DEBATE ON THE AESTHETIC OF FREEMASONRY

If, as Plato and Aristotle suggest, beauty is a form of truth so satisfying as to be a source of (undeniable) pleasure we would be lead to believe that the beauty of speculative freemasonry is an intrinsic for us to consider and receive the benefits as such. I confess often I have felt when that is not valued, the functional face of our brotherhood has taken on aspects of social service clubs.  Not that I find that offensive, members openly declaring their efforts receive status of a sort. Whether this is self-serving or altrusim I leave to the reader. My flawed reality assumed a beauty within the nature of freemasonry was there for those curious enough to learn.  It took some time for me to realize I was playing with the alternate idea of subjective existence.  The beauty of the Craft exists in the mind- rather than objective, subjective beauty.   We know previously, art was carefully controlled by religion because there could not be two sources of truth.  We know this changed during the renaissance in various European nations, as scientific method helped humanity fullfill a democratic condition. The arts were examined and reexamined for truth in beauty.  In the 21st century, philosophical debate has largely been replaced by materialism. Whether beauty is objective or subjective, flows towards interest groups that have absorbed social stratification. Do we consider our symbols and furniture similarly? Do they have meaning whether we value them or not? Immanual Kant was on to something raising questions that didn't confuse but helped us clarify.  So if I explain today, Freemasonry is objectively beautiful how would I offer proof? And if I did, would my opinion shape your thinking anymore than the beauty of our philosophy?  Probably not. It is simply testiment to a fact about masonry. Our Order puts before us serious questions- the means to examine our nature if we attempt answers.