|
Post by Tamrin on Jun 19, 2010 9:26:29 GMT 10
At this juncture, I intentionally ceased my participation in the conversation, for the sake of harmony. He who does not understand your silence will probably not understand your words
Elbert Hubbard (Born this day 1856)
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jun 19, 2010 10:38:29 GMT 10
Subsequent emails in this exchange (which I may now disclose are with Dr. Bob James) are as follows:
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jun 19, 2010 10:52:40 GMT 10
Philip, thanks for all that - I shall apologise for you on 1 July, along with Ian who will be in hospital. I admire what you are doing on the various 'threads' tho' I don't understand how to be part of it myself - perhaps you could show me??? I hope the evening is suitably enlightening. If need be, I will gladly show you how to participate here. In the meantime, if you click on the "register" icon near the top of the page, I'm sure you will find the process pretty straight-forward, you'll need to wait for me to approve your application, which I will do ASAP. Next, I suggest you click on the "help" icon (on the same line), which simply describes all you need to participate.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jun 19, 2010 11:01:29 GMT 10
As to the content, it seems from what I've seen, you've been a bit selective. Cryer doesn't 'spell out' what he believes is the essence of Freemasonry, but in a round-about way he attempts to. After dismissing other opinions, Cryer states quite clearly and unambiguously (pp.108/9):
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jun 19, 2010 11:12:50 GMT 10
Neither you nor your correspondents have had access to all correspondence relevant to the 'esoteric' issue, and your correspondents have not had access to all/any of? my relevant writing on the question of 'History' and SF and thus their comments are unfortunate at best. They are quite ignorant and seem to me to be part of the problem with which I'm trying to deal. As you may recall, I was flooded with correspondence regarding the issue, some of which I forwarded to you (names omitted). I expect no one person (yourself included) has had access to all the relevant information and if you can help repair our loss we, no doubt, would be glad to reciprocate, so as to help address the problem with which we are trying to deal.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jun 19, 2010 11:20:02 GMT 10
As it happens my full draft paper has been distributed to members of Discovery L of Research so that discussion on 1 July can be as robust as possible. There is no reason to be shy about providing the full draft, nor about providing my name or my whole Masonic bio. After having received the draft paper from you, I have also received the subsequent copy from the research lodge. May I please attach it here? I will post your whole Masonic bio if you will first provide me with a copy (alternatively, you may have it as part of an introductory post, if you choose to directly participate here).
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jun 19, 2010 11:30:31 GMT 10
I don't own to being one of a group called 'historians' who hold to some sort of group think. I think you at least might have realized by now that my take on these matters is not shared by any who might be labelled 'historian' inside or outside SF, and that much of the problem facing SF, especially in Australia has resulted from what has been written about Freemasonry by so-called 'historians' and by people who have based their understanding of SF on those so-called 'histories'. I'm sure many your past academic colleagues and your present masonic brethren will be surprised by this denial, especially as some preferment appears to be due to your formal qualifications: Will you be returning your doctorate? As I recall, you have on occasions identified yourself as a historian, especially a "labour historian." That aside, we might substitute instances here of the term "historian" with whatever label you chose adopt and see if the meaning of the contextual text is substantially altered.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jun 19, 2010 11:47:10 GMT 10
The two simple points I make for the moment is that any organisation (club, society, corporation, political party, etc, etc) which chooses not to learn from its past will inevitably fail. I agree that some carefully considered, warts and all, historical research is important. I simply maintain that it is not nearly as important as you imagine. It is not for everyone and a Brother may still be considered a worthy asset to the Craft who has no interest in the subject. In a sense, the extreme stance you are maintaining is akin to "gamblers' fallacy," where past occurrences are thought to influence subsequent, chance outcomes. Similarly, to go back to the driving analogy, when asking directions, while one's past navigation may have brought one to a particular place, what is now important is our present location and where we want to go. Again I qualify this with an admission of some exaggeration in the case of Freemasonry: My admitted exaggeration is due to our rituals being a peculiar form of enduring, temporal artifacts, which exist and change by virtue of their performance and transmission from generation to generation.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jun 19, 2010 11:58:46 GMT 10
Secondly, that anyone who wishes to know what I think needs to read 'They Call Each Other Brother' and not make judgements on the basis of a few brief, filtered quotes. And it seems that despite the long time we've been discussing these things, Philip, you need to read it too. There are many masonic authorities and, while I respect your opinions, I also respect many of the others, including Cryer. If you wish to clarify any representation of your opinions here, you are free to do so. I might point out that, while unnamed in your paper, I too feel misrepresented.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jun 19, 2010 12:00:12 GMT 10
I hope that you will 'post' this email on your forum, if that's the right word. Cheers, Bob Done.
|
|