_______________________________________________________________
David, to recapitulate:
In brief, you have no knowledge of nor connection to Christianity as it is generally understood. But more properly stated as it is understood by an elite of intellectuals, philosophers and mystics. Therefor, your self-proclaimed penetration of Kierkegaard, who was both Christian and something 'additionally Christian', is a form of dishonesty. In any case it is inaccurate and misleading. I think the same is also true of your grasp of Nietzsche.
You have, in fact, almost no connection to the intellectual and spiritual traditions of this matrix known as 'Christianity' or as I prefer to say of 'Mediterranean culture' and the products of the 'Mediterranean self'. But you are very deeply involved in a project that you describe as 'directly perceiving reality'. It may be more than anything else a project first dreamed up on the Indian subcontinent but we cannot be too sure: you are quite idiosyncratic and, when push comes to shove, not a little cagey when pressed. Yet it seems to me that you will always resort, in the end, to 'non-rationalisms'---mystical statements---about the nature of your quest and its object. At this point you exit 'the ballpark' of classical ratiocination and doing so forfeit the right to call your processes 'rational'. They are in fact arbitrary, linked to your own will and, significantIy to your own personality. It is therefor not accurate to refer to this Quest in your preferred terms.
To set the record straight one must redefine your project in honest terms, not romantic misrepresentations and intellectual inflations. The project, I say, has a decided and notable and rather dark underbelly. It reveals itself, it seems to me through its negations and less through its affirmations. To get to the bottom of this is a demanding but really also quite interesting hermeneutical undertaking. It requires exegetical skill and skills of discernment. Your disciples rarely wish to invest the energy required to see your project more clearly and they construct all sorts of defenses, and yet they claim to be engaged, honestly and openly, in processes of 'philosophical enquiry'. I challenge this declaration and rather believe they are involved in an essentially non-rational and 'religious' game. I don't know whether to think of it as a camouflaged religion masquerading as philosophy, or as the hideout of a wounded psyche. I guess the jury is still out as to what 'it' is. But one does not get the truth about it from its apologists!
What you and they do does not occur in a vacuum. It is connected with the religious, existential, cultural and spiritual matrix of our culture and can, and should, be examined and questioned in detail. You have established a platform and come out swinging against so much. It is simply fair that the same energy be applied to an examination of the 'cores' within your system of thought, and recommended praxis.
If this is so then all that I do and say here is absolutely in harmony with the object of the forum: reason itself. And if the use of reason avails us of Wisdom then there should be no fear---and much less whining!---about what I do here.Diebert wrote: There is no "GF" project unless it's defined as the project of reason itself, of what wisdom aspires and always has aspired.