rabbit holes by buying the referenced book and then seeing if it has references, and then track down those references, etc., but I have no interest in doing that.

Which brings me to my point.  In the first chapter of his book, Ridley states that operative Masons were subject to a wage cap (as were all trades) but they, being so highly skilled and in demand, could demand higher wages than was legal and used their secret meetings to fix prices.  To me, this has some very interesting implications, if true.  The source that he cites for this information is an Ars Quatuor Coronatorum article entitled Further Views on the Origins of Freemasonry in England by Geoffrey Markham.  I haven't been able to find this specific article and what I have been able to find referencing the article does not collaborate Ridley's claims. 

I was wondering if anyone had any contemporary information to the effect that Masons were widely being paid above the pay cap and ideally, that there was some kind of collusion that enabled it.


----------



## Glen Cook (Mar 11, 2016)

I have never heard this, and would be interested in the results of your research.


----------



## Ripcord22A (Mar 11, 2016)

Same here.  Maybe you could put together a presentation and share it with us that we could then share with our lodges


----------



## hanzosbm (Mar 11, 2016)

Gentlemen,

I think I might very well do exactly that.  This theory really got my wheels spinning and dovetails into a lot of explanations that make a lot of sense regarding a number of things.  Stay tuned!  Hopefully I can make some head way with this research.


----------



## dfreybur (Mar 11, 2016)

The operative era was in the middle ages well before the industrial revolution.  In that era the majority of the population worked on farms and lived by barter.  I find it extremely dubious that the idea of a "wage cap" had ever been formulated back then.  Coins were minted but they were comparatively rare.


----------



## hanzosbm (Mar 11, 2016)

Well, I've spent most of the day researching and writing a paper.  I'm hoping to have it finished today and I'll post it.  But, either way, here's a little spoiler: I've confirmed it.


----------



## hanzosbm (Mar 11, 2016)

Okay, it's up.  And yes, I purposely made the title over dramatic to get attention (I'm shameless).

http://www.myfreemasonry.com/threads/organized-crime-as-the-foundation-for-freemasonry.26713/


----------



## Bloke (Mar 13, 2016)

Yes, I've heard this about payment to operatives, but doesnt make it true. And I think I mischievously joked our entire order is about the medieval protection of trade secrets

(*goes to link posted*)


----------



## jermy Bell (Nov 4, 2017)

I can not confirm or deny,  nor speak of the arts, parts or points of freemasonry. I thank you.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Nov 4, 2017)

hanzosbm said:


> Ridley states that operative Masons were subject to a wage cap (as were all trades) but they, being so highly skilled and in demand, could demand higher wages than was legal and used their secret meetings to fix prices.


I also heard this on a Freemason "documentary" on the History Channel so take it for what it is worth.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Nov 4, 2017)

JamestheJust said:


> Much of the structure and practice of Masonic ritual is taken from Mithraic ritual. Perhaps the stone masons were descended from Roman soldiers.


Actually, this is as good of a theory as any other in my opinion.


----------



## coachn (Nov 5, 2017)

To believe Freemasonry is a continuation of Stonecraft is to have drunk the Koolaid and succumbed to the sirens of the Craft.  Evidence shows Freemasonry to be something utterly different, even when the operative/speculative argument is posited.  Going down rabbit holes exploring Stonecraft and its practices reveals this fairly quickly.


----------



## Luigi Visentin (Jan 14, 2018)

Warrior1256 said:


> Actually, this is as good of a theory as any other in my opinion.


For myself it is more than an opinion as I have just finished to write last version of my book where I show that ancient Masons claimed to be descendant from Romans' _miles _(as I had already wrote in another post, but I have found many more clues in the meantime). Obviously it can not be demonstrated that what they were claiming was real, but only that they said so.


----------



## Luigi Visentin (Jan 15, 2018)

I could answer you with "yes" or "not" depending with what you mean with "ritual". The documents about the Legend of the Craft does not includes ritual element. The cathechisms instead report parts of the ancient rituals (or at least they have been so interpreted by most of scholars) that have been included in those of eighteenth century but all are dated around the beginning of that century. Moreover rituals have been modified many times and in many ways, therefore it is difficult to fix which element is traditional and which is something new. Luckily the footprint has not changed so we have conserved many ancient elements.


----------



## Mindovermatter Ace (Jan 18, 2018)

coachn said:


> To believe Freemasonry is a continuation of Stonecraft is to have drunk the Koolaid and succumbed to the sirens of the Craft.  Evidence shows Freemasonry to be something utterly different, even when the operative/speculative argument is posited.  Going down rabbit holes exploring Stonecraft and its practices reveals this fairly quickly.




I disagree because I have examined records that show and prove that speculative Freemasonry originated directly from operative guilds in Scotland during the mid 1600s. The records are well preserved. It was due to a decline in work and done so to preserve functionality.


----------



## Glen Cook (Jan 19, 2018)

Mindovermatter Ace said:


> I disagree because I have examined records that show and prove that speculative Freemasonry originated directly from operative guilds in Scotland during the mid 1600s. The records are well preserved. It was due to a decline in work and done so to preserve functionality.


You were previously asked to identify these records which you said you had copies of. Have you had the opportunity to find them?


----------



## coachn (Jan 19, 2018)

Mindovermatter Ace said:


> I disagree ...



That is a right granted to bright and dull men equally.



Mindovermatter Ace said:


> ...because I have examined records that show and prove that speculative Freemasonry originated directly from operative guilds in Scotland during the mid 1600s.



Bold claims demand Bold proofs.  Here's mine:

http://www.coach.net/BFM.htm
http://www.coach.net/TCU.htm

Where's yours?



Mindovermatter Ace said:


> The records are well preserved.



The records are misunderstood, misconstrued and misrepresented.



Mindovermatter Ace said:


> It was due to a decline in work and done so to preserve functionality.



Your premise and reasoning are unsupported.

Define "it".

The increases and deceases "in work" are cyclical; have been, are and always will be.
"preserve functionality" of what?  Ritual?


----------



## hanzosbm (Jan 19, 2018)

coachn said:


> To believe Freemasonry is a continuation of Stonecraft is to have drunk the Koolaid and succumbed to the sirens of the Craft.  Evidence shows Freemasonry to be something utterly different, even when the operative/speculative argument is posited.  Going down rabbit holes exploring Stonecraft and its practices reveals this fairly quickly.



I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you (yet) but I was hoping for some more clarification.  Are you saying that there were no speculative aspects practiced in operative Masonry?  Are you saying that speculative aspects being practiced in operative Masonry (assuming the question to the first question is 'no') did not continue on into what we now consider speculative Masonry?  Are you saying the early operative lodges did not have purely speculative members?  Are you saying that early operative lodges did not provide assistance to purely speculative Masons?

I'm just trying to understand your stance.


----------



## coachn (Jan 19, 2018)

hanzosbm said:


> I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you (yet)


Thanks!


hanzosbm said:


> ...but I was hoping for some more clarification.  Are you saying that there were no speculative aspects practiced in operative Masonry?


I am not saying this. Although, if we evaluate closely the major trends with our "preservation" society, there are absolutely no clues as to speculative practice that is even remotely close to even a metaphorical rendering of stonecraft practices.


hanzosbm said:


> Are you saying that speculative aspects being practiced in operative Masonry (assuming the question to the first question is 'no') did not continue on into what we now consider speculative Masonry?


I am not saying this either.  Although it would be an awesome book to read that claims to actually reveal anything that these stonecraft lodges did that could remotely be called "speculation" and of which Freemasonic practices continued to this day.


hanzosbm said:


> Are you saying the early operative lodges did not have purely speculative members?


I am not saying this either.  There is evidence that these lodges had members that didn't actually do stonecraft work.  This DOES NOT mean that they were speculative masons, as so many zealous members automatically assume.  It merely means that they were not involved in day in and day out chiseling of stone directly.  What they were involved in could have been any number of things that supported the lodge in its operations, including and not limited to merely being patrons paying for dinners and being associated with the lodge, much like would occur today in networking business groups around the world.


hanzosbm said:


> Are you saying that early operative lodges did not provide assistance to purely speculative Masons?


Op. Lodges likely had a symbiotic relationship with members not involved directly in the chiseling of stone.  To claim these lodges offered "speculative" assistance to such members is a stretch.  More likely they were more geared toward business/social support.


hanzosbm said:


> I'm just trying to understand your stance.


Not a stance.  Just an informed non-romantic view.


----------



## Mindovermatter Ace (Jan 19, 2018)

Glen Cook said:


> You were previously asked to identify these records which you said you had copies of. Have you had the opportunity to find them?



My apologies. Bare with me momentarily to gather citations. I may not have time today. There's more than one set of records out there, but most of the info lies in the records of the time immemorial lodges of Scotland and the registers of the guilds of Edinburgh circa 1400-1600s. They express, imply, and in some instances explicitly state that speculative masonry derived from a decline in building during the mid 1630s, and that they began taking in non-operatives to keep the doors open. Quatuor Coronati Lodge has several papers that support as well. It's been a very long time since I've examined them, so please bare with me in assembling the references. I made this discovery while researching the Scottish Rite Lodges of England and reading available records of the operative lodges of Scotland about two years ago.


----------



## hanzosbm (Jan 19, 2018)

@coachn , forgive me for not quoting your response, but I could easily see this turning into a 14 page 'quotes within quotes'.

It sounds like (and I don't mean to put words in your mouth, so please correct me if I'm wrong) that we're talking about a matter of degrees (no pun intended).  We know that early operative Masons were interested in and had knowledge of some pretty deep, non-Christian philosophy.  What we don't know is what role that knowledge played.  Early operative Masons looked at these philosophies as their predecessors (whether they were or not is irrelevant) so I think it's safe to say they were speculative, though whether they practiced anything even remotely close to speculative Masonry is unknown and there is no evidence of it early on.  In terms of what, if any, progression there was from the philosophical teachings that were known by early operative Masons to what we have now is anyone's guess.  We know that these obscure philosophical works were known to early operative masons, that they considered them their origins, that symbolism was assigned by operative masons to their working tools, and that some of that symbolism survives to today, but it comes back to the question; if what we have now is 5% from early operative masons and 95% enlightenment era external philosophies, what is the true origin?


----------



## CLewey44 (Jan 19, 2018)

Mindovermatter Ace said:


> My apologies. Bare with me momentarily to gather citations. I may not have time today. There's more than one set of records out there, but most of the info lies in the records of the time immemorial lodges of Scotland and the registers of the guilds of Edinburgh circa 1400-1600s. They express, imply, and in some instances explicitly state that speculative masonry derived from a decline in building during the mid 1630s, and that they began taking in non-operatives to keep the doors open. Quatuor Coronati Lodge has several papers that support as well. It's been a very long time since I've examined them, so please bare with me in assembling the references. I made this discovery while researching the Scottish Rite Lodges of England and reading available records of the operative lodges of Scotland about two years ago.



Sounds familiar, sort of how we often take in non-speculatives to keep doors open lol.


----------



## coachn (Jan 19, 2018)

CLewey44 said:


> Sounds familiar, sort of how we often take in non-speculatives to keep doors open lol.


And that's the rub... non-speculative members are all that Freemasonry has been taking in for the last 300 years.


----------



## coachn (Jan 19, 2018)

hanzosbm said:


> @coachn , forgive me for not quoting your response, but I could easily see this turning into a 14 page 'quotes within quotes'.


LOL!  Yep. Been doing this for over a decade or so.  Not a problem here!


hanzosbm said:


> It sounds like (and I don't mean to put words in your mouth, so please correct me if I'm wrong) that we're talking about a matter of degrees (no pun intended).


More like the absolute fuzziness in the words being used in an attempt to better understand how the Freemasonic organization came into being.  It's not an operative-speculative issue.  It's an issue of looking honestly at what *stonecraft masons actually did* VERSUS *what Freemasonic members actually DO. *  There is absolutely nothing that overlaps between the two groups other than the fact that the lexicon and lore appear to be the same.  However, what the two practice are not even metaphorically similar.  The progression is not the same.  The education is not the same.  The ends are not the same.  If Freemasonry was intended to preserve stonecraft "whatever", it has yet to prove that it has done so.

What it has preserved it a role-playing theatrical society with a moral purpose.


hanzosbm said:


> We know that early operative Masons were interested in and had knowledge of some pretty deep, non-Christian philosophy.


What makes you so absolutely sure about this?  What exactly is "early" in your mind?


hanzosbm said:


> What we don't know is what role that knowledge played.


This is assuming once again that there was any actual knowledge at all.


hanzosbm said:


> Early operative Masons looked at these philosophies as their predecessors (*whether they were or not is irrelevant*) ...


That's the point.  Their lore is just that, lore!  It's not history.  And that point is relevant!


hanzosbm said:


> ...so I think it's safe to say they were speculative, though whether they practiced anything even remotely close to speculative Masonry is unknown and there is no evidence of it early on.


But it's not safe to say they were speculative.  That's conjecture.  It must be defined based upon facts for it to be safe to say. 

Furthermore, if you define "Speculative Masonry" as what we have today, then the words we use to define ourselves are not justifiably used by evidence of our own practices.


hanzosbm said:


> In terms of what, if any, progression there was from the philosophical teachings that were known by early operative Masons to what we have now is anyone's guess.


It's safe to say that modern members of the fraternity have more access to that watershed of teachings than any gavel lugging stonecrafter ever did.


hanzosbm said:


> We know that these obscure philosophical works were known to early operative masons,


Do we?  Really?  It's a romantic view, but how is this knowing substantiated in facts?  A parchment copy of a copy of a lodge secretary's notes only lends to further conjecture at best. 


hanzosbm said:


> ...that they considered them their origins,


The lore has a lot of allusions, true.  But how much of this is an actual representation of the Craft as a whole, rather than that of one or two romantic literate writers poetically musing about something that didn't characterize the Craft as a whole?


hanzosbm said:


> ...that symbolism was assigned by operative masons to their working tools,


See previous statements.


hanzosbm said:


> ...and that some of that symbolism survives to today,


It survives because of the clever pens of playwrights who took these manuscripts and used them as backdrops for our society.  And they did this masterfully!


hanzosbm said:


> ...but it comes back to the question; if what we have now is 5% from early operative masons and 95% enlightenment era external philosophies, what is the true origin?


Origin of what?  You have a whole bunch of possibilities in your question, all predicated with an "if".

Seriously Bro., this society has far more fertile writings driving member's imaginations than stone solid foundations by which they build upon.


----------



## hanzosbm (Jan 19, 2018)

Well, to start off at the beginning (and we can build from there if we so choose), my claims about early operative Masons having knowledge of and professing their origins in ancient, pre-Christian philosophy:

The Regius Manuscript talks in depth about Masonry descending from Euclid.  Now, in addition to being one of the most celebrated philosophers, Euclid was also well known for his mathematical and geometrical genius, so on the earliest Masonic documents, I'll concede that this is inconclusive at best.

The Matthew Cooke Manuscript on the other hand, talks about a number of early figures in the fictional history of Masonry.  A large number of them are Biblical (not surprising given the Christian society they lived in as well as the church's teachings of creation that they'd go back through the Bible) which goes no where in terms of my premise.  All it's really doing is trying to trace the science of geometry down through the ages, which makes total sense.  The first non-Biblical person in the Matthew Cooke Manuscript listed is Pythagoras; another great philosopher.  But, like Euclid, he was also a significant contributor to geometry, so again, this is inconclusive to my point.  However, the next name is Hermes. 

"And after this flood many 
years, as the chronicle telleth, 
these 2 pillars were found, 
and as the _Pilicronicon_ saith, that 
a great clerk that [was] called Pythag/oras 
found that one, and* Hermes, the 
philosopher,* found that other, and 
they taught forth the sciences that 
they found therein written."  (bolding is mine)

The Matthew Cooke Manuscript has been dated to 1450.  Hermeticism is a pretty deep system of philosophies a group of medieval stone masons.  Now, as I said, we don't know what role that knowledge played or how deep of an understanding they had, but we can see that they were at least aware of Hermeticism and had connected it with the knowledge they claimed to have held.  If nothing else, we can at least see that there was an interest in those philosophies.

Now, as we all know, the history of Masonry as laid down in these documents is fiction.  But, the fact that they held a knowledge of these early philosophies and at the time they were written felt that there was _some_ connection to themselves as operative masons, suggests that they had some speculative elements.  (and by that, I mean that they were speculating on philosophical ideas, not necessarily that those ideas have anything to do with our current fraternity, though I do think there was _some_ early symbolism that has survived till today)


----------



## coachn (Jan 19, 2018)

hanzosbm said:


> Well, to start off at the beginning (and we can build from there if we so choose),


That works!


hanzosbm said:


> ...my claims about early operative Masons having knowledge of and professing their origins in ancient, pre-Christian philosophy:
> 
> The Regius Manuscript talks in depth about Masonry descending from Euclid.  Now, in addition to being one of the most celebrated philosophers, Euclid was also well known for his mathematical and geometrical genius, so on the earliest Masonic documents, I'll concede that this is inconclusive at best.


So noted.


hanzosbm said:


> The Matthew Cooke Manuscript on the other hand, talks about a number of early figures in the fictional history of Masonry.  A large number of them are Biblical (not surprising given the Christian society they lived in as well as the church's teachings of creation that they'd go back through the Bible) which goes no where in terms of my premise.  All it's really doing is trying to trace the science of geometry down through the ages, which makes total sense.  The first non-Biblical person in the Matthew Cooke Manuscript listed is Pythagoras; another great philosopher.  But, like Euclid, he was also a significant contributor to geometry, so again, this is inconclusive to my point.


So noted.


hanzosbm said:


> However, the next name is Hermes.
> 
> "And after this flood many
> years, as the chronicle telleth,
> ...


Agreed!


hanzosbm said:


> But, the fact that *they* held a knowledge of these early philosophies and at the time *they* were written felt that there was _some_ connection to *themselves* as operative masons, suggests that *they* had some speculative elements.


All the *BOLD, ITALIC UNDERLINED* words above support the following logical fallacy:

Fallacy of composition – assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole.
This is evidenced by early Freemasonic writings also.  The earliest Freemasonic writers (post 1717) did their best to support the illusions of connectedness brought forth by the creation of their role-playing ventures.  Their efforts created a deluge of interconnected documents all supporting that illusion, even when there were no legitimate connections at all.  Unknowing generations later assume these documents were valid and historically accurate.  There are a lot of members emotionally invested in validating the stonecraft connection in more ways than the use of their lexicon and lore.



hanzosbm said:


> (and by that, I mean that they were speculating on philosophical ideas, not necessarily that those ideas have anything to do with our current fraternity, though I do think there was _some_ early symbolism that has survived till today)


I attribute this, the current Craft philosophy, to the genius of the Freemasonic lecture writers.  They interwove much philosophy into these presentations and it is to their credit we have such overwhelmingly awesome results.


----------



## hanzosbm (Jan 19, 2018)

coachn said:


> Fallacy of composition – assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole.


Well, on the one hand, I agree that simply because this document shows a speculative interest doesn't indicate that every single operative stone mason held those same interests.  Nor do I believe that the speculative aspect was a primary goal for _any_ operative masons.  Were 1% of operative Masons interested in speculative ventures?  10%, 90%?  We have no way of knowing.  But it was apparently important enough to enough Masons make it into this manuscript.  Naturally, that doesn't speak to every mason, but then again, nothing can.  As brother @CLewey44 (either comically or tragically depending on your point of view) pointed out, even today, not all brethren are speculative.  Does that mean that modern Freemasonry is not speculative?

The point I'm trying to make is that while we can't speak to the depth of breadth of it, we can see that there was a speculative aspect for at least some operative masons in the late middle ages.


----------



## coachn (Jan 19, 2018)

hanzosbm said:


> Well, on the one hand, I agree that simply because this document shows a speculative interest doesn't indicate that every single operative stone mason held those same interests.  Nor do I believe that the speculative aspect was a primary goal for _any_ operative masons.


I'm with ya on this!


hanzosbm said:


> Were 1% of operative Masons interested in speculative ventures?  10%, 90%?  We have no way of knowing.  But it was apparently important enough to enough Masons make it into this manuscript.


Additionally.... how do we know that it was not someone outside the masonic circle writing romantically about stonecraft?


hanzosbm said:


> Naturally, that doesn't speak to every mason, but then again, nothing can.  As brother @CLewey44 (either comically or tragically depending on your point of view) pointed out, even today, not all brethren are speculative.  Does that mean that modern Freemasonry is not speculative?


No.  It doesn't mean this from the evidence presented in a manuscript. However, from the evidence of our operation, our collective organizations truly don't support speculation, as it would be practiced by those carrying on a speculative form of stonecraft.  It talks about it.  But that's all it does.


hanzosbm said:


> The point I'm trying to make is that while we can't speak to the depth of breadth of it, we can see that there was a speculative aspect for at least some operative masons in the late middle ages.


Agreed!  When defining speculation involves referring to those assumed to be involved in philosophical pursuits.


----------



## hanzosbm (Jan 19, 2018)

So, I guess we could say that question is really to what degree was philosophical pursuits institutionalized in early operative masonry.  While I see your point that it could be the invention of someone outside of Masonry, those early manuscripts seem to be (no proof) created at the behest of operative masons.  If for no other reason that it is filled with 'I', 'we', 'our', etc.  In addition, due to the cost associated with producing such a manuscript, it seems unlikely that it was done without funding and approval of some organization that seemed fit to have this written in the first person.


----------



## coachn (Jan 19, 2018)

hanzosbm said:


> So, I guess we could say that question is really to what degree was philosophical pursuits institutionalized in early operative masonry.  While I see your point that it could be the invention of someone outside of Masonry, those early manuscripts seem to be (no proof) created at the behest of operative masons.  If for no other reason that it is filled with 'I', 'we', 'our', etc.  In addition, due to the cost associated with producing such a manuscript, it seems unlikely that it was done without funding and approval of some organization that seemed fit to have this written in the first person.


I want so much to connect those dots and come to these same conclusions Bro.  All that you write makes sense.  Money was typically involved in the making of manuscripts. 

My forensics have been focusing upon the craft as it existed from about 1717 onward.  The behavior of the craft from that time till now appears to be nothing like that behavior claimed to be its origins.  As much as I like reading about glory days, it continually comes back to: _*The Craft ain't what it professes.*

Nothing nefarious mind you.  Just simply the words don't match the actions and the trail._


----------



## hanzosbm (Jan 19, 2018)

coachn said:


> My forensics have been focusing upon the craft as it existed from about 1717 onward.  The behavior of the craft from that time till now appears to be nothing like that behavior claimed to be its origins.  As much as I like reading about glory days, it continually comes back to: _*The Craft ain't what it professes.*_



You're preaching to the choir here. 

But, I would offer up this idea (of which I have no proof nor even evidence of);

Today, 90+% of Masons either have no interest in the speculative aspect, or if they do, have taken about 3 steps down that long path and declared that it's far enough.  Meanwhile, nearly 100% of Masons claim to be speculative, regardless of their behavior.  Might not the "glory days" have been identical in that regard to current times?

We have a scant few documents of early masonry (in whatever form it may have been).  Imagine archaeologists 500 years from now finding a copy of Morals and Dogma and an organization professing to be speculative, next to a bewildering stack of meeting minutes and by-laws of jurisprudence.  "Were the Freemasons of the 21st century speculative or not?"  Yes and no.  Which answer is more correct?  I guess that depends on how one chooses to measure the two.  And I think the same holds true for early masons (though who knows if they were more or less speculative than masons of today).

I think it was brother PointWithinACircle who offered up the expression "Rituals exists so that those who don't understand it can pass it on long enough for it to reach someone who can" (that wasn't the exact quote, but it was to that effect).  Maybe that same general premise has been going on for hundreds of years. 

Now we just need to organize some pancake breakfasts to raise enough money for a time machine to go back and find out for sure.


----------



## dfreybur (Jan 19, 2018)

hanzosbm said:


> Today, 90+% of Masons either have no interest in the speculative aspect, or if they do, have taken about 3 steps down that long path and declared that it's far enough.  Meanwhile, nearly 100% of Masons claim to be speculative, regardless of their behavior.  Might not the "glory days" have been identical in that regard to current times?



Sturgeon's Law says ninety percent of everything is crud.  The ancient philosopher Anaxamander said diggers after gold must dig through much dirt.

It's very elitist to admit that those statements apply to human endeavors a well as to materials.

If we are supposed to make good men better, the mystical stuff is only one way to do that.  It can be and is there for the few who are interested.  For outsiders it's just one more shiney object we have that they might want.  But like so many shiney objects, fewer are interested in having it than in wanting it.

When it comes to the mystical, the glory days are encountering one other Brother with a notebook full of notes on the topic.  I think it's always been like that.

In parlor magic we ask you to watch the hand up front, while we do the work with the other hand.  That other hand is our various social ways we help each other be better men.  The distracting hand up front is topics like mysticism, civic projects and such that a few do but most don't.

Watch this hand where I talk about the Great Seal of the United States!  Ignore this hand that does fellowship hanging out with Brothers before the meeting slowly building friendships across many years.  Same deal perhaps.


----------



## hanzosbm (Jan 19, 2018)

Perhaps so.  Then again, for me personally, the mystical stuff (for lack of a better term) and my reflection on it, has helped me to become a better man.  I can't say that it works that way for everyone. 

It's funny that you mention that the mystical stuff is only one way of doing it.  I had a prospect ask me once if Masonry held the "truth".  I told him that there were absolutely no lessons taught within Masonry that can't be found in another form in another place.  At the time, he seemed a little disappointed by that.  To me, I take comfort in it.  If everyone is teaching the same thing, just in different ways, that must mean that there's really something to it, right?


----------



## David612 (Jan 19, 2018)

hanzosbm said:


> Perhaps so.  Then again, for me personally, the mystical stuff (for lack of a better term) and my reflection on it, has helped me to become a better man.  I can't say that it works that way for everyone.
> 
> It's funny that you mention that the mystical stuff is only one way of doing it.  I had a prospect ask me once if Masonry held the "truth".  I told him that there were absolutely no lessons taught within Masonry that can't be found in another form in another place.  At the time, he seemed a little disappointed by that.  To me, I take comfort in it.  If everyone is teaching the same thing, just in different ways, that must mean that there's really something to it, right?


Hmmm depends, people have a way of arguing about the same thing taught in different ways.
I don’t know that masonry teaches the “truth” but rather teaches ways to discover it of your own accord, simply being a mason isn’t enough.


----------



## hanzosbm (Jan 19, 2018)

David612 said:


> I don’t know that masonry teaches the “truth” but rather teaches ways to discover it of your own accord, simply being a mason isn’t enough.



Put much better than I managed.  I completely agree.


----------



## coachn (Jan 20, 2018)

hanzosbm said:


> You're preaching to the choir here.


LOL!  Yep.


hanzosbm said:


> But, I would offer up this idea (of which I have no proof nor even evidence of);
> 
> Today, 90+% of Masons either have no interest in the speculative aspect, or if they do, have taken about 3 steps down that long path and declared that it's far enough.  Meanwhile, nearly 100% of Masons claim to be speculative, regardless of their behavior.  Might not the "glory days" have been identical in that regard to current times?


MIGHT?!?!  I believe it is highly probable.


hanzosbm said:


> We have a scant few documents of early masonry (in whatever form it may have been).  Imagine archaeologists 500 years from now finding a copy of Morals and Dogma and an organization professing to be speculative, next to a bewildering stack of meeting minutes and by-laws of jurisprudence.  "Were the Freemasons of the 21st century speculative or not?"  Yes and no.  Which answer is more correct?  I guess that depends on how one chooses to measure the two.  And I think the same holds true for early masons (though who knows if they were more or less speculative than masons of today).


I'm leaning toward this view more and more.


hanzosbm said:


> I think it was brother PointWithinACircle who offered up the expression "Rituals exists so that those who don't understand it can pass it on long enough for it to reach someone who can" (that wasn't the exact quote, but it was to that effect).  Maybe that same general premise has been going on for hundreds of years.
> 
> Now we just need to organize some pancake breakfasts to raise enough money for a time machine to go back and find out for sure.


LOL!  And fish fries!  Gotta have fish fries!


----------



## coachn (Jan 20, 2018)

dfreybur said:


> Sturgeon's Law says ninety percent of everything is crud.  The ancient philosopher Anaxamander said diggers after gold must dig through much dirt.
> 
> It's very elitist to admit that those statements apply to human endeavors a well as to materials.
> 
> ...


Lovin' It!


----------



## Luigi Visentin (Jan 22, 2018)

The matter about the presence of "speculative brothers" has an answer directly in the Cooke Manuscript, where it tells about Athelstan's son:

_And after that was a worthy king in England that was called Athelstan, and his youngest son loved well the science of geometry, and he wist well that hand-craft had the practice of the science of geometry so well as masons, wherefore he  drew him to council and learned [the] practice of that science to his speculative, for of speculative he was a master, and he loved well masonry and masons. And he became a mason himself, and he gave them charges and names as it is now used in England, and in other countries.._

In other words one of the main important characters of the Legend was a "master of speculation", and speculative part was already part of the Mansonry.
I do not believe, however, that speculative part was about ancient rites or philosophies, with the only exception of Christian hermetism and some oddments of Mithraism, but it has to be seen in more wide way of "thinking and reasoning about how to make the work better". Which work? Not the real stonemason work for sure. The Legend of the Craft has been written from literate persons for literate persons, or at least with a certain level of instruction who could understand the historical characters hidden below the biblical characters used in the text of the Legend. Real stonemason were mostly illiterate and had no basically the time  and the money to get an higher education. 

The ancient Masons instead were literate even if, likely, not everyone had a high education level (considering the mistakes in the names existing in the transmission of the Legend from version to version) but enough to read, write and count and also to perform some studies, otherway it would not have been possible to them to perfect themselves in the Art of Masonic Geometry.


----------



## dfreybur (Jan 23, 2018)

hanzosbm said:


> Perhaps so.  Then again, for me personally, the mystical stuff (for lack of a better term) and my reflection on it, has helped me to become a better man.  I can't say that it works that way for everyone.



I have met some people who seem to define mysticism as the stuff that does not work.  It's not a useful definition so I reject it, but there are enough who use it that why.  I prefer some other meanings.  The stuff that works but we don't know why so it working is not predictable enough to be called a craft.  The system of organizing all knowledge, both correct and incorrect.  As such I take mysticism as the parent of philosophy.  A process of reason looking for formality, were philosophy is a formal process of reason.

Note that one of the highest forms of mysticism is mathematics.  Folks who work mysticism types like hermeticism get puzzled by that.



> It's funny that you mention that the mystical stuff is only one way of doing it.  I had a prospect ask me once if Masonry held the "truth".  I told him that there were absolutely no lessons taught within Masonry that can't be found in another form in another place.  At the time, he seemed a little disappointed by that.  To me, I take comfort in it.  If everyone is teaching the same thing, just in different ways, that must mean that there's really something to it, right?



Asking for THE truth is a topic for epistemology.  That's a branch of philosophy.  Among the seven I suggest it's what we intend by logic.  Or once one has learned logic it's the broader field beyond the basic study of logic.  Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn.


----------



## Bloke (Jan 23, 2018)

dfreybur said:


> ....Note that one of the highest forms of mysticism is mathematics.  Folks who work mysticism types like hermeticism get puzzled by that..., .



I tend to agree, I'm not sure its the math itself, but what it represents, mysterious, abstract and large yet vaguely tangible concepts put into order.. I often think Freemasons miss that in our focus of the Royal Art - Geometry..


----------

