Q : …Basically...I think I understand that there are two ‘souls' in Freemasonry: a ‘worldly' …and an ‘esoterical' one...
A : Historically the acquisition of a Right has always originated from an intellectual stage. Let's call it a stage of persuasion and convincement which, through logic, allows to overcome the habits considered as ‘traditions'. Conventions oppose reforms that question habits and privileges of their devisers. For this reason, in front of so called ‘traditional' rules, I always wondered where they came from. If they originated from basins of ordinary, intellectual or initiatory culture.
As far as Freemasonry is concerned – despite the valuable opinions of Mr. Guenon, which you mention – I don't believe in the purity of its initiatory fundaments. I think they are exoteric bases, in relation with the idea of initiation kept by the ‘illuminati', which took refuge among the Freemasons in a historical moment of exceptional obscurantism.
The differences between masons and spiritual initiates have created the two souls that you identify.
One is symbolical, therefore unreal. The other, on the contrary, is mysteriosophical; it stands out for the obscurity of its symbols whose meaning is sometimes unknown even to those who guard them.
In Freemasonry the exoteric component prevails, because it is the easiest path and it doesn't require changes in mind or character, but only changes to update the decorations.
Certain short-sightedness, though, doesn't allow illuminated reforms, especially in a context that should be initiatory, where by ‘light' we should mean inner illumination , not the light bulb symbolically lit at the act of initiation. Yet, some people think they are initiates only because they've seen that light bulb. They are not able to distinguish between symbolic initiation, which is the result of a ritual convention, and real initiation, which is the result of the evolution of the spiritual conscience, so to speak.
Going back to the fact that Freemasonry doesn't accept disabled people, for what it's worth I have expressed my dissent a few times already.
The ‘trade' rules for masons and stone-cutters had the purpose of protecting professional, rather than initiatory, values. Or at least they referred to the operating concepts of a professional initiation and nothing else.
Today the matter must be put in the perspective of initiatory Ethics; therefore to put an obstacle ‘a priori' to disabled people cannot be anything else but a hateful, merciless, intolerant and segregation action.
Unless we want to state that yesterday's ‘professionalism' is worth more than the sensitivity reached (law of evolution and progress) by today's conscience. If this was the case, I would leave a stone-cutters association to try and find a Community of Initiates.
Therefore I cannot but express my perplexity for a problem that certain rules of the past put in a very unpleasant light.
I cannot see any alternative but to keep being disappointed.
I consider it as another denied reality, together with the prohibition for women to accomplish religious and sacramental functions.
I consider both ‘injustices' not easily solvable; both for man's carelessness and for the despotism of those who would like us to believe that the problem doesn't exist.
Fraternally. 
