jupiviv: While you will see it as a
Wall of Text I prefer to control the term and see it as a
Chalcidicum of Text!
Have
fun if you possibly can ...
Someone who used to post here, who left, and then came back and then engaged me (when I was still registered before) in PM conversations, shared his perspective of this 'space': the GF 'world' after having left it. This fellow entered in originally as a
player, a
participant, a
follower, an
agreer you could say (to some of the general doctrines which
are part-and-parcel of it), but came back again in opposition. To what? Can 'the forum' be spoken of, be generalised as, an Individual? Can there be extracted and laid out a general line or general trend of philosophy? Of 'praxis'? My answer is both yes and no. One could, but cautiously. But what I do think is that the 'spirit' of the place (that means the definitions established in this space), do affect, control, and 'dictate' communication in this space. The space becomes, in the way a group of person amalgamates into a general Person, a sort of personality, a force-field such that if you come into the space and interact with it, you are 'asked' to adapt to it. I suppose that one could spend more time investigating this area of 'dynamic' and I suppose too there are more things that can be said about it. But saying it has never been popular here. In fact 'the space' is opposed to that level of critique. It just 'doesn't want to go there'.*
Why is this relevant? Let me use you as an example. I see you as a representative of this space. I see you as a True Believer insofar as when you speak you employ a set terminology---I have described them as tautological formulae---which refer to grand things, and
capitalised things: Truth, Absolute, Wisdom, Enlightenment. These huge nouns are used very suspiciously, at least in my view. But now let me add 'the other side of the coin'. The nouns shift from the grandiose references to
attacks, like this:
- ...tiresome dilettante; lack [of] intellectual substance; torrents of frothing logorrhoea; glib and fatuous; your [incapability] of thinking for yourself; pseudo-intellectual and the carefree dilettante ... irascible intellectual wannabe; ramblings, role playing game, not serious discussion; pomposity; buffoonery; devoid of Man's faculty of discernment; 1st year philosophy student trying to impress ...
The point in bringing this up is to refer to a certain kind of a personality, in a certain sort of environment, employing a certain form of a rap which deals on high things or high topics, which established itself in a dynamic of either/or, black & white, winner/loser, wise/stupid, intelligent/dumb, tuned-in and tuned-out. I have said it so many different times (with little effect on those who use and benefit from this binary structure and tactics of antagonism) that this looks in some ways like the dynamics that are common in cult-environment. Why say specifically 'cult-environment'? The reason is that the cult is generally speaking a group of persons who tends to concentrate power in or toward a person with a 'spiritual rap', and this means one who says: I have keys of Wisdom, I have keys of Power, I have keys of Salvation; I have keys of Enlightenment. These folks sense something about these important topics, and they establish themselves as 'brokers', they elect others who support their power, and thus embolden them with 'power', and the whole thing snow-balls and, as we all know, more often than not gets ugly.
The only reference I am going to make here is to your tactics and your words. I allude to the fact that this dynamic was established by the Founders. They allowed it to happen because it served their purposes. You are one who has 'resonated' with that message, and who uses it. You have internalised, apparently, certain beliefs, views and understandings about your own self that gives you the right to 1) pull out of your ass some very grandiose terminology and to wear if not guru's clothes then at least a couple of strings of 'special beads' that would enable you to say,
with no irony, 'I have been shooting wisdom peals toward your face for the duration of the conversation' and other such phrases, while you then---unreasoningly, without justification, and simply becayse you have a will to do so and thus you
WILL do so, make an effort to demolish a person's position.
Why is this aspect of 'demolition' relevant? A wise person said to me that one of the common features of 'argumentation' at GF is an 'argument' (which is as I say really only a concentration of
will) to totally blast the adversary out of the water. To render what they say, and indeed what they are, as devoid of any integrity, relevance (to a general conversation), and to demonstrate that they are fundamentally deluded. The word 'deluded'---used by you and central to your rap, is a key word. It stems out of Buddhist terminology and so refers to
structures of the mind, to structures really of all thinking, and thus if it is handled by a destructive person, or a power-hungry person, it turns into a fundamental attack on personhood. On the notion or the fact of persons. In its most extreme use it is literally an attack on the self. I spent a good deal of time and energy writing 'walls of words' (heh heh) on the topic of Zen's employment of techniques that share similarity with later Maoist techniques of brainwashing and mind-control. The lesson about this came to me in the context of Genius Forum and watching Quinn operate. He has so internalised some of these techniques (they are used subtly of course and he is not a 'destructive personality' and I am not trying to paint him that way: to understand what I am getting at requires discernment and the handling of subtleties). But the dynamic
was established. And you, in my humble opinion, are a descent representative of it.
Yet you say:
I don't want to force my conception on anyone because it won't work. They will understand it by themselves or not at all.
Now, what does this
mean, and what is to be brought to bear
against it? Or as 'alternative', as 'antidote'? Though I can honestly understand why you, jupiviv, would and do reject everything that I have to say and all that I have brought forward in this thread (I mean it is that extreme! There is nothing here that you consider relevant or necessary or that is valued). We touched on the word 'human' and the cognates
humanitarian and
humanist, and as it turns out, at least as I see things, the idea, the topic, the discipline, the area, the fact, and the possibility of the human is what has to be brought forward or brought back around. (So, I substitute 'chalcidicium' for 'wall' and this means: a human structure, and a structure that is part-and-parcel of 'my', if not your, tradition. But it ain't Zen or neo-Buddhism that much is clear). Do you see how this functions? Essentially, your war is against a part of yourself---the 'all too human'. I admit that Nietzsche is a very very interesting person, and also that his quotes are strong and their messages are succinct and direct. I can even admit to being a 'Nietzschean' (or to having been influenced by him) to some degree. But Nietzsche is both poison and medicine. I will leave that there for now.
It is true that I did not come back into this space with an 'argument' in the sense of a Mission or a group of decisive phrases, nor a Program, nor even a reading list. I came back, and I am generally involved with, a whole group of different thoughts and possibilities. One is
Metaphysic which is for me means non-material modes of understanding. But this does not mean severance from the material or from the body, nor from Man. The other notion or 'possibility' has to do with
Intuition. Modes of knowing, or things-known, that come from areas or sources beyond limited mind, or certain barriers that are established in a rigid, authoritarian personality, such as yours (?) I mean what is available to and what comes from 'above' a rationally structured mentality. I very strongly believe, and believe I have grasped intuitionally, that what I am referring to is real. Finally, the other element is
Intelligence.
You say:
You have no argument!
And what I say is that, at least in some main sense,
I do not desire to argue. What I desire to do is to indicate areas that can be considered as possibilities for investigation. I would much rather make allusions---and thus successfully communicate my ideas, the things I value---than to blast someone to pieces with 'argument' ... and then
shoot wisdom pearls toward or into them. ;-)
Okay. No part of what I have said here has any meaning for you. It is just another Wall of Words. It is pure, concentrated ignorance borne out of a deluded mind. I hang my head in shame ...
At the very least I am not suggesting this time around that you pay for it or subscribe to my bi-monthly newsletter!
All the references in this thread from Guenon to the Frankfurt School to Etienne Gilson and Plato are relevant pieces to the discourse that I seek to develop. As I have said in other places: I prefer the Questions. The Questions have more value, meaning, and relevance than a spurious or partial answer (and a half-baked one is obviously no good). Therefore, the ground that I choose to occupy is, in numerous sense, an open ground, a ground where dramatic and impetuous decisions have not been made. A ground of possibility and also a ground of experiment. I do not have answers, I have questions, and I am quite comfortable in that domain.
_____________________________________
*I have to say that some, Diebert for example,
nearly completely oppose my sense or my assertion that GF has a 'core philosophical spirit' that can be spoken of as I do. Ever since I have known him he has opposed this assertion and still does. To speak as I do is in a way to 'operate a generalism' and generalisms are dangerous insofar as they produce inaccurate conclusions.