In the 18th century, Rene Descarte postulated the possibilty that the mind is capable of thought completely without influence, without motive. With that proposition, he began the realization of free thought. When we look at a brain or slice of spinal cord, it is hard to understand how that generates colours, self identity or emotion. Science and philosophy have searched in earnest for a unified theory of mind/brain but what of this group that claims to invest our lives in the pursuit of moral development. If we cannot define what we are doing, how can we determine success?
Is moral development little more than ennui?
Looking at a symbol, we are told it contains valuable information, revealed to the worthy. That seems to mean something about motivation. If we are sufficiently motivated to learn the meaning of a symbol, then we should apply the meaning that has been "revealed to the worthy".
But apply it to what? What free will is involved in the hegemony of free masonry? Is this saying that compliance with principles that are not clearly defined is the objective? How then is this free will? Intuitively, I realize this must be wrong.
We are taught that moral development can only be achieved through a fraternal structure, exactly what Hume determined. Is this a contradiction or the the pedagogy of Socrates? On one hand we are student, accepting that we enter the order in darkness, in search of enlightenment. The enlightment requires acts of humility and discreet charity to our fellows; charity for the sake of the ethics; because it is the right thing to do and for no other reason.
Remembering the objective is moral development, are we then predisposed to a belief that answers the question about our state at birth; born in a state of immorality. What is free about a deterministic sense of self? Nothing.
It seems right, to stop here and begin to define our terms. What is self? What is free will? What is this hegemony within free masonry and on what part of a man does it act? Is there an essential question in this for freemasons or does it matter that we have no understanding of what it is that we call "self"? Is it then such a stretch to wonder how we can improve "self" if we do not understand what "self" is?
When I learned that Hume determined that conciousness is the product of social contact, it shocked me, that this contract is one of the cornerstones of masonic philosophy.
Des Carte was slightly unkind to us as he raised the issue of mind vs brain. Even today we search for a unified theory. Neurophilosophers like Patricia Churchland are confident we are coming close
No comments:
Post a Comment