The Foshay Tower of Minneapolis

en.wikipedia.org...

The tycoon, Wilbur Foshay, wanted his building to resemble the Washington monument and the only reason I've found is he simply liked the look of it. As many on ATS know the Washington monument was designed by a freemason and clearly resembles that of an Egyptian obelisk.

I'm wondering if anyone could confirm or reject my hypothesis that, as a freemason himself, Wilbur Foshay was inspired by it's symbolism beyond the basic aesthetics of the Washington monument. And also any help in researching this (via links and documents) and such would really be appreciated. Any of the ATS masons know of good masonic archives? Thanks

reply to post by dunwichwitch

How did anything in your garbage post contribute to my quite serious question? Try being constructive and avoid typing errors, poor grammar, and incredulous assumptions.
I give you a

reply to post by dunwichwitch


Drinking tonight?

That's like two posts of yours in 5 minutes that feature all caps and mulitiple exlamation points. Both also mention dead children.
You get a from me as well.

As for the topic, Obelisks are pretty common around the world.
I would imagine that the structure is appealing to a mason. I'm not even a mason and I think it is a pretty cool structure.

The engineering required to erect one is pretty impressive.

It's a cool building, thanks for sharing OP.

Generally people are influenced by all kinds of stuff in their aesthetic choices, so if he sat through a bunch of masonic meetings I imagine he would have been influenced somehow by the aesthetics, either subliminally or otherwise.

It doesn't look much like a classic obelisk to me, but maybe that's just the angle of the photo. He might have also been influenced by the Wahington monument as well for some kind of patriotic or nostalgic reason.

Many people have puzzled over the meaning of oblelisks. In my humble and limited opinion, their origin is very much pre-masonic, and probably is a reference to a certain missing bodlily part of the dismembered Egyptian God Osiris.

The symbol is obvious. It's a penis.


Penis = masculine symbol = masculinity = "going forth" and doing things as opposed to feminine "pass reception" of things.


This is a man who got things done, in other words. Someone who actively molded and shaped the energies around him, including this building, and the shape of it is a very symbol and testament to that. He didn't just sit back and leave society to others to work out, which would have been a more "feminine position" to take.


It's not only a masonic thing. Look up Jungian analysis, how Carl Jung analyzed the subconscious content present in dreams. How he interpreted everyday symbols in subconscious terms. Once you are familiar with how he did this, you can analyze all number of symbols instantly and without any other foreknowledge. Jungian analysis is powerful stuff. And it's obvious to me that you are staring at a giant symbol of a penis/masculine energy.

Obelisks don't have any particular significance to Masons. Yeah, you can go on and on about the Washington monument, or Cleopatra's Needle, or whathaveyou, but the simple truth is that the obelisk as a form isn't important in Masonic teachings. I don't even recall it being brought up once in the various lectures (though I admit I may have forgotten it if it was mentioned so briefly).

People who go off about phallic worship and generative principles just have sex on the brain and need to get better hobbies (or get laid). Unless the building has a foreskin or starts erupting fluid from the tip, a tall building is just a tall building, and there's no reason to read anything more into it.

Originally posted by JoshNorton
People who go off about phallic worship and generative principles just have sex on the brain and need to get better hobbies (or get laid). Unless the building has a foreskin or starts erupting fluid from the tip, a tall building is just a tall building, and there's no reason to read anything more into it.

I am perfectly comfortable with my sexuality. If someone would have to put a foreskin on the building before you could see the resemblance, then I have to say you aren't very good at reading into symbolism. Like I said, if you pick up a book by Carl Jung, "Man and His Symbols," it cuts right to the chase of all symbols and their subconscious content very simply and you could better see where I am coming from. Silent Thunder made the same observation above.

What's the big deal if it is a giant penis symbol, anyway? Are you uncomfortable around penises? Don't like the idea of going up and down inside one?

It's all the same to me. It is what it is.

Originally posted by JoshNorton

People who go off about phallic worship and generative principles just have sex on the brain and need to get better hobbies (or get laid). Unless the building has a foreskin or starts erupting fluid from the tip, a tall building is just a tall building, and there's no reason to read anything more into it.

Leaving "worship" aside, you honestly don't think Phallus has influenced architecture and several other forms of art over the years? I find that quite naive.

With regards to masonry, is it pure coincidence he commissioned John Phillip Sousa to play at the building's opening? Is it pure coincidence it is 32 floors?

Are you really denying the importance architecture has within freemasonry? Are you denying the wisdom of the Egyptians isn't embraced by free and accepted masons?

reply to post by bsbray11


I prefer Freud. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

reply to post by JoshNorton


Freud was even more sexual than Jung was!

Freud was the one who tried categorizing all sorts of peoples' problems as sexual frustrations. That girls have penis envy at a certain age and all of that. Remember? lol. It was Jung who backed away from all of that and looked to the full range of subconscious expression as it relates to daily realities. Anyway, it's fine to agree to disagree, but I'm telling you that book of Jung's is a mind-blower. It should be required reading in schools.

Originally posted by JoshNorton

I prefer Freud. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

And we all know what Slick Willy did with his cigar. What a waste of a good Montecristo.....

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by JoshNorton

I prefer Freud. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

And we all know what Slick Willy did with his cigar. What a waste of a good Montecristo.....

Like all good Montecristos, battered & fried with powdered sugar on top?

Actually not much of a Freud man either (prefer Lacan, if I have to...) but what I'm getting at is that just because something is longer than it is wide does not make it automatically phallic. There are plenty of practical reasons for skyscrapers besides architects wanting to compare who's junk is bigger.

Foshay & Sousa were both Masons. True. Sousa was also immensely popular at the time, and at the time of the opening, Foshay had a load of money and could afford to hire whomever he liked. It doesn't necessarily follow that Foshay hired Sousa just because they were both Masons.

I have yet to see any evidence that Foshay was a member of the Scottish Rite, so the 32 could have been meaningless, or at least without any Masonic meaning. (Again, 32 as a number, not particularly significant. Not like, say, 3, 5 or 7 which DO have significance to Masons...)