The new issue of Philalethes (Vol. 78, No. 2 for those keeping count) is reaching mailboxes. It’s a good one! The three feature articles cover architecture, philosophy, and the term “free-born,” respectively.
Why is it that the initiate (and indeed then the Apprentice and Fellow Craft as well) are esoterically asked as to their qualifications and birth status at each step, but are only exoterically asked once whether they’re doing so to gain anything? A man may become less worthy and well qualified as time passes, and his motives may certainly change, yet the answer to the question of being free-born is the only one that presumably cannot change between the degrees. We must consider that what we are asking—what we have always been asking—when we are asking if someone is free-born in our ritual is whether or not their motives remain pure. Our degrees are an initiatory experience, understood to philosophically reflect upon a man’s journey from life to death. We ask them before they are reborn not as a candidate but as a brother both esoterically and exoterically if they are seeking this rebirth for the correct reasons—whether they are controlled by another or are seeking only the mundane gains of the physical world.
He begins [the Essay] with a romance on how all arts, and in particular architecture, are originally inspired by nature, and the original precedent always dictates what is good and right. He then examines a primitive man “without any aid or guidance other than his natural instincts” — a character that resembled Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Émile, which is a clear opposition to the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes. (In general, the primitive hut as thought experiment is in opposition to Hobbesian philosophy). This “noble savage” first rests on a grassy bank beside a stream, which is at first comfortable until the noonday sun becomes too hot for him and he seeks shelter from the sun. He then finds shelter in the shade of a nearby forest and is then content until it begins to rain. Next, he seeks refuge from the storm in a cave, but this too proves uncomfortable owing to its darkness and foul air. Now fed up: “He . . . is resolved to make good by his ingenuity the careless neglect of nature. He wants to make himself a dwelling that protects but does not bury him. Some fallen branches in the forest are right material for his purpose; he chooses four of the strongest, raises them upright and arranged them in a square; across their top he lays four other branches; on these he hoists from two sides yet another row of branches which, inclining towards each other, meet at the highest point. He then covers this kind of roof with leaves so closely packed that neither sun nor rain can penetrate. Thus man is housed. [...] Such is the course of simple nature; by imitating the natural process, art was born. All the splendors of architecture ever conceived have been modeled on the little rustic hut I have just described.”
![]() |
| Grand Lodge of New York |
Although Knickerbocker is theoretical, I’ll submit an entry with the hope that others will see it and want to be involved. It is not necessary to be a member of the Philalethes Society to take part in this chapter. We’ll see how it goes.



No comments:
Post a Comment