On the Use and Abuse of History for the Life of Freemasonry A Nietzschean critique of the reverence for things from “time immemorial”

by Midnight Freemason Contributor

Patrick Dey

Perhaps one of his most important essays by Friedrich Nietzsche for anyone concerned with history and the study thereof is his “The Use and Abuse of History for Life” in his Untimely Meditations (sometimes published as Thoughts out of Season). Now, the focus of this work is the study of history “for life.” It is important that history serves life. Because, well… what’s the point of anything if it does not serve life?

In this work, Nietzsche will outline three types of studies of history: monumental, antiquarian, and critical. The monumental is the reverence for the past, and this has its uses. Monumental history serves life by inspiring us to live this life and make it grand for ourselves. A monument that exemplifies hate, enslavement, death, and ruin… well, that’s not conducive to life, and so we don’t need such things from history. Being concerned with “what would the Founding Fathers say?” monumentalizes their outdated opinions and shuts down anything new for life. It reveres the old just because it is old, and focuses on what was, and does not support the changing tides of the present, and therefore is no longer conducive to life going into the future.

The second, the antiquarian method, is about the preservation of the past. This certainly has its uses. It preserves the past for us to have today. It is concerned with accuracy, rather than mythologization. However, it can become dangerous when it is only concerned with pure accuracy, basically making mummies. In which event, the antiquarian method functions to serve death, not life. Think of instances of items of exotic cultures that are still in use today by the cultures where they originate, but they sit in a museum where no one can use it. There was an instance recently where a woman from Southeast Asia saw a statue of a god that her people still worship today, and so she began to do a dance in reverence to the god. Then one of the security guards told her to stop and leave. This is exactly what Nietzsche warned of when it came to the antiquarian approach. We can’t use it, though it could be useful to life, it must be quietly pondered over as a curiosity, and not something to be actively engaged.

I will return to the third method, the critical method in a moment, because it is this second type of approach to history that I think Freemasonry today falls into.

In a previous essay I wrote for this blog on Artaud and the Theater of Cruelty, I described letter-perfect rituals as being like a mummy in a museum. And this is exactly what I meant, in a very Nietzschean sense. What does doing letter-perfect ritual serve for the life of our fraternity? Or any of the brothers, especially the candidate? It only serves the ego of the brother delivering the letter-perfect ritual. If ritual is only meant to be absorbed perfectly and regurgitated perfectly, then what is it serving, other than itself? It is not alive. In that essay, I advocated for more tolerance of embellishments, ad hoc, improvised ritual, which is continuously changing and transforming, like a living thing.

Take for instance a piece of ritual that gets on my nerves: “Murder and treason excepted.” Who says things like this anymore? No one. To quote Tyler Durden: “Don’t do it the way those dead people do it!” And there’s a good reason to change the wording here. For one, today when we want to “except” something, we put it before the object, not after. Second, today when we want to “accept” something we frequently put it after the object. And “except” and “accept” sound pretty similar. I have known a few candidates who realized while they were learning their catechism that it was “excepted,” and they felt embarrassed that they actually said “accepted” during the obligation. So why don’t we switch it to “except murder and treason”? Is it really that big of a deal? Is that not more conducive to the way our living language functions today better than the way those dead people did it?

Of course, it does not just stop with ritual. Why do we repeatedly refer back to the language of the Constitution as composed by Desaguliers (erroneously attributed to Anderson)? Does worrying about what a bunch of dead people wanted for the fraternity really serve the life of the fraternity today? The Constitution of 1723 will be invoked to deny persons of color or homosexuals from being made Masons, but no one bats an eye when it is pointed out that the 1723 Constitution allows Entered Apprentices and Fellow Crafts to vote. The question should not be “What would Anderson say?” but “Is this conducive to the life of Freemasonry and its members?”

This is where the critical historical method comes in. It allows for mythologization, it allows for innovation, and it allows for growth. Yet, this too has a danger: because critical history is always judging, it will constantly moralize the past based on the morals of the present. Think of instances of people calling for the atrocities committed in the past, such as genocide, enslavement, colonization, et cetera to be apologized for and reparations made. In a way, acknowledging the truth of the past is important, as this is what antiquarian history is about, and memorializing it allows us to never forget such things happened, in the hopes that such monuments will serve life by not allowing them to happen again.

But judging the past based on our morals today does not suit Nietzsche. It is not conducive to life, because judging history is something that only God can do, and… well… God is dead (according to Nietzsche). Critiquing the past is necessary because it allows us to grow and to learn, but if we do too much of it, it destroys all of history, because we have erased everything due to our judgments today.

Let’s use Christopher Columbus as an example. Those who critique the past view him with absolute disdain, and our current morals lead to the need to villainize him in every way possible, which ends up destroying history. Take for instance a meme you might have seen that attempts to demonstrate that Columbus and his crew brought syphilis back to Europe, because alpacas carry syphilis, thus insinuating that Columbus… yep, you get it. However, while alpacas do carry syphilis, so do goats, cattle, sheep, and pretty much any hoofed animal carries syphilis, and those were already in Europe. The need to condemn Columbus in every way possible ends up destroying history because it has over-critiqued. That’s not to say Columbus was a bright and shining example of the best human ever born — far from it. He and his crew did some atrocious things. Acknowledging those things is important, but not at the expense of destroying history, especially if it does not serve life. What does it serve to say that Columbus committed bestiality? It doesn’t. And this is the danger of critical history.

For Nietzsche, it is important to be a little “mad.” You can’t be purely scientific, making mummies, or destroying with endless critiques. We need a little bit of both creativity and accuracy, fact and myth — the historian should be both a saint and a sinner. A mix of monumental, antiquarian, and critical history is needed, and being purely of one method over another is dangerous, as described above.

This is a perspective to consider the next time you may deal with situations in which an old Past Master says, “Back in my day, we…” They are monumentalizing their history, expecting things from the past to never change. They invoke the past, their past, and shut down anything new. It is not inspiring for the life of the fraternity going into the future. In fact, saying “Back in my day…” really just serves to make everyone feel bad that anything ever changed.

So, keep this all in mind the next time someone criticizes you for messing up a word in your ritual. Ask them what does letter-perfect ritual serve? What good does it do other than to serve itself, a means to an end, and not an end of means? Why can’t a word or phrase change from time to time?

And I myself am pretty critical of Masonic history. From time to time I do “Mythbusting” for the Whence Came You? podcast. From time to time I get a response from a brother that I am destroying the myths Masons love so dearly. Sometimes I am okay with the myths. Such as the Temple Legend that is described by Rudolf Steiner. I am not okay with him claiming it belongs to Masons and Rosicrucians. It was inspired by Masonry, but it is a narrative of poetic beauty and suffering, belonging to the poet Gérard de Nerval. We should interpret Masonry through de Nerval’s vision, and not the other way around. Yet, other times I am not okay with the myths, such as that of the forget-me-not, because it attempts to — ironically — forget the past and replace actual history with some feel-good story of poor, pitiful Masonry that was too weak to sustain itself against the violent tide of fascism. When, in fact, most German Masons renounced Masonry and signed with the National Socialist Party.

I am not a purist. I endeavor to be Nietzschean in my approach to history, namely, being a little “schizo” (to crib Deleuze and Guattari), and mixing all three methods together. Such provides a good balance for the Masonic fraternity, keeping it in check against stagnation, as well as against making Freemasonry into a perfectly preserved mummy, but also not destroying its history entirely. But what is always most important that we always bear in mind: is our approach to Masonic history and culture conducive to the life of the fraternity and its members? If it’s not, then it should not concern us. If it is, it is worth fighting for and engaging in.

tl;dr history should serve life, our life today.

~PD

 Patrick M. Dey is a Past Master of Nevada Lodge No. 4 in the ghost town of Nevadaville, Colorado, and currently serves as their Secretary, and is also a Past Master of Research Lodge of Colorado. He is a Past High Priest of Keystone Chapter No. 8, Past Illustrious Master of Hiram Council No. 7, Past Commander of Flatirons Commandery No. 7, and serves as the Secretary-Recorder of all three. He currently serves as the Exponent (Suffragan) of Colorado College, SRICF of which he is VIII Grade (Magister), and is a member of Gofannin Council No. 315 AMD and Kincora Council No. 8 Knight Masons. He is a facilitator for the Masonic Legacy Society, is the Editor of the Rocky Mountain Mason magazine, serves on the Board of Directors of the Grand Lodge of Colorado’s Library and Museum Association, and is the Deputy Grand Bartender of the Grand Lodge of Colorado (an ad hoc, joke position he is very proud to hold). He holds a Masters of Architecture degree from the University of Colorado, Denver, and works in the field of architecture in Denver, where he resides with wife and son.

What Freemasonry Teaches: We Don’t Know

by Midnight Freemason Contributor

RWB Robert H. Johnson

“What facts, theory or doctrine does the Grand Lodge expect the Committee on Masonic Information to inculcate? The Grand Lodge has not said. Obviously, it is not to teach what is in the ritual, for that is already thoroughly taken care of. What is the Grand Lodge’s authorized and approved version of the history of Freemasonry? It has none, except what is found in ritual. What is the Grand Lodge’s interpretation of the symbolism of Freemasonry? It hasn’t any, except the ritual. What is the Doctrine of the Grand Lodge about the philosophy, religion, or principles of Freemasonry? Obviously nothing, except what is already taught in the ritual. Therefore, if your committee circulates any information at all, it must be in addition to the only authorized doctrine of the Grand Lodge, viz., the ritual. Hence, we have the anomaly of a committee officially and solemnly authorized to disseminate unauthorized materials.”

These words are from the Committee on Masonic Information (Formerly Education), under the Grand Lodge of the state of California, in the proceedings for 1947, Pg 206. What is outlined is something we all know deep down, but have little patience or stomach to digest. This idea that what we have, has no meaning outside the ritual. This is stated by numerous Grand Lodges all around the world, if not in print than certainly by inaction. There is an inherent ideology which prevents a lodge or Grand Lodge in the United States at least, from stating that any one symbol means anything concrete. Sure, we offer new members small pamphlets on our history, who some famous masons were and outline a few rules a Mason should live by and if you’re extremely lucky, there might be an allusion to some deeper concepts.

Hence the mystery of our origins before recorded proceedings. The mystery of our operative ancestors and innumerable tomes of speculation regarding the teachings, what they mean and why we do them are readily available to anyone to read, open for further speculation and writing, even by those without the slightest expertise. We only have printed and documented proof of our existence, which is tainted at times and in some cases anecdotal evidence by second and third source parties.

The documented history of Freemasonry therefore, has had the most credible and accurate writings. But our craft isn’t about teaching its modern history. If it were, our first brethren would be studying what they had literally just accomplished. It is supposed to be a “Peculiar system of morality, veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols” Or in other words, a different system of a way of living, taught with stories and depicted through pictures or symbols. But what are these teachings?

Is it simply Love for all mankind, Faith in a God and Hope in an afterlife? Almost no one agrees that it is as simple as this. Authors such as; Manly P. Hall, Arthur Edward Waite, Blavatsky, Doyle, Pirtle, Pottenger, Steinmetz, Krieger and a slew of writers living today argue that there is indeed a deep symbolism of the degrees. Ideas vary from author to author, but suffice it to say that the main take away is that; Freemasonry is truly ancient perhaps antediluvian in nature. It teaches the idea of a perfection of man or apotheosis. It teaches that there is a secret doctrine and that absolute practice of these realized concepts within the mind of the initiate leads to a true spiritual awakening to something commonly referred to as a Cosmic Consciousness.

These concepts are truly mind boggling to some. They are even offensive to others, especially when these ideas clash with the religious theology of the person so reading it. It can create a deep division of the mind if one is a Freemason, who is of the persuasion of a theosophy which is incompatible with these seemingly enlightened ideas and is reading these texts. One tends to shut down in these instances. We call this cognitive dissonance. An inconsistency in thought patterns regarding information put to the reader. It’s too convenient to keep believing the wrong information than it is to subject yourself to the new information that’s been presented, whether factual historical record or perhaps peer reviewed scholarly written esoterica.

But what do we know? There is nothing out there which affirms that these posited ideas of our actual purpose are absolute. We know for certain our craft has innumerable made up concepts to deal with the many areas we cover. Look at a Masonic ring, it might have, as a design, three etches on each side. When the buyer asks if this is because it symbolizes the three degrees, the seller says, “Yes!” But to be sure, it was actually just designed that way, no symbolism intended. Somehow we feel a need to fill in the gaps, it’s the way our minds work.

The Landmarks of Freemasonry are a prime example of creating something that was non existent. They were written based on lose ideas presented in any one of the diverse manuscripts which exist for your intimate perusal. These are as ancient as the 1800s, when Mackey and others laid them out, for the first time. Again, we have a human need to organize, write down, reference and categorize everything.

There are those who claim our [Freemasonry's] origin is from Ancient Egypt, and much has been written about this. However, there are also scholars who claim this is absolute nonsense. That we came from the descendants of Noah, again, nonsense. Why nonsense? Because there is no factual historical record to be examined. Where we came from lends to the credibility of what we are said to teach. E.g. If we came from Ancient Egypt, than perhaps we would truly value the magical elements of ritual. If we came from Ancient Greece, perhaps we would value more the sacred geometry.

The question remains, what does Freemasonry teach? Certainly, Grand Lodges refrain from taking a stance on what it is, we wouldn’t want to alienate hundreds of thousands of members. So we’re left with the maxim, “Freemasonry is many things to a great many people.” This just isn't satisfying, and perhaps it is the reason for all the appendant bodies. Believers of certain paths can join up and get active in one or several other “Masonic” groups dedicated to theosophical ideologies or perhaps just to have a social club.

Certainly brethren, we are more than Faith, Hope and Love. We should indeed admit to ourselves that the esoteric ideas which are written of our craft, which are not so much authorized interpretations shared by any Grand Lodge are most likely the product of Renaissance and Enlightenment period members joining our ranks and influencing the direction of the craft. For in our fraternity was a safe haven for these free thinkers, these titans of philosophy and romantic chroniclers.

It is thanks to these members that we have a craft left at all. A craft who’s documented origin is that of operative, that is, actual stone masons and their guilds in which obligations were taken over the guilds bylaws, not it’s holy book. From this, we sprang forth. A society who's chief concern was that of Unity. An influx of free thinkers then came into the craft, and changed it forever. This fraternity is in a constant state of change.

In the end, we teach ritual. We teach how to make a square corner, hold your rod and how to memorize words. “You forgot a word in there.” “You did a back hook step instead of a prep step.” We’ve heard it all, haven’t we? The ritual vultures leave no ritual uncorrected. If we only teach ritual, than what is the supposition? If there’s nothing deeper, what is the point? If you argue that the ritual teaches something else, than what is it? And why hasn’t it been stated officially?

To be sure, there are some Grand Lodges which have made tantalizing statements in the materials given to the members. See the Illinois Grand Lodge Committee on Masonic Education’s Intender Guide; “The Master Mason Degree Proficiency Booklet” Pg. 10

“The Symbol of the Temple for each of us is founded upon the idea that man himself is a living Temple, where the Supreme Architect of the Universe resides.”

This has since been removed. The new version of the Illinois Intender Program negates this concept completely, and yet we ask, “What are we teaching?” Are we not teaching these things any longer? Apparently not, which is why so many young Masonic authors are taking it upon themselves to dive into such topics. A matter of grave importance comes with these newly discovered ancient ideas notwithstanding is an unyielding strong grip on reality.

Too often a Brother may dive into the depths of Masonic philosophy only to risk nothing less than one’s own sanity in the search for divine truth. Perhaps if our lodges were to develop a posture on the philosophy of Freemasonry as it relates to enlightenment and not just the ordinary perpetuated concepts, we would foster developed thinkers, attract new members, provide a safe place for study and discussion and be a nucleus for progressive ideas to be born, which the rest of humanity might eventually look to for direction. Brethren, what are we teaching…officially?

~RHJ

RWB, Robert Johnson is the Managing Editor of the Midnight Freemasons blog. He is a Freemason out of the 1st N.E. District of Illinois. He currently serves as the Secretary of Waukegan Lodge No. 78 where he is a Past Master. He also serves as the District Deputy for the 1st N.E. District of Illinois. Brother Johnson currently produces and hosts weekly Podcasts (internet radio programs) Whence Came You? & Masonic Radio Theatre which focus on topics relating to Freemasonry. He is also a co-host of The Masonic Roundtable, a Masonic talk show. He is a husband and father of four, works full time in the executive medical industry and is also an avid home brewer. He is currently working on a book of Masonic essays and one on Occult Anatomy to be released soon.