Homework on Rational thought essay

In our civilisation, spoken language seems more "natural" than symbolic language. It is more highly
developed and altogether adequate to instil doubt about the usefulness of other languages. Often
we think that words not only have the ability to designate, but also possess the evocative power of
symbols. Thus, they could replace symbolic languages at least in part. This is not the case, but to
prove that they represent two different mental approaches – complementary and always current
– we must start by analysing the nature of words, the mechanics and functions of spoken language
and then compare the language of symbols and that of art that many "rationalists" discredit in
taking as mere "decoration."

When man creates words, he begins by abstraction in order to assign the same sign (the same
word) to a family of phenomena. He retains only certain features of these phenomena and the
means for a sound or other sign (hieroglyph, codified gesture, mathematical "symbol" and so on1)
that is most often quite arbitrary and unrelated to what it designates.

Thus, the single word "plant" designates an incredible diversity of living things. All living beings not
belonging to this category can be placed together under a different single name: "animal." Both
sets refer to "living beings" or "living matter" as opposed to "dead matter." These terms have
specific functions, but we must not forget that no "plant", no "animal" or no "mineral" exist as
such.

Words and other signs can be arbitrary because they are not essential to evoke what they name.
Thus, they may be composed of any assemblage of sounds or other materials. Yet they often
imitate, or somehow insinuate, what they mean. With onomatopoeia, the relationship with their
content is obvious, but such words are quite few and far between. Other words seem suggestive
because they were created from words that classify similar phenomena. This approach is more
economical and aids in memorisation. Thus, an "earthling" lives on "earth," a "miner" is someone
who extracts "minerals" at the bottom of a "mine," a "tourist" is a person who takes a brief "tour"
and then goes away. These multiple idea associations give words a certain evocative power that
approximates symbols, without being confused with them.

The ability to bring together whole families of phenomena under one and the same name is the
raison d'être of words and languages they constitute.
Certainly, words may also be attributed to singular realities: then they are called "proper names."
But if every being, every thing, every action had to bear its own proper name, and nothing but a
proper name, man could perceive them but not use them in relation to other realities, or use them
to communicate with other people. He could create poetry, but we would not know either science
or philosophy.

Words are used to identify, collect, sort and classify the phenomena they refer to, and then to
express their relationships. They also allow the attribution of values, by adding them or removing
them and creating hierarchies between them. They offer one way to "understand" man and his
world... But beware! If words can be functional in the processing of things and beings as more or
less abstract entities, mathematical values in a way, they can also lead to incorrect reasoning,
which, when translated back into reality, can be dangerous.

If we argue, for example, that what is complex is superior to what is simple, we can deduce that a
man is better than a lark. We have already sacrificed many beings due to this type of reasoning
and, by drastically reducing the biological diversity on earth, we begin to threaten the survival of
our own species.

Spoken language is governed by rules of grammar and logic, which, in principle, should help us
avoid such fallacies. At the same time, we can and must look at all reasoning through "objective"
reality, which also should allow us to avoid errors. But what is "objective" reality? We see
everything through the filter of words and convey our impressions through the equally abstract
sieve of grammar and logic, further stretching their connection with the experience. Moreover,
the complexity of grammar and logic makes them difficult to master. We quickly get lost in
labyrinths designed to lead to erroneous conclusions that may be as grotesque as those cited in
the previous paragraph.

By relying exclusively on sign language and the logic that governs it, we can put forth absurdities
that seem reasonable, but are in fact suicidal. For example, some would entrust power to chosen
men based on their intelligence quotient (IQ) alone. At first glance, it is tempting to be governed
by the most "intelligent" men. However, intelligence is not everything, and shouldn’t we
remember that IQ, which is supposed to measure it, was invented by the U.S. Army to evaluate
some – and only some – abilities, including quick decision-making? If governments were formed
following this single criterion, the result could only be disastrous since the selection process does
not take into account the complexity of individuals, societies, the earth, the universe and the
process lacks the patience to study them. Moreover, the threatening racial theories of people like
Hitler would quickly find a new wellspring of inspiration.
Language is the best and the worst of all things, according to Aesop. We should not expect more
than it can give. A French proverb states, Even the most beautiful girl in the world can only offer
what she has... ("Même la plus belle fille au monde ne peut offrir que ce qu'elle a...") Basically,
words are nothing more than an accounting tool. That is why they lend themselves so well to
conversion into computer codes, where they become a series of "zero" and "one", of "yes" and
"no" signals. They are useful, but we could challenge them with the same virulence, or the same
contempt that some show over languages comprised of symbols.

Words are arbitrary and human societies have developed countless languages that despite their
diversity are all homogeneous coming from the same source material. Words are always
articulated sounds (they remain the same when they are written); the language of hearing
impaired persons is composed entirely of gestures; geometric "symbols" are always designs (we
should say geometric "signs"); and all hieroglyphs have the same pictorial characteristics.
Moreover, spoken languages are structured following the same patterns and governed by laws so
similar that the linguist Chomsky presupposed the existence of a universal grammar and heritage.

Sign languages and the rules that manage them are well suited to the human brain. By simplifying
and ordering the senses’ perceptions, they enable grasping the world in a way that seems to
correspond to the structure of the brain. They help the brain better memorise the impulses it
receives from our senses. But sign languages are not necessarily the only way our brain has to
process this information.

2) Symbolic thought and its relation to rational thought:

If sign languages combine these phenomena and evaluate the relationships between them,
symbolic languages cover the fields of human experience.

Consider the example of Masonic symbolism. The purpose of Masonry is the initiation of the
individual; its symbolism follows all paths of initiation from antiquity to the present2.

The content of each field of experience gives shape to its symbolic expression:
In finding that initiation signifies reshaping of the individual and the construction of society, we
understand why Masonic symbolism strongly refers to the art of builders: the pyramids, the
Temple of Solomon and Christian cathedrals.

If words simplify, sort, classify – and divide – symbols bring together and order disconnected
experiences. They "bring together what is scattered." ...

Symbolic systems such as the Freemasons’ include fields of experience that are too large to be
expressed in a comprehensive manner. This is not their goal. I will return to the question of these
systems’ meaning, but in the meantime, it should be noted that their tools, the symbols, are
always open. They imply more than they define.

If words combine identical phenomena through certain features, symbols assemble elements that
may seem quite disparate. They do not necessarily resemble each other, but are linked by a chain
of causalities.

Thus, the word "temple" includes all buildings for Protestant worship, while the Masonic "Temple"
symbol refers to other realities and ideas relating to the history of civilisation, philosophy,
architecture, astronomy, geometry, and so on. The "Masonic Temple" symbol does not make one
think only of the place where a group of Freemasons meets, but also of land, religion, the
organisation of human societies, and more.

"Here, everything is symbol," said Goethe about the Masonic Temple.

The Masonic lodge is a three-layer "scale model" of the universe, humanity and man. It is a
symbolic representation of reality, a condensed image whereby each element has the power to
evoke countless other missing parts. .

I have said Masonry contains the initiation pathways of humanity since its origins, but now should
clarify that, in fact, through its symbols, Freemasonry primarily refers to European and North
African civilisations. It has evolved within them and closely reflects them. Nevertheless, through
study we quickly realise that despite its Western geographical origins, the Masonic model also
includes many references to the experiences and thoughts of the peoples of Asia and the
Americas. This shows that for millennia, information flows more freely than we believed, before
aircraft and cybernetics came into existence. This also suggests that men in all ages and all
countries are more alike than their cultures suggest. In any case, that is what they wanted us to
signify to the founders of modern Freemasonry3.

Unlike a word, whose form is arbitrary, a symbol contains certain features of the reality to which it
refers.

By continuing to use the previous example, I can say that if the word "temple" has nothing to do
with what it designates, the "temple" symbol may be expressed by its location, picture or another
object that evokes a sacred space.

While sign languages are homogeneous, symbol languages can be heterogeneous, composed of
very diverse elements:objects, words, graphics or sounds, even tastes, fragrances, tactile
elements. Thus, at a Masonic initiation, the recipient drinks a bitter beverage, during the
celebration of St. John the Freemasons burn fragrant plants; their posture known as "in order"
includes a soothing gesture of the hand placed over the chest (one of the chakra in Kundalini yoga,
"the junction of energy channels"), a different perspective brings to mind the disturbing Japanese
hara-kiri, and so on. Diversity and heterogeneity of symbols are destined for all of the senses.

In this case, the left side of our brain processes information provided by the language of signs,
while senses’ contributions (and undoubtedly also the contributions of art) are processed on the
right side. It seems that in men ("males"), particularly those who study, organise and lead, the left
side of the brain is more developed than the right side. Using images, symbolism involves the right
side of the brain and thereby restores balance between words and logic on the one hand, and
feelings, ideas and intuition on the other. Is this the reason behind the revival of Masonry in
Europe during The Age of Enlightenment and, in the event that it were, the scientists of that time
in particular?4

quemeWords are not universal and they are born, grow old and then die. Conversely, symbols
pass from civilisation to civilisation without any concern for time or geography.Words are localised
in time and space, while symbols are timeless and universal. They represent a powerful "spiritual
Esperanto." Of course, no human creation is everlasting and symbols perish, too. But if they
sometimes expire with the community that used them, they usually disappear in a paradoxical
way: they lose their value as a symbol when they have acquired a specific meaning that can be
fully expressed in words, that is to say, after being transformed into signs.

Is this one of the reasons for removing the reference to the Great Architect of the Universe in the
GODF rites in the late 19th Century?
At that time, this expression had become synonymous with the Christian God. It had lost its initial
power. A century later, churches had taken the road of ecumenism and, coincidentally, the rites
that continued to refer to the Great Architect again showed a partially undetermined meaning.
Today, the Great Architect may be God, Jehovah, Muhammad, Buddha or any other principle that
expresses faith in a single source of the universe. This "source" is no longer defined with
dogmatism and, hence, the Great Architect symbol could possibly regain acceptance even in
"secular" obediences.

That said, modern science suggests new hypotheses through which the universe no longer has one
source, but several. According to this perspective, the Great Architect should include polytheistic
beliefs. Are traditional Freemasons capable of taking that step?

If words are composed of more complex entities by following abstract laws, but are defined and
direct towards precision, towards a single meaning, symbols come together freely and seek to
encourage the association of ideas without boundaries.

Grammatical laws are constantly changing, while the collection, ordering and reading of symbols
are governed by ancient rites that change but slowly.

All this explains why it is not easy to learn a language alone, without ever speaking with someone
who has mastered it. It is even more difficult, if not impossible, to learn system of symbols outside
the community from which it originated and which it serves. That’s why it is impossible to
understand Freemasonry only by reading books.

Regarding words, it is fairly easy to determine if they belong to a given language or not, to try and
memorise them or, conversely, not pay attention to them. Even if they are in constant evolution,
languages contain a fixed number of words that may be included in dictionaries. And grammar is a
sum of defined rules that can be learned.

Symbols themselves are heterogeneous and their number is unlimited. Anything may become a
symbol in any symbolic language. The same "object" can serve as a symbol in many systems.
Moreover, symbols act upon all of our senses and it is not enough to describe them. Lastly, no
"grammar" rules exist for symbolic languages.
Ricouard wrote that if symbols could not be fully described and thus transmitted to others, they
were nonetheless a common and indivisible good for the group that used them. Here is where a
good part of what is called the "Masonic secret" comes from:

By promoting intuitive thinking, symbols facilitate overcoming limits that are personal, social, past
or present, and give the impression of understanding what is shared by all men and all civilisations.