A question for Masonic Light and other Masons

notmindcontrolled

1.Do blacks attend the lodge near you? I never seen any attend here.

I have many Black Masons who I attend Lodge with, mixed Race whatever colour you like.

2. How many oaths, blood oaths have you taken?

The so called Blood oaths are only symbolic in nature, No one has ever actually completed a ritual killing if that is where you are going

3. What does B'nai B'rith and the anti-defomation league have to do with freemasonry. Both of these orginazitions were created by Albert Pike along with the KKK.

Claims have been made that Albert Pike was a high ranking member of the Ku Klux Klan. This is a claim that is impossible to either substantiate or disprove. Research into primary source material will reveal that there isn't any primary source material.

The only writings that would come close to qualifying as a primary source is a booklet written by one of the Klan founders, Captain John C. Lester, in 1884, comprising his reminiscences fifteen years after the fact. The only name noted in Lester's book is one reference to "Gen. Forrest".

4. Do masons believe that their is one god for all religions?

No , the Masonic principle is that it keeps out of all Religions. As far as masonry is concerned you follow the faith of your choice and it will take no part in trying to change you from that path.

I still think that bornze/iron mixed with the same will NOT produce anything higher. I know the point of the myth, but we are arguing about the details of the myth itself. I unfortunately don't have my books out here and I live in a non-English speaking country right now, so I cannot get the info

Theoretically, like would only mate with like; therefore, there would be no silver and bronze couplings. The exception would be that bronze and iron may marry, and raise traditional families, as the are both possessed of craftsman souls. The Guardians and Auxiliaries, however, do not mate with craftsmen because they have wives in common, and do not have traditional families.

Plato paints a free-for-all mating picture, and in fact, by definition, the craftsmen/farmers will be "easier" in the sack compared to the silverlinings, so they will in fact mate.

A couple of points here: Plato was born in 428 BC, while Pythagoras died in 501 B.C., many years before Plato's birth. Secondly, I should have elaborated more on Plato being an aristocrat. If your professor meant that Plato was a member of the aristocratic class in Athens, then of course, he was correct: Plato was indeed born into an aristocratic family, and was therefore himself an aristocrat. My point is simply that Plato despised aristocracy, even though he was born into it; his philosophy taught the virtue of merit in and of itself, without regard to aristocracy, which was corrupt even in Plato's time.

Yup, you are right and I made a mistake, Plato was around from 429-347 B.C.E and Pythagoras was dead before Plato was born, around 475 B.C.E. I meant to say Pythagoras' disciples is who he visited. Was it once or twice that Plato went to Sicily to see the Pythagoreans? I think is was forbidden for Plato to do that, but he went anyway, and brought back knowledge of mathematics he probably didn't have before. As for Aristocracy, as you pointed out, he is a blooded Aristocrat, but moreover, if you take the Republic as an actual view Plato had on society and the state, then by definition he is an aristocrat; he used the tripartite soul as a blueprint for a class structure, or perhaps vice versa, stating that those with Gold in their souls derive the most and highest form of "real" pleasure available, and are the most fit to lead, since they possess the highest human trait in greater quantity than the rest: reason. In this way, he naturally recognizes that genetics determines ones characteristics and decides ones fate in terms of their position on the 3 teired structure. Not that he didn't think nuture could have a positive effect on someone, but he leaned toward genetics deciding mostly what kind of person you would be.

But Masonic Light, we don't know Plato's "true" view, do we? I agree with you to a certain point though, and I think Plato beautifully protrayed someone who had a very sound understading of not only morality, but morality applied to a state: he was pragmatic. However, he does blatantly incorporate a class structure into his Ideal State, and a bold one at that.

The question that burns scholars is exactly what did Plato teach in the Academy, since there is little to show in terms of records. One can assume there was some pretty profound stuff going on in there, since his student Aristotle blew the lid off of Academics and wrote on everything from dream interpretations to literary devices like "tradegy" used in Drama and writing to inventing the syllogism. He was the ultimate scholar, lecturing on Life, Science and Art.

How is Plato not an Aristocrat? even though his Republic does not advocate a Democracy? Aristocracy: People of noble families or the highest social class; a group acknowledged to be superior to all others of the same kind. Based on the Republic, Plato is exactly that. However, I must say this again: that was an entertaining work.

Aristocrats, by their very definition, inculcate succession of powr through family ties. Plato, on the other hand, saw the evil of this: he recognized that a good father could produce a bad son, and vice versa. He was also aware that it was the aristocracy that had murdered Socrates, and would have possibly gotten him too, had he not fled to Italy. By the time he wrote the Republic, we see that he has embraced meritocracy: it did not matter who your family was, as long as you could pass the guardians tests, demonstrating the natural ability to practice wisdom, self-control, virtue, and temperance. This could perhaps be called a "natural aristocracy", in the words of Nietzsche, but it represents something entirely different than the word "aristocracy" as used commonly.

Good points, very good. However, I still think there is some muddy windshields when we talk about bloodlines and the Republic. It appears that in order to be a ruler you have to have gold in your soul, and when Grube talks about Silver being able to produce Gold stamped souls, they actually have to mix with the Gold souls themselves, or in fact the silver souls had a mixture of gold when they were created in the first generation, and it is possible for two silvers to make a gold. From the beginning though, all are related in the Republic, therefore preserving a bloodline. I really have to read it again.

Well, as for your comments about Pythagoras and Masonary, I wonder if Plato actually picked up on the principles of the secret society. Could they have in fact been practicing acient Masonary, that was derived from the Egyptians, since they had a strong interest in the Egyptians, which would have subsequently been derived from Atlantis?

Originally posted by freudling
I still think that bornze/iron mixed with the same will NOT produce anything higher. I know the point of the myth, but we are arguing about the details of the myth itself...However, I still think there is some muddy windshields when we talk about bloodlines and the Republic. It appears that in order to be a ruler you have to have gold in your soul, and when Grube talks about Silver being able to produce Gold stamped souls, they actually have to mix with the Gold souls themselves, or in fact the silver souls had a mixture of gold when they were created in the first generation, and it is possible for two silvers to make a gold. From the beginning though, all are related in the Republic, therefore preserving a bloodline."

The point I had wished to make is that, in the Republic, there is only ine bloodline, a result of all the inhabitants being kindred. The hierarchical differences between the three classes therefore come not from blood, but from the innate nature of the individual soul. Because everyone are related, bronze souls would sometimes produce gold souls in offsprings because they are the same bloodline, i.e., family, of the guardians. The Allegory of the Metals involves only the quality of the soul, not of parentage. Plato considered it more likely that gold would produce gold, and bronze would produce bronze, but recognized that it would not always be the case This is the only reason why all children would be educated and tested equally, i.e., to see the merit of their own souls.

Just because one's parents are farmers does not mean he will fail the test of the guardians; and just because his parents are guardians does not mean he will pass. At least theoretically, Plato gives a glimpse of a perfectly equitable society. Not only in that each has equal opportunity to become rulers; (after all, in the Republic, the rulers have it rather hard, while the craftsmen have it made). But also that each is perfectly free to live up to his potential according to how nature has formed in.

Plato paints a free-for-all mating picture, and in fact, by definition, the craftsmen/farmers will be "easier" in the sack compared to the silverlinings, so they will in fact mate.

The Guardians and Auxiliaries are forbidden by law to have traditional families, for several reasons. The main one being that it may impair their judgement in regard to accumulating wealth for them, which would turn the Republic into just another aristocracy, i.e., what Athens already was. But the Cradtsmen were permitted to hold private property and money, and were therefore allowed to traditional families.

As for Aristocracy, as you pointed out, he is a blooded Aristocrat, but moreover, if you take the Republic as an actual view Plato had on society and the state, then by definition he is an aristocrat; he used the tripartite soul as a blueprint for a class structure, or perhaps vice versa, stating that those with Gold in their souls derive the most and highest form of "real" pleasure available, and are the most fit to lead, since they possess the highest human trait in greater quantity than the rest: reason. In this way, he naturally recognizes that genetics determines ones characteristics and decides ones fate in terms of their position on the 3 teired structure. Not that he didn't think nuture could have a positive effect on someone, but he leaned toward genetics deciding mostly what kind of person you would be.

It does appear that Plato viewed genetics as a strong factor, which in fact it is. The works of Darwin have demonstrated this. But what I find interesting is Plato's views that those who are the most fit rulers, who have the most naturally ability to be the ruling class, are in fact crushed by the scalawags who rule monarchies and democracies. And, at least to me, this is the most important point.

Plato's view is that those who are most fit to rule refuse any part of it because ruling in monarchies and democracies is corrupted through greed. These would be those, who as Guardians of the Republic, existed only on grain, rice, and water, refusing even to eat sweets and pastries. It would seem that such men and women are superior in virtue and wisdom to the rest of us. They don't become rulers by fleecing the public into voting for them; rather, they were carefully trained and tested all of their lives to prepare them for the awesome responsibility, a responsibility which our current world leaders take extremely lightly in comparison.

I don't think it is necessary for Plato to invent class distinctions; it seems that Nature has taken care of that Herself. There will always be those whose natures are best suited to be carpenters, while others better serve by being quantum physicists. The latter is not superior to the former, but serves a different function.

But, whether by nature or by nurture or by (as I suspect) a combination of both, there does deem to be those superior to the rest of us. Mahatma Ganhdi and Mother Theresa are two perfect examples. It seems they would have qualified as guardians, and could be trusted with that responsibility.

As for me, I enjoy cupcakes, beer, and pizza far too much to be a good guardian.

[edit on 30-1-2005 by Masonic Light]

Originally posted by freudling
Well, as for your comments about Pythagoras and Masonary, I wonder if Plato actually picked up on the principles of the secret society. Could they have in fact been practicing acient Masonary, that was derived from the Egyptians, since they had a strong interest in the Egyptians, which would have subsequently been derived from Atlantis?

It is almost certain that Plato had been initiated into the Eleusinian Mysteries, as he makes constant reference to them, through the Socratic character, as the teacher of virtue. He was probably sponsored for initiation by Socrates himself.

As for the origin of the mysteries, I tend to agree with Pike, believe they can be found along the Ganges, having eventually migrated to Egypt and Greece in various forms.

Concerning Atlantis, I'm not convinced that this was anymore than another of Plato's "noble falsehoods", hehehe. It is possible that the story had existed in oral tradition before Plato, but it's also possible that he made it up in order to allegorize his Dialogue. Nevertheless, most myths contain a grain of truth, and it is likewise possible that something similar to Plato's story of Atlantis actually happened in the distant past.

Ok, on Plato's Republic....

Now I'll be the first to admit that I don't know very much about this. Pretty much what I've read on this thread. But, if Plato's origins for the "Republic" were based on misleading the decendants by a biblical creation type myth (false since they would be transplanted there) and that they were all related (possible, but very unlikely). Who would be fit to be leaders until the first child was born/tested and passed? By Plato's own laws none of the "original" founders of the Republic would not be worthy of being Guardians since they all would be lying about the origins of the Republic. This is using the idea that lying would be an idicator that a person would be corruptable.

Maybe I'm way off here....thinking too much into it *shrug* who knows. Just curious of your opinion.

As a kid, I couldn't see why society wasn't willingly led by the most intelligent.

Yeah, Plato's theories appealed to me then.

Since then, I have realized that ANY elitist theory will be high-jacked not by those most suited to the task (in this case, the smartest society has to offer) but instead, it will be highjacked by those that are CURRENTLY most powerful.

My whole life I have looked for evidence of actual transference of power, but the more you look, the more obvious it becomes only the FACE changes, only the FRONT is recycled. The real power stays in the same hands.

Masonic Light:

I agree with most everything you have said, but my interpretation of the souls mixture (quantity or quality) is that a "Gold natured" soul can be traced back to an original gene pool and as I described earlier, the mixture preserves a bloodline. When the Republic started, some had more Gold than others (quality on your view and I agree). Others had less quality of Gold and some had none at all. It is the mixture of parental "soul quality", like Mendellian Genetics, that gives the possibility of "better" qualitied souls: true, the craftsmen can create guardians, but the parents had to have had a mix of gold in their souls to produce such a child, then the child goes through testing. That Gold mixture was passed on through generations beginning with the first generation Gold elements that were mixed in the beginning of the Republic throughout the populus, some getting more than others. But yes, I like your label ine bloodline, and I agree. That is the fun thing with Plato, is that his discourse, which contains a large breadth of allegories and myths, can be interpreted quite "scientifically", and thus more literal, or one can take a less scientific take. Look what that myth has brought up with us:

(1) Nature vs. Nurture
(2) Psychology (soul quality)
(3) Genetics (on a more scientific view)
(4) Political science
(5) Class structure, a Meso-scopic take
(6) Evolution

As for the mixing of soul preserve, here are some combinations: the results of offspring can easily be predicted by use of Punnett squares:
(n)= no gold
GG=Gold
SS= Silver
BB= Bronze
Some possible mixtures of soul preserve from the citizens: [SS, SS], [SS(n), SS], [SS, BB(n)], [SS, GG], [SS(n), GG], [BB(n), BB(n)], [GG, GG], [GG, BB(n)].

By using punnett squares, we can get the probability of offspring containing Gold in their souls.
I really have to read it again to get Plato's own words on the whole mating campaign, since it has been years and I am going off rather distant memory: that is where you come in Masonic Light!

As for aristocracy, I must say again that in a modern context, I agree with you and I do not think Plato meets the definition of an aristocrat. True, we are only talking about a myth, but that myth covers a lot of ground meant to induce this kind of discourse: discerning specifics.

Golfie:
First, lying is actually reduced to the Noble FALSEHOOD. FALSE. It has been decided that it is just to falsify certain things because it is in the benefit of all who make up the Republic. Thus, it should not be taken as someone who is corruptable. To really understand this, the Philsopher Kings, having ascended from the ranks, look at the citizens as children of the Divine, as very important elements and necessary ones of the state. In this way, they are, well, the parents of these children. It is like when your parents tell that your dead dog went to another family because it had a flea problem. The next day you guys get a new dog to fill the void. Well, with the Philosopher Kings, they have carefully thought out what is best, in the longterm for the Republic and justify lying here and there as a result.

To answer the question about the beginnings of the Republic, I can't think of an easy answer for you on that. Remember, it is, in the end, a myth. Perhaps Plato and Company will be the "Shadow Government" of it, and oversee its inception

[edit on 31-1-2005 by freudling]

Freudling is correct that the Republic is just a myth. Plato presumably believed the company in the argument would set up the state and choose the first guardians. This company consisted of Socrates, Glaucon, Adeimantus, Polemarchus, Thrasymachus, and Plato himself (although he doesn't mention himself in the Dialogue).

Perhaps, to those not familiar with the Republic, it would be advantageous to say just exactly why this group of "Platonic conversationalists" (to quote Allen Ginsberg), were forming a utopian state on paper in the first place.

They were talking about Justice, and trying to ascertain what it actually was, and if it is more profitable to be just than unjust, or vice versa. Thrasymachus claimed that it is more profitable to be unjust. Socrates then attempted to show that Justice is always more profitable, even in itself, regardless of its results.

To do so, Socrates first says that he has to figure out exactly what Justice is. He then claims it will be easier to see Justice in something large, like a Greek city-state; after it is found there, then we can apply what we find to the individual.

Most of the argument has been summarized already. In the imaginary city, there are three classes, and each class performs the work they were by nature designed for, which allows them both the ultimate expression of their individuality, as well as contributing to the whole. Since all are in accord with nature, there is no internal strife among the classes, as there are in other states. Each member of the Republic is happy because each is performing the duty allocated him by his own soul.

The four virtues (Wisdom, Courage, Moderation, and Justice) are then pinpointed in the City. From the argument, it is seen that wisdom is with the guardians who initiate pious laws, courage is with the auxiliaries who fight for virtuous principles in defending the laws and the city, moderation comes from the better ruling over the lesser, and Justice is that which is left over, i.e., each class performing the duties nature has assigned it without meddling in the affairs of the other.

Since Plato has now defined the virtues of the "truly good state", he then applies them to the soul. Like the city, he says, the soul is also composed of three analogous classes, which he calls the reasoning, spirited, and appetitive parts, corresponding to the guardians, auxiliaries, and craftsmen respectively. He demonstrates the correctness of this hypothesis by showing that one thing cannot perform two opposite actions at once. For example, the reasoning part of our souls are often in a civil war with the part of our souls that contain the passions; this shows a soul divided into parts, with each part wanting something different. The argument is to detailed to go into at length here, but interested parties are referred to Plato's book. Suffice it to say that he demonstrates the threefold nature of the soul in a consistent and logical manner.

He then applies the city's virtues to the individual soul. Wisdom consists of legislating power being given only to the soul's guardian, which is reason. Courage is the outcome of the spirited part of the soul supporting the laws that the reasoning part legislates, willing to fight for and defend that which it believes in. Moderation comes with the better (i.e., reason) ruling over the lesser (the spirited and appetitive parts), and justice in the soul comes from each part performing its own natural function, without meddling in the others.

Take, for example, an alcoholic. He knows that alcohol is bad for him, but his appetite is stronger than his reason, and he succumbs. According to Plato, this is injustice in the soul; the appetitive class is attempting to usurp the natural authority of reason. This results in civil war within the soul, just as it would in the City if an inferior class rebelled against just authority.

Therefore, the primary reason of forming the City is to find out how we should order our own souls, even if the City remains a myth. But it would nevertheless be difficult to argue that ordering the soul would be much different from ordering the state in this regard. If the soul could be ordered in this fashion, then why not the state? If such ordering is good in the soul, would it be different in the state, and why or why not?

Plato's Republic can be read in full here.

This is the 1871 Jowett translation.

[edit on 31-1-2005 by Masonic Light]

Thanks for the clarification.

Obviously since I am not well versed (by any stretch of the imagination) in the Republic, you could see where my layman's logic was misguided.

Thanks ML - Masonic Light that is.

Logo, you have a fundemental misunderstanding of Masonry. Masonry is not about anyone but ME. It's about changing ME! Part of being a moral person is helping my brothers and keeping their secrets, so long as those secrets dont hurt anyone else.

Originally posted by meltona2
Logo, you have a fundemental misunderstanding of Masonry. Masonry is not about anyone but ME. It's about changing ME! Part of being a moral person is helping my brothers and keeping their secrets, so long as those secrets dont hurt anyone else.

EXACTLY.

I would direct you to this short article written by a certain Brother R. Theron Dunn, to further illustrate this point.

[edit on 2/1/05 by The Axeman]

Just like the P2 scandal with Italian Freemasonry.

Those secrets didn't hurt anybody.

Originally posted by akilles
Just like the P2 scandal with Italian Freemasonry.

Those secrets didn't hurt anybody.

Well... the P2 Lodge wasn't Freemasonry in the context that you would normally use it. It was thrown out of regular Masonry years prior to the scandal.

Oh, ok. Masonry threw it out, but they didn't KNOW there was any wrongdoing? Cause they would have to report that.


I mean, separating your group from another one a few months before a MASSIVE scandal breaks really means you knew about the scandal, and did nothing, except try to distance yourself.

Here's a lesson for you Leveller:
Disinformation Agent: Someone who dribbles out legitimate information, this is often done to build up a person's credentials (bona fides). Lots of the people who are pretending to expose the NWO are spoon-feeder agents who provide a little new information, tons of already known secrets, and sprinkle in a measure of disinformation for added fun. Generally spoon-feeders increase their percentage of disinformation once they gain respectability.

Just trying to keep you on your toes in this era of Deception, Leveller, don't feel bad that you have been continually deceived (or helped deceive).

Originally posted by akilles
I mean, separating your group from another one a few months before a MASSIVE scandal breaks really means you knew about the scandal, and did nothing, except try to distance yourself.
Just trying to keep you on your toes in this era of Deception, Leveller, don't feel bad that you have been continually deceived (or helped deceive).

I don't feel bad at all. Thanks for the concern though.
For anyone who cares to know the truth regarding P2, here is a link.

www.masonicinfo.com...

It's probably better that you don't click on that, akilles. You'd only have to write about how it's all lies and disinformation and we wouldn't want you to get bored writing the same old repetetive thing again would we?

Originally posted by akilles
Oh, ok. Masonry threw it out, but they didn't KNOW there was any wrongdoing? Cause they would have to report that.

Actually, they did. Most Worshipful Brother Francesco Siniscalchi, on behalf of the Grand Orient of Italy, filed a report with the Public Prosecutor of Rome in 1975, following the expulsion of all of P2's members from Freemasonry. This was 6 years before the scandal broke out.

Next time, it would help if you check your "facts".

[edit on 1-2-2005 by Masonic Light]

You know, I've had a change of heart about you Masons.

Can I get a list of Members in Ontario, Canada. So that if I meet one, I can ask him.

I just want the list so I can ask the right person to sponsor me, I wouldn't want anyone involved in religion or politics to sponsor me, giving anyone the wrong idea about my intentions.

You can get all the details you want from their website.

www.grandlodge.on.ca...