Musings, Critiques.

[Alex Jacob]

I have been avidly following all of David's posts to his new blog, and even more avidly following the near complete uncritical response of the intellectual lemmings who for all their assertions, blustering and fundamentalist formulations, seem to reveal again and again merely a self-imposed limitation in the use of the mind and spirit. I am again somewhat shocked by the intellectual laziness and the desire (need?) to shut-out constructive dialectic.

Naturally, I begin again on a deliberate note of open opposition as I feel this is the only honest and constructive position to take. I thought that I would spend some time here attempting a critique of these intellectual tendencies and choices, as well as a substantial critique of the 'Zen' mindset as a form of 'mental fascism'. I will attempt to connect this 'Zen mindset' to notable and ultramodern strains of anti-intellectualism which also combine with trends of gullibility in culture.

But, more than this (as this is really only a starting point) for a far larger critique and analysis (because when one is affronted by something one is moved to speak against it but one must not stop there: one must propose alternatives), I would like to mention Harold Bloom and his stunningly intelligent book (rather old now: 1992) called 'The American Religion: The Emergence of the Post-Christian Nation'. This is such a condensed, rich and profound investigation of religious thought and idea that many, many different levels of investigation and consideration spin out of it.

Harold Bloom has a formidable critical mind and yet he also is very sensitive to the religiously-oriented mind, and he identifies the American Nation as being 'religion soaked' down to the very marrow (the early Puritans, Emerson and Whitman are examples). It seems to me that even if one were completely opposed to any religious formulation (as David declared that he was in one of his blog posts), and seeks to see all religions 'wiped off the face of the Earth', that still one must have a thorough basis in understanding of the religious mind if one is to oppose it. And a critique of the American religious self which is behind all that is positive in American culture and much that is terribly destructive (and may even lead to the destruction of the empire).

There is an incredible mine of ideas and insights in this book that could easily be brought into service of an anti-religious position and also one that recommends 'atheism' or, as in the case of David Quinn and those who think like him, a revision and restatement of the religious position through a declared, but transparently self-deceived, 'rationalism'. I have said this a few times and repeat it again: the whole construct that has become Quinnism (I will avoid the use of the catch-all term 'GF') has very little to do with the 'correct' use of ratiocination and infinitely more to do with essentially irrational religious positions. It is exceedingly hard for the Quinnian disciples to see into their own selves and to realize this.

I am also aware of a thread that is still up near the top: the one in which Robert includes conversations with his brother and they 'share' their different views ('Christian Conversation. Pearls to swine?'). What is interesting in that conversation, and also for example David's comments about it, is the self-assertion of being 'right' as against another formulation. In this sense, if one were cynically inclined, as I apparently am (!), you might see the conversation as one occurring between two opposed fundamentalist camps! The one, a classical (and I assume Anglican?) Christian position, and the other a neo-Buddhist but rather totalitarian intellectual and mystical system that opposes it.

What is far more interesting than the specifics of the 'argument', which are largely incoherent, is that the Christian tradition---and by this I mean the best aspect of it as an intellectual tradition---is in my view almost incomparably superior to the dull formulations of Quinnism! There is, there EXISTS, traditions within Christianity that are very high manifestations of existential thought. I was not raised with ANY familiarity of Christianity so it has been for me an eye-opener to discover that it as a 'mansion' with many rooms. Indeed, it is a whole 'country' and a portal that opens up into all sorts of interesting areas. One need look no further than to Kierkegaard and to Nietzsche! I also hope to keep this aspect of the conversation alive and to show (suggest) why it is that 'we' should not turn our backs on it. It is all part of a 'hermeneutics of the present' but that 'area' is not open to uneducated dullards.

Bloom writes that 'the Bible is the most difficult of difficult books'. He further says that 'the general decline in the ability to read nearly anything in the age of television has made the Bible almost impossible to read for all except an elite'. What this means, as a statement recited on the GF Forum, is that no one of the Founders can consider himself a competent reader of the Bible, certainly, nor do they have any interest in it, but that they are not readers and cannot read anything! Nietzsche is utterly mis-read as is Kierkegaard! Quinnism is a mass of 'deliberate mis-readings! If one grasps this, one grasps a great deal.

Similar therefor to the Fundamentalist Baptists who cannot read their own core text (and assert that it 'self-reads' as 'inerrant' revelation), so too with Quinnism there is an assumption that 'Life' self-reads or self-reveals without an active and tendentious interpreter! You merely arrive at a correct so-called 'rational' orientation and---presto-chango!---you suddenly see and understand Reality, all questions and difficulty fall away, you are 'enlightened', and you march on preaching the Gospel of a unique form of salvation to all who will listen. This is a unique anti-intellectual formulation and is in fact dangerous to the mind, to the intellect, and to 'wisdom'.

Do I repeat myself? Heh heh. Yes, I repeat myself. I have explained a few times that this Forum has been very relevant to me in gaining some important clarity about trends that function in our present. Some consider my focus tiresome but that can't be helped.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

• At least even elites are now calling these lines of thoughts unique and dangerous to the mind!

[Dennis Mahar]

Harold Bloom can be dismissed.
Jesus was not an historical figure.
He never walked the Earth.
He was a literary concoction devised by the Romans to control the masses.
The story is still controlling the masses.

[Beingof1]

Alex:

There is, there EXISTS, traditions within Christianity that are very high manifestations of existential thought. I was not raised with ANY familiarity of Christianity so it has been for me an eye-opener to discover that it as a 'mansion' with many rooms. Indeed, it is a whole 'country' and a portal that opens up into all sorts of interesting areas.

Without doubt, this is true.

All religions have a depth but it takes effort. Something most are not willing to put up with.

Harold Bloom can be dismissed.
Jesus was not an historical figure.
He never walked the Earth.
He was a literary concoction devised by the Romans to control the masses.
The story is still controlling the masses.

There are two kinds of people.

People who want to say something of which they have not earned the right to an opinion.
People who actually have something to say and have earned the right to speak about a subject.

Here is the method used to find truth that is standard on this forum: "How does this make me feel? If it makes me feel good, it is true. If it makes me feel bad, it is false."

[Dennis Mahar]

The family of Roman Caesers called the Flavians headed up by Vespasian and Titus captured Josephus the Jewish rebel. Josephus turncoated and himself was anointed a member of the Flavian dynasty. He became Flavius Josephus.

The Jewish Messiah was always depicted as war-like.
The Flavians concocted Jesus as peace loving to counteract that,
turn the other cheek, give unto Caesar what is Caesar's is what Jesus spoke which benefited the Romans.

2 ways to control the masses are 'rule by the sword' or 'rule by religion'.
rule by the sword is expensive.

The Jesus story was never swallowed by the Jews.
The Jesus story was very cleverly turned against the Jews by inserting the theatrical device that the Jews killed Jesus and the Jews have suffered the backlash of anti-semitism ever since.

The first several Christian Saints were members of the Flavian family.

How much shit do you guys have to swallow before the penny drops?

When you are looking at religion you are staring into an abyss.
there's nothing there.

Fishers of men.
there's a sucker born every minute.

[Beingof1]

The family of Roman Caesers called the Flavians headed up by Vespasian and Titus captured Josephus the Jewish rebel. Josephus turncoated and himself was anointed a member of the Flavian dynasty. He became Flavius Josephus.

The Jewish Messiah was always depicted as war-like.
The Flavians concocted Jesus as peace loving to counteract that,
turn the other cheek, give unto Caesar what is Caesar's is what Jesus spoke which benefited the Romans.

2 ways to control the masses are 'rule by the sword' or 'rule by religion'.
rule by the sword is expensive.

The Jesus story was never swallowed by the Jews.
The Jesus story was very cleverly turned against the Jews by inserting the theatrical device that the Jews killed Jesus and the Jews have suffered the backlash of anti-semitism ever since.

The first several Christian Saints were members of the Flavian family.

How much shit do you guys have to swallow before the penny drops?

When you are looking at religion you are staring into an abyss.
there's nothing there.

Fishers of men.
there's a sucker born every minute.

Still pretending and I know for a fact you know jack about this subject.

Ever heard of the Nag Hammadi you knucklehead.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Although I'm not familiar to any documented Flavian psychological warfare capacities or social engineering skills, let no one pretend the Nag Hammadi library would disprove anything here! It's a fact the Flavius family was constantly campaigning against the Jewish revolt and destroyed Jerusalem while former Jewish resistance fighter Josephus remained a close friend and helper while they were destroying his home land and holy city.

• Teachings of Jesus (written down: c. 40 - c. 100)
• The historian Titus Flavius Josephus (37 – c. 100) wrote:
  - The Jewish War (c. 75)
  - Antiquities of the Jews (c. 94)
• Emperor Vespasianus (Flavius) : (9 – 79)
• Emperor Titus (Flavius) : (39 – 81)
• The Nag Hammadi manuscripts containing :
  4th century copies of probably 2nd century texts
  authors unverified

[Beingof1]

Although I'm not familiar to any documented Flavian psychological warfare capacities or social engineering skills, let no one pretend the Nag Hammadi library would disprove anything here!

Disprove what?
How can so many keep missing the point?

It's a fact the Flavius family was constantly campaigning against the Jewish revolt and destroyed Jerusalem while former Jewish resistance fighter Josephus remained a close friend and helper while they were destroying his home land and holy city.

Exactly!
And Josephus is proof for the existence of Jesus.

Why do so many continue to miss the stunningly obvious?

• Teachings of Jesus (written down: c. 40 - c. 100)
• The historian Titus Flavius Josephus (37 – c. 100) wrote:
  - The Jewish War (c. 75)
  - Antiquities of the Jews (c. 94)
• Emperor Vespasianus (Flavius) : (9 – 79)
• Emperor Titus (Flavius) : (39 – 81)

More proof that Jesus existed.

How is it possible that so many continue to miss the point over and over?

[*] The Nag Hammadi manuscripts containing :
4th century copies of probably 2nd century texts
authors unverified[/list]

Nonsense, but you would take the extreem dating as gospel.

[Alex Jacob]

I have no idea how to solve the particular problem you three are discussing. Allow me to say that I have proposed, to myself, that there is some genuine and rather giant force of personalism that gives an astounding thrust to the message(s) of Christianity that I assume a real person there, whoever he might have been. Something of tremendous power was put into motion and I conclude that, as with so many important things in our world, it began in a person and moved in and through persons.

But I wish to focus in another area, one far more germane to this forum, speaking generally. This one goes out to Dennis:

My position---the platform for a position---differs (from yours) in one notable, ever recurring area, and in an axiom: I am fundamentally 'in pro' of the human in humanism, in the 'sacred possibiloty' open to man through a rare, impossible to define or isolate 'quintessence'. It is in and through this quintessence that I locate and also perceive what is highest and best and most noble in the human possibility, though I do not fein to suppose that I know exactly what it is, and perhaps I think that it cannot be known or understood. While I do not desire to wax mysterious nor open avenues to mystification or self-deception, I note that all wisdom traditions refer to such a 'quintessence' and stand before it with some awe and a certain humility. (This quintessence in its Christian manifestation, which is of course a use of language and a means of organizing perception, is known as 'the Spirit' and has many, many different manifestations, from the lowest to the highest. But awareness of such a 'spirit' whether it is personalized or not is an essential part of all human experience, and is part of the human being. To know the human being is to know and understand to some degree this aspect of human experience. It will not go away I don't think, but seems open to endless modifications as perception, phenomenologically, evolves. One could say that the object of spiritual life is to clarify the 'brightness' of human realization (in the sense of Spirit or quintessence), but not to destroy the possibilities of 'brightness' by throwing acid on it.)

I have noted that the position taken up by Dennis is that of application of a kind of 'acid'. This position is a logical extension of the Quinnian position and reduction. Such a philosophical position has much more in common with the elimination of ratiocination, as in the crudest of the crude Southern Baptist Fundamentalist forms, where intelligence and dialectic is held in outright contempt and man is mocked---despised---than it does to those traditions that represent 'the best of the best' within the Christian tradition which necessarily INCLUDES Nietzsche and Kierkegaard and so much advanced and relevant post-Christian theology.

It seems to me that Dennis, through Quinn and through Quinnian processes of thinking, has received the sacred Acid of Reductionism and can douse anything and everything with it! This is not 'creative activity' however, nor recombination nor evolution, but an essentially destructive activity. So much easier it is to destroy than to build!

It is anti-rationalist and fascist in potential, and naturally becomes a home for some people who cannot or will not grow and evolve but who equate growth and evolution with a kind of death: to toss acid on their own selves and to masochistically watch themselves and others bubble and dissolve.

(That is a hard word 'fascist' and I do not mean that you are a fascist but that reductionist formulas often come to serve fascistic movements within human culture and this is much to be avoided, if possible. Those lowest forms of Evangelical Christianity have stooped to these levels in their hatred and contempt for thought and scholarship and it seems ironic in the extreme that you would arrive at a similar position.)

[Dennis Mahar]

You're just saying you care a lot.

[Alex Jacob]

I commend you for cutting right to the chase and in isolating in perfect brevity what our differing and irreconcilable positions arise from: if there is a 'command' I respond to (in the Christian sense), it is that I MUST care. Oddly enough this forum has shown me what real misanthropy is, and how distorting it is to human beings. Insofar as I recognize my own misanthropy and see how impoverished I am by it, I am also induced to remember everything about suffering persons of which the world is full to the brim.

Yes, I care. I WANT to care and yet I so often can't or won't. Curiously and poignantly the spiritual personalism that lives in the quintessential Christian position speaks to the possibility of love. You can't love if you don't or can't (or won't?) care. To be alive, at least in the Christian sense, is to care! So, if you don't or won't or can't care, you're dead! But what is dead can resurrect! And so the core message of this 'terrible', hovering entity known as Christianity (or the spirit) still oversees over us! Asking us to live.

Sorry, Dennis, but you gave me all the tools with which to construct my foolish, romantic post!

'Jesus Christ' as a symbol of possibilities, is a quintessence of personalism, and so all the acid of your preaching and exhortation must inevitably be resisted through the selfsame spirit of the selfsame 'Christ'.

Curious, isnt it?

[Dennis Mahar]

I couldn't give a stuff about your objects of care.
It's not the point.
The point is the fact of care.
Human Being constituted in care.
Diebert calls it thirst,
Nietzsche calls it will to power.

causes/conditions.

[Alex Jacob]

I confess I did not expect a different result!

It does occur to me that, when one comes upon a man who is there, hissing and melting as a self-inflicted acid eats away his very person, that all one can do is to stand away a little and watch. Oddly enough a decomposing body is also a body filled with life, though it cannot be the life of a whole, conscious entity. It is interesting to me that Waldo Frank speaks of that atomizing process as we inevitably descend away from integral wholeness while the acids of modernity dissolve us.

Diebert: you've been quoted! Nietzsche's will-to-power and the Diebertian 'thirst': are they indeed the same?

Suite a la prochaine...

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Although I'm not familiar to any documented Flavian psychological warfare capacities or social engineering skills, let no one pretend the Nag Hammadi library would disprove anything here!

Disprove what?

This was just about a theory of Flavian influence on the formation of the Gospel narrative, as suggested by Dennis. It has nothing to do with Nag Hammadi, like you suggested.

And Josephus is proof for the existence of Jesus.

Perhaps it is. But it's complex material because some of his work is proven to be edited by Christians later on. There's no known independent copy.

but you would take the extreem dating as gospel.

Do you even know which books were in the Nag Hammadi library? If you think about the one possible exception, the gospel Of Thomas, then you are mistaken about the topic of discussion: information on a historical Christ figure, but a list of zennish sayings has nothing to do with that.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Diebert: you've been quoted! Nietzsche's will-to-power and the Diebertian 'thirst': are they indeed the same?

It was just the Buddhist notion of desire (taṇhā) I was talking about: "sense-craving", "craving to be" and "craving not to be". The possible relationship with the notion of will to power I won't mind exploring a bit later here. It might bring up interesting connotations. Do you think there's something to it?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Something of tremendous power was put into motion and I conclude that, as with so many important things in our world, it began in a person and moved in and through persons.

Could you give a few examples? I can't think of one off-the-cuff. Or even "important things" which "began" somewhere specific. A sudden tragic virgin birth?!

It seems to me that Dennis ... has received the sacred Acid of Reductionism and can douse anything and everything with it! This is not 'creative activity' however, nor recombination nor evolution, but an essentially destructive activity. So much easier it is to destroy than to build!

Although I agree somewhat here, I'd object to the idea that it's easier to destroy than to build. It's easier to build simply bad stuff. Destruction is a high energy activity, like anger. So I'd propose the idea that to destroy one first has to become able to destroy. And it's not that common. What is way more common is negating creation before it's born (abortus provocatus). Perhaps an overused cliché but creation cannot be done without destruction being part of it. Only repetition would remain otherwise. Only repeat. The same and the same. Over and over. In slightly different wordings stating the same things. Parroting.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

There is, there EXISTS, traditions within Christianity that are very high manifestations of existential thought. I was not raised with ANY familiarity of Christianity so it has been for me an eye-opener to discover that it as a 'mansion' with many rooms. Indeed, it is a whole 'country' and a portal that opens up into all sorts of interesting areas.

I cannot and will not address all of your writing above, Alex. It should not become some tête-à-tête between us again and perhaps others are driven to comment on the rest. But the one part I quoted begs for some comment. I simply disagree with two notions you bring forward. The first is that "high manifestations" you mention should still be called "Christian" and the second item is the idea Christianity is like a mansion with many rooms as opposed to the target of your critique.

The reason I object to your classification of the types of thought you appear so exited about is that within Christianity itself you won't find much support for the idea to call this "Christian". I believe the majority would strongly disagree and classify your "high manifestations" as fringe, satanic, misguided, modernist falsehoods, etc. And if Christianity cannot recognize the truth value within itself properly one needs to be careful what to call "Christian" and what not. Does it still serve truth to call something Christian or is someone attempting to align themselves with a Big Brand, a convenient label for people to relate to? A marketing ploy?

Hidden underneath this argument is the truth that everything in this world upon investigation is multi-layered and complex. One almost would stop generalizing and utter every sentence overloaded with qualifiers. You seem to be defending a few sub-streams in Christianity which seem philosophical, existential or deeply rooted at least in the earth. But is this a realistic way to address "Christianity" as it works in the worlds for the large majority of members? I do not think so. An extreme example here perhaps but this might be similar to people who offer examples of the good things the Nazi government did for their country, for example some useful ideas about industry and social reform which remained implemented even after the war. Of course they might be right but is it handy to bring it up every time one is judging the "evils" of the Nazis? It's the destructive element which is being addressed because it's seen as more important than any "good" contained in the movement.

Your second argument is about the mansions with many rooms. This sounds like the text from the gospels of course where the house of the Father, the kingdom of heavens, is described as having "many mansions". It's my understanding that Quinn and other people you might be addressing here are specifically talking about this very same thing, simply because it encompasses all fundamental aspects of existence. How could you demand more rooms if the philosophy is being aimed at the whole estate market? You of course do not acknowledge any similarity with the ideas in the Gospels or the possibility such an inclusive approach might be intended (actually you claim it's an excluding affair, right?).

[Alex Jacob]

Diebert wrote: The reason I object to your classification of the types of thought you appear so exited about is that within Christianity itself you won't find much support for the idea to call this "Christian". I believe the majority would strongly disagree and classify your "high manifestations" as fringe, satanic, misguided, modernist falsehoods, etc. And if Christianity cannot recognize the truth value within itself properly one needs to be careful what to call "Christian" and what not. Does it still serve truth to call something Christian or is someone attempting to align themselves with a Big Brand, a convenient label for people to relate to? A marketing ploy?

I think I understand what you are getting at, and I could begin to agree with you for the sake of pursuing your line of argument. At that point I suppose you would say that whatever goes on in 'advanced' or 'sophisticated' thinking (what I have called 'the best of the best' of our traditions, and all traditions) is not any specific thing at all: not Greek, not Christian, not Hebrew. Yet I think I made only a fairly safe statement: "There is, there EXISTS, traditions within Christianity that are very high manifestations of existential thought." Please keep in mind that I am saying this 1) in some posts directed toward Dennis who once called the Bible "that shit-rag" and 2) also toward Quinn who has only read those parts of the Gospels, and some gnostic material, that supports his notion of spirituality. In a more general sense too I am trying to suggest that it is a good idea to keep a line of connection open to what has been described as the Mediterranean traditions which include Judea, Hellenic culture, Roman culture and the place (either physical or intellectual) where all these things have blended together: Alexandria. But, yes, in truth what I am referring to loosely as 'Christian' is in fact all that I just mentioned. In that sense 'Christianity' (the Mediterranean self, the heritage of Mediterranean culture over a long span of time) is very much a vast series of rooms and chambers (and I was riffing off the Gospels to use that simile).

Please also keep in mind that I have generally concluded that Quinnism allows for and supports a denigration of everything that is not immediately related to its notion of 'enlightenment', and this naturally includes the Bible and 'the Christian traditions' but specifically and in the far wider sense of 'Mediterranean self' and traditions. The Quinn thrust in this sense is rejectionist. This rejection is very common these days by people who have lost contact with their own lineage. This is no laughing matter. The more that I understand this the more tragic it appears and the more negative both in actuality and in potential. This is a 'Genius Forum' and it is absolutely essential, as I see things, that a defense be sent up for intellectual traditions, scholarship traditions which are not appreciated. Well, in fact they are not even understood.

You seem to be defending a few sub-streams in Christianity which seem philosophical, existential or deeply rooted at least in the earth. But is this a realistic way to address "Christianity" as it works in the worlds for the large majority of members? I do not think so.

Again, I do think I understand what you are driving at and to some degree I agree. But keep in mind that I have extended the term 'Christian' tremendously. It includes the lowest and most emotional (and thoughtless) forms, but also includes some of the highest expressions of moral thought (which inspire me and remain relevant). You may not agree but I define our selves, the selves of you and of me who are speaking to each other, as 'Christian selves'. Maybe this is a gross Jungian appropriation? (But Jung is not the only one and having referred earlier to Waldo Frank I will suggest again that it is his idea to). I don't think you will like it or accept it but I see both Dennis and David as 'occurring' within the possibilities of 'the Christian self'.

It's my understanding that Quinn and other people you might be addressing here are specifically talking about this very same thing, simply because it encompasses all fundamental aspects of existence. How could you demand more rooms if the philosophy is being aimed at the whole estate market?

Here we have a solid difference of opinion. Without wishing to flame David, it cannot be said that David et al talk of 'the same thing'. You might also say that Dennis 'talks of the same thing' but clearly he doesn't. David and to an even more notable extent Dennis are engaged in a very specific and limited activity and it only includes certain aspects of 'existence' or perceptive possibilities. It is notable, in fact, for all that it excludes. But aren't we hitting again on those basic points of difference between us, I mean in our view of 'Quinnism' and the general thrust of this spiritual program?

How might we advance in this and not, as you imply, just crash heads?

Although I agree somewhat here, I'd object to the idea that it's easier to destroy than to build. It's easier to build simply bad stuff. Destruction is a high energy activity, like anger. So I'd propose the idea that to destroy one first has to become able to destroy.

We have another difference of opinion. I recently read Death in Venice (Thomas Mann) again and remarked his 'lament' for unconscious, thoughtless, 'destructive' trends (in culture, in his own self, in us?) that rush forward with great force and destroy, in the blink of an eye, a lifetime's work. The people who 'destroy' in the sense I am defining it are those who have a great deal of forward thrust from some source of energy but whose activities, in the end, break asunder and demolish. But do they know what they are doing? Do they do it consciously in the way that you imply is possible? I don't think so. The kind of destruction you are talking about (a Nietzschean destruction) is the outcome of a life's work and a life's realization. It is certainly not for everyone.

But who could disagree that with all the tools of modernity and the access to those tools that we are (now?) putting out an extraordinary amount of mediocre trash? But if this is so, Diebert, then perhaps you might understand better why I feel I am on a mission of defending certain things. I believe that 'wisdom' is in beginning to see what we should not so readily and so thoughtlessly toss under the bus.

[Dennis Mahar]

You don't care much about what you write about Alex.
You don't care about Christian, Christ, Christianity or anything in particular.

You care about writing.

Simply, the act of writing is your strong suit and the context you live out of.

Fair enough?

[Alex Jacob]

I do not know how to be more engaged with actual ideas, Dennis, than to write out actual ideas. You ask 'fair enough' and seek an agreement from me. Obviously I don't agree. But do you see how your core anti-intellectualism is functioning? Can you see that your 'ideas' are like an acid that destroys thought and leaves you only repeating a limited group of acidic ideas? Does that represent progress for you? If it is progress then I confess not to understand it at all!

[Dennis Mahar]

What is an actual idea?
What is acid?

The idea that a little prince Buddha got holed up in a walled city and kept ignorant of the world at large until he was 30 and then managed to climb over the walls and saw sickness and death for the first time?

That Jesus actually lived?
Is it not the greatest story ever sold?

stories, stories, stories.
clinging to archetypal images.
the point of archetypal images is to get free of archetypal images.

You use the term 'acid' as an emotionally loaded device in order to inflict a psychological blow.
At the very least you could be authentic about that strategy.

Have you appropriated Shakespeare unto yourself in your character driven plot?

You, being the trickster Iago,
trying to separate Othello (Quinn)
from the fair Desdemona (invisible lurkers)

[Alex Jacob]

It could have a psychological consequence, though you seem nearly completely immune to that or any influence, but I would only hope my critiques have intellectual consequences. I have already explained in depth what I mean by 'acid' and see no need to restate.

It is nice to see you still alive and kicking (though to be necessarily ironic I should have said 'alive'...) It may happen that I proceed with what I had recently outlined as a 'purpose' for writing here again. Please forgive me for not responding more to you. I just don't think we have much directly to say to one another.

[Dennis Mahar]

yeah, you've got a reverse gear.
an authentic conversation is a bit hot to handle for a joker.

[Kunga]

Chorus :


Ego may judge, dislike, even hate....Soul will always love.....

[David Quinn]

As someone whose ancestry is almost exclusively Celtic in nature (Scottish and Irish) and who spent his upbringing in the wild plains of Australia, I can safely say that I have little or no affinity with the "mediteranian self", let alone the musings of a neurotic Jew.

Alex likes to think that he speaks for all of us, that everyone is afflicted with the same unresolved issues that cripple and obsess him. But he is quite mistaken.

A word to the wise: Reality has nothing to fear from acid. Nor do truthful thoughts. Only those who cling to illusions have reason to fear it.