Unless of course it is a governing body within my style that perhaps ‘endorses’. "
Judo has one, Ju-Jitsu has one and Karate has one. But like you say there are too many KF styles.
What Karate and Ju-Jitsu do is they have a base amount of information. But if your system is not one that is recognized they recognize your rank with other min standards such as age. (Too many 35 year old 10th degrees running around). By being with these organizations it just adds to your legitimacy so that people know you meet certain standards.
For Judo it is easy, there is one Judo.
If you are part of an organization that has standards, it lets students know your rank is not just something you bought (See earlier post)
"if my teacher has been recognized as a master and so forth from his teacher upward, then my teacher’s recognition, if I so qualify, is personally good enough for me. "
But its nice to have rank from a nationally or internationally recognized organization so that there is never a question as to wether you or your instructor bought rank.
I posted links to a sokeship council, in order to be recognized as a soke grand master you need to be a min of 35. In the international organizations you need to be in your late 60’s to be recognized as a 10th. Even if you had the skills and knowledge for the rank you wear, if its from some paper mills it will be questioned.
Master - Trained a long time in one art and damm good at it.
Grandmaster - all of the above and dead.
Oh and anyone calling them selves either of the two titles would put me off.
Personally i would use these definitions:
Sifu = my teacher. Or a general term of respect for someone who teaches a skill, or is skilled.
Sigong = my Teachers Sifu
Tai Sigong = my Sigongs Sifu.
That’s it. Master, Grandmaster, 22nd gold striped Ultimate master etc. have no meaning for me. I couldn’t care what they call themselves or insist on being called. If they have skill, they have skill… if not, then they don’t. 
david
I like the way dezhen2001 put it.
Master/Grandmaster
these titles convey the power structure defined within the martial arts community. in my opinion these titles are more associated with a political and ego based connotation rather than a simplistic definition.
we have all heard or read in the old texts of zen/ch’an/tao te ching that the true master will never impose that title on him or herself. it is usually what OTHERS impose on them. the one titled the master and the grandmaster humbly accepts that this is what others wish to see him or her as and in doing so becomes what they want them to be. like the proverb in my signature that i firmly believe in. whatever you think i am or want me to be ,i AM.
i never aspire to be a master or a grandmaster, i couldnt handle the title nor do i wish to strive for that title. a sifu would be better for me i guess and i like that term for it conveys a mentor or a father role. and i feel as though if one is to become a sifu that they must first experience what it is to be either a Parent, or to be put in an environment where parenting and mentorship is done. IE: instructing,.
MAny Respects, The Willow Sword
:eek: far 2 many people agreeing with me these days! that never happens lol 
It’s an interesting topic though.
david