Originally written as an anonymous guest blog for Jay Simser. Please note, the main article is serious. The conclusion makes full use of irony. So for those of you who are humor impaired, don't read the last couple lines.
I am still (and will be for a while) reading
War and Peace. This weekend I was reading a section where a girl (not so
young, almost an old maid based on the thoughts of that time) was thinking about
her older brother, and wondering how events in his life were affecting his
"moral" being. I pondered this, trying to figure out just how the word
"moral" applied. (I just checked in my electronic version of the book, and
different words are used in that translation.) The syntax seemed to reflect
more on his mental state and well being, rather than to his behavior.
I checked with wictionary, and they have the usual definitions
of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behaviour, especially for
teaching right behavior--moral judgments, a moral poem
conforming to a standard of right behaviour; sanctioned by or operative on
one's conscience or ethical judgment--a moral obligation
capable of right and wrong action--moral agent
Synonyms
(conforming to a standard or right behavior): ethical, virtuous,
righteous, noble
But then they continue:
probable but not proved--a moral certainty
positively affecting the mind, confidence or will--a moral victory, moral
support
Synonyms
(provable but not proved): virtual, incorruptable
These latter definitions are definitely still valid; we still use those
phrases, but we don't normally think of them as morality. They actually are
more closely related to the word "morale." Morale is defined in my Merriam
Webster dictionary as:
the mental and emotional condition (enthusiams, confidence) of an individual
with regard to the function or task at hand
a sense of common purpose with respect to a group
the level of individual psychological well-being based on such factors as a
sense of purpose and confidence in the future
In many ways, these latter definitions seem as closely aligned to the principles
of Freemasonry as those related to ethics.
Since I am somewhat of a skeptic, and always willing to look at things
differently, the following question jumped into my mind. Which morality was
intended when first Preston and then Webb wrote their "Illustrations of
Freemasonry"? Were they the same? What is meant when we say that Freemasonry
is a system or a science of "morality"? Of course, today we interpret the word
as we currently believe its meaning to be. It must obviously be related to
right and wrong behavior, and is synonymous with ethics and virtuous behavior.
But remember, Tolstoy was writing in the middle 19th century, not that long
after Preston. (Of course he was writing in Russion and French, not English.)
And he was writing about the very early 19th century, which was almost
contemporary with Preston. How was the word used back then? Could it be that
the Fraternity of Freemasons was actually designed to be a system to expand the
mind and increase the confidence of its members, not to imrpove their ethics and
behavior? That would certainly be compatible with the extensive study of
science promoted in the Fellowcraft Degree.
Preston says that the FC Degree provides a complete "system of science, based on
a solid foundation". He says that the EA Degree provides a "system of morality"
which MUST be the solid foundation for the FC Degree. Having a system of
science based on certainty, confidence, and a positive mind could make more
sense than one based on ethics and virtue, especially at a time when science,
the study of "what is", was replacing the religion based philosophies of "what
must be". The early days of the fraternity were exemplified by socializing,
drinking, and the development of self serving networks--FRATERNITY. So when did
the conversion to ethics and virtue get involved. It was definitely there in
some form during Tolstoy's time.
Tolstoy's Freemasons, at least some of them,
were serious about improving themselves, living uprightly, and contributing to
the betterment of society. Perhaps there was a "mystical" fringe element of the
group who subborned the mission of the fraternity to their own ends, converting
its purposes, changing its ritual, completely redefining its function. Ahah, so
there really was a conspiracy!
We've been taken over by a bunch of do gooders.
I wonder what they did with the treasure.