Plurality as Masonic identity
If we possess humanism and philosophy, art and science, do we also have the competence to allow and endure the resistant ‘other’ within our own tradition?
Can competence in pluralism be acquired? And if so, how? Can science, philosophy, and art — the supporting pillars of humanism — contribute to it? One discipline cannot exist without the others; their mutual fertilisation and enrichment are what make life what it is. This natural pluralism, this fundamental structure of human coexistence, symbolises the meaning of pluralism as we encounter it on all levels of our lives. For our personal circumstances, plurality describes the idea of the peaceful, simultaneous presence of different systems, interests, views, and ways of life.
Let us add here the ‘seven liberal arts,’ which are helpful for our development:
The three disciplines oriented toward language and logical argumentation:
• Grammar (the study of language)
• Rhetoric (the art of speech and silence),
• Dialectics or Logic (inference and proof)
• Arithmetic (number theory),
• Geometry (geometry and geography),
• Music (music theory and modes),
• Astronomy (spheres, celestial bodies, astrology).
In antiquity, the acquisition of knowledge in these seven disciplines did not constitute general schooling; rather, its orientation was philosophical. Plato had already listed the mathematical disciplines in his Politeia alongside philosophy in the education of the ideal statesman. It therefore seems important to mention, in addition to the three supporting pillars of humanism, the seven liberal arts on the path toward philosophy: for Plato, the formation of philosophical concepts is the love of and striving for wisdom. And wisdom also means the ability to keep the whole in view in the face of the many individual decisions of everyday life.
And it is precisely in the diversity of human beings, in the diversity of their qualities and their opinions, that the great opportunity of humankind lies. Do we, in our supposedly highly developed culture, possess enough ‘wisdom’—that is, the ability to recognise decisive connections and, on the basis of these insights, the courage to make the most ethically meaningful decisions? Do we lose ourselves in the abundance of all these approaches, or are we able, despite—or thanks to—this diversity, to maintain our view of the whole?
If we possess humanism and philosophy, art and science, do we then also possess competence in pluralism? The competence to allow and endure the resistant ‘other’ within our own tradition?
Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, in his Enlightenment—indeed utopian—reflections on tolerance in the dramatic poem Nathan the Wise, reminded us of this dimension: the ideal of coexistence through tolerance, reason, and humanity. The key concepts that Lessing places at the centre of his humanistic thought are love of humanity, helpfulness, tolerance, charity, and education.
A look at the present shows that the diversity of people in our society—regarding origin, religious affiliation, and cultural background—is no longer remarkable but everyday reality. The fundamental principles of our constitution—human dignity, equality, and tolerance—are not invoked abstractly but form the foundation of our coexistence.
In its present form, Freemasonry dates from the 18th century. Although its origins are recounted in different ways, it is ultimately a synthesis of the many ideas and insights that emerged from the upheavals in religion, philosophy, science, society, and politics. Freemasonry served as a binding agent that held together the diverse elements and components of a torn world, of a worldview in the process of fragmentation.
And today? Is the world today any less ‘torn’? How torn it was then we do not know, or can only guess. The world has become ‘smaller’ through infrastructure, transport, and communication technologies. We are informed within seconds about events on the other side of the globe—and only then do we recognise how torn today’s world is, and how significant Freemasonry remains as a binding agent that holds together the diverse elements and components of this torn world and its fragmented worldviews.
But we also recognise the beauty, the diversity, the good and the valuable in this world. And we must recognise these things—how else should we know what our concerns and our aims are? We must know that light exists when we stand in darkness and wish to seek and find it.
Thus it lies with us, with human beings, with each individual, to construct a peaceful and humane world. The world, and the future within it, can be shaped. Anthropology tells us that the human being possesses a timeless experiential knowledge derived from the capacity for experience and memory, yet only a limited knowledge of insight derived from the capacity for thought. But through the reason given to us, we have the possibility of attaining understanding.
It is said that we are born incomplete—in mind and in being—and that consciously and unconsciously we constantly strive for perfection. At every step we recognise how far we still are from it. Is it this struggle that gives rise to each person’s particular qualities, their character—because each person has a different idea of perfection, and each seeks their own path toward it?
And what do we work on? One of the fundamental principles of Freemasonry is the work on oneself—self‑knowledge, self‑mastery, and self‑ennoblement. But this work on oneself also presupposes socialisation. How should I recognise myself if I am alone? How can I practise self‑mastery and achieve self‑ennoblement? Human beings develop best within community.
And within this community we must define our identity. In doing so, we recognise that this identity is based on a plurality of reasons and arguments. From this identity arises solidarity, which is of fundamental importance.
There are certainly several paths to identity, but I would like to limit myself to two: the constructed identity—a defined desired identity that one then attempts to live. This can work if this desired identity corresponds to the authenticity of the members. Or an identity emerges from chaos: through observing and continually evaluating a development until, at a certain point, it becomes possible through analytical insight to name the characteristics of a community. These then possess the highest authenticity—they arise of themselves, from within. Yet this insight must be objectified and compared with the personally lived values. Only when the identity that has emerged within the community corresponds to these values do the members find in this community the fulfilment that enables the strength for their own personal development, for the work on themselves.
An authentically lived identity radiates outward; each individual can radiate it outward. Do we recognise the opportunities in which we can act in a Masonic spirit—do we even seek such opportunities? And how do we act then? This is the field of action of each individual: our immediate sphere of influence, where we can be an example.
Plurality as the identity of the Grand Orient of Austria.
The pluralistic and liberal concept is the foundation and identity of the Grand Orient of Austria. Accordingly, under the roof of the Grand Orient of Austria, men’s lodges, mixed lodges for men and women, and women’s lodges (in development) find their home. We seek people who can identify with this—and who can recognise their own subjective, deeply personal values and ways of life. Thus we have found ourselves in Freemasonry: because here we are together with people kindred in spirit and united by shared values
Br.·. Bernhard N., OldGM
.·.