THE LETTER OF THE Master of the Lodge

G.A.O.T.U.

Dearest Brother,
as you can see, the previous letters have given rise to a small debate on the understanding that everyone has of the Grand Architect of the Universe, the GAOTU. To contribute, I report here the point of view of prof. Giuliano Di Bernardo:
“When we speak of transcendence, we allude to a foundation of reality that transcends, i.e. essentially surpasses, the limited horizon of what we can experience. [...] Transcendence, however, can be conceived in two senses: in an ontological sense or in a regulative sense. Transcendence is understood in the first sense if the foundation transcending the horizon of experience is conceived as something real in itself, truly existing, even if it falls beyond our capacities for experience. Transcendence, on the other hand, is understood in a regulative sense if, while not recognizing a real existence to the foundation of things, it is valid for making us consider the world in Kantian terms as if it depended (and therefore were guaranteed) by the existence of the respective transcendent foundation. [...] The regulative principle, ultimately, is to have the things of the world considered as if they had their existence from a supreme Intelligence. [...] The transcendent thus comes to have a fundamental scope for giving unity and systematicity also to man's ethical experience. [...] This transcendent principle, used in Freemasonry to characterize the Supreme Being (or G.A.O.T.U.) [...] must not be thought of as effective reality, as this would come to express attributes that qualify and specify him as God of a religion. In fact, all religions conceive transcendence as something really existing, that is, in the ontological sense. [...] The Supreme Being, on the other hand, can only be a regulative transcendence, since only in this way is the risk of giving him a religious qualification avoided and, at the same time, can he be spoken of as the ultimate goal towards which the Mason tends in its initiatory perfection. Admitting a transcendent principle in Freemasonry, albeit a regulative one, also means excluding the existence of conceptions openly based on atheistic materialism. Finally, the Mason is prevented from pronouncing himself on the divinity. [...] Only the possibility of performing the two aforementioned functions (that of representing the ultimate goal and that of justifying morality) should be recognized to the Supreme Being, since any further specification would assimilate him to the God of a religion and Freemasonry would become therefore a religion.” (1)
Considering the GAOTU a mere regulatory principle is certainly problematic and perhaps "extremist" for those who instead consider the Supreme Being a form of the divine that really exists, whatever his religious beliefs.
Perhaps we could say that, due to the problematic nature of any definition (including that of Di Bernardo), the concept of GAOTU is an effective abstraction that allows us to refer to the divine as each brother's heart can feel it, without restrictive preferences or superficial simplifications.

See you soon!
W.M. M.B. Master of Lodge

1) G. Di Bernardo, Philosophy of Freemasonry and the initiatory tradition, Venice, Marsilio 2016, pag. 65 - 67