There exist infinite interpretations; only a finite number survive rigorous scrutiny - empirically, logically, explanatorily, predictively, and practically.

THIS teaching is where the Craft fails.

-------------------------------------------

Determining which interpretations are true depends on the domain, but across fields the process follows the same underlying logic:

1. Correspondence to Reality

An interpretation is true if it accurately reflects the facts, evidence, or observable world.

 

Does it match what actually is?

2. Internal Coherence

 

An interpretation must be free of contradictions.

 

Does it make sense on its own terms?

3. Consilience

 

The best interpretations are those supported by multiple independent sources of evidence.

 

Do different lines of inquiry converge on the same conclusion?

 

4. Predictive Power

 

True interpretations usually allow accurate predictions or reliable expectations.

 

Does it successfully anticipate outcomes?

 

5. Explanatory Depth

 

A true interpretation typically explains more with less.

 

Does it illuminate the phenomenon better than alternative explanations?

 

6. Falsifiability and Survivability

 

A true interpretation is one that has survived attempts to disprove it.

 

Has it endured rigorous testing?

 

7. Pragmatic Success

 

In some domains (ethics, metaphysics, applied practice), “true” means what works reliably in producing consistent, beneficial results.

 

Does it work in practice?

 

8. Fit Within a Larger Framework

 

Sometimes truth is determined by how well the interpretation harmonizes with what is already well-established and well-supported.

 

Is it compatible with the broader, reliable body of knowledge?

-------------------------------------------

WHY DEPENDABLE INTERPRETATIONS MATTER

-------------------------------------------

"If words are not things,
or maps are not the actual territory,
then, obviously,
the only possible link between the objective world
and the linguistic world
is found in structure,
and structure alone."
- Alfred Korzybski

-------------------------------------------

Here’s a clear explanation of that statement:

1. “Words are not things” / “Maps are not the territory”

These phrases emphasize symbolic abstraction:

Words are symbols we use to point to things.

Maps are representations of terrain.

They are not the things themselves. They approximate, model, or describe, but they never become the realities they refer to.

This means there is always a gap between reality and language.

2. So how do words relate to the objective world at all?

If words are not the things they represent, then the only way language can be connected to reality is through structure — the patterned relationships within language that mirror patterned relationships within the world.

Think of it this way:

The world has structures: causal chains, spatial relations, temporal sequences, functional relations, categories, patterns.

Language has structures: grammar, logical relations, subject–predicate structure, semantic categories.

The link is made possible when these two structures correspond.

3. Structure is the bridge

We cannot connect words to objects by identity (because the symbol is never the thing). But we can connect them by form or pattern.

Examples:

A sentence can reflect structural relationships in the world:
“The cup is on the table” mirrors spatial structure.

A causal explanation mirrors causal structure:
“Heat causes water to expand” mirrors physical relationships.

A taxonomy mirrors biological or conceptual structure.

In all cases, structure—not substance—is what matches reality.

4. Why “structure alone”?

Because every other possible kind of connection fails:

• Words don’t look like things → not similarity.
• Words aren’t made of the same stuff as things → not identity.
• Words don’t physically interact with things → not causation.
• Words are arbitrary sounds or symbols → no natural bond between symbol and referent.

The only thing that can connect the two worlds is:

"The pattern of relationships in language" matching "The pattern of relationships in the world."

This is the heart of general semantics, structuralism, and scientific modeling.

In short

Because language never is reality, the only way it can correspond to reality is by mirroring its structure.

If the internal structure of language (concepts, grammar, logic) maps onto the structure of the world (relations, categories, causality), then meaningful reference is possible.

---------------------------------------------------------

Below is a general semantics–based, Masonic, and epistemological expansion of the idea, woven together so it reads as one coherent explanation.

1. General Semantics Perspective (Korzybski)

Korzybski’s famous slogan, “The map is not the territory,” teaches that:

• Our words, concepts, and theories are maps.
• The world, with all its complexity and dynamic processes, is the territory.
• Because words are abstractions, they cannot contain the world. They can only model it.

Korzybski emphasized structural similarity as the key principle:

A map is useful only to the degree that its structure corresponds to the structure of what it represents.

Thus:

• A geographical map preserves spatial structure.
• A scientific model preserves causal or functional structure.
• A linguistic description preserves relational structure.

The match of structure to structure is what grants language any capacity to refer to the world at all.

2. Epistemological Perspective

If words are not the things they represent, then how can we know anything true about the world through language?

The answer is:

1. Only by matching patterns.
2. The world exhibits patterns, regularities, relations, processes, orders.
3. Human cognition detects these and creates conceptual structures—mental models.
4. Language encodes these conceptual structures symbolically.
5. Logic and grammar constrain how these structures can be combined and transformed.

Thus the entire chain:

World → Mind → Language

is connected not by identity, but by parallelism of structure.

If our language fails to reflect reality’s structure, we produce:

fallacies, illusions, category errors, superstitions, metaphysical distortions, disagreements that cannot be resolved because the map is drawn incorrectly

Truth emerges when the structure of our descriptions faithfully mirrors the structure of what is being described.

3. Masonic Interpretation

Masonic symbolism is rooted in this very principle:

• Masonry teaches by symbols, but the symbols are not the realities they indicate.
• The square is not the virtues—but represent them.
• The light is not literal illumination—but symbolizes understanding.
• The Temple is not a physical building—but a representation of internalized disciplines and structure.

A Mason learns early that:

Symbols do not transfer truth by identity; they transfer truth by internalizing structure.

The Square, Level, and Plumb rule enact structural relationships that correspond to ethical relationships:

• Squareness → Morality and Virtue
• Levelness → Balance, equality, and fairness
• Uprightness → Unbiased, integrity, and rectitude

The Freemason internalizes these structural lessons and applies them to his inner life.

Thus, the Craft itself is an extended exercise in mapping ethical and spiritual structure onto personal conduct.

Just as in general semantics:

• The ritual is not the truth.
• The lectures are not the thing described.
• The tools are not the disciplines.

But their structure mirrors the order one must establish within.

4. The Core Insight

When abstractions (words, symbols, models) attempt to portray reality, the only possible point of contact is:

Structural correspondence.

If the structure matches, the map works. If it doesn’t, the map misleads.

This principle unifies:

semantics, cognition, philosophy of science, symbolism, Masonic teaching, all forms of representational knowledge

And it elegantly answers the original assertion:

Because words are not the things they represent, the only way language can relate to reality is through structural similarity.

That is the sole bridge between the objective world and the linguistic world.

 

FILED UNDER: ARE YOU UP TO THE CHALLENGE

 

FILED UNDER: ARE YOU UP TO THE CHALLENGE

 

A pre-mason sees this meme. He knows that you’re a Freemason and invites you to meet with him to discuss the claims made by the meme. You accept and let your worshipful master know about the meeting and its catalyst.

 

He says that this would be a great opportunity to show the fraternity in a good light. He says that you should know how to discuss the meme knowledgeably and challenges you to respond to each meme claim in writing as a preparation for that prospect meeting. You agree to take on the challenge.

 

The worshipful master gives you the following challenge to prepare you for the meeting.

 

The Coach's Challenge:

 

1a. In one hundred words or less, describe clearly and concisely "The Greater Good".

 

1b. In one hundred words or less, describe clearly and concisely five examples of the greater good.

 

2a. In one hundred words or less, describe clearly and concisely five examples of “diversity of thinking” within the membership.

 

2b. In one hundred words or less, describe clearly and concisely five examples of continuous learning that does not involve lodge operations, biographies of famous members or Freemasonic etiquette or traditions.

 

3a. In one hundred words or less, describe clearly and concisely the difference between spiritual and non-spiritual without using religious examples or terminology.

 

3b. In one hundred words or less, describe clearly and concisely "enlightenment" and give five examples of an enlightened situation one should expect from participating in organizational endeavors.

 

4. In one hundred words or less, describe clearly and concisely five examples of what those forefather connections are and how they will occur, without referring back to their association with the fraternity.

 

5. In one hundred words or less, describe clearly and concisely what personal growth and development one can expect, how that will occur and how long it will take to achieve.

 

6. In one hundred words or less, describe clearly and concisely five examples of the dependability of members, other than showing up for lodge functions and performing lodge related functions.

 

7. In one hundred words or less, describe clearly and concisely five greater things that one will learn about through participation, omitting anything that relates directly to the organizational structure, operations, law, lore and traditions.

 

8. In one hundred words or less, describe clearly and concisely ten possible connections to the community that are not directly related to the organization itself.

 

9. In one hundred words or less, describe clearly and concisely how the organization creates the opportunities to introduce, cultivate and support new friendships.

 

10. In one hundred words or less, describe clearly and concisely the educational processes one 

could expect to understand the meaning behind each degree.

 

11a. In one hundred words or less, describe clearly and concisely the exact meaning of "esoteric" as it applies to the lessons offered by the institution and the lodges who support it.

 

11b. In one hundred words or less, describe clearly and concisely ten examples of esoteric lessons one could expect.

 

12. In one hundred words or less, describe clearly and concisely what an Initiatic experience is in general and as it applies to this organization.