The sorts of statements you make are part-and-parcel of your overall, larger view and understanding, and I think I can say, and I think that many people can say, that what you are getting at is intelligible and makes sense. And I would further note that you are describing your own position, or your own path, and it would appear as one of radical spirituality.Pam wrote:But breaking with our cultural matrix is exactly what must happen on the road to truth. I explain further below.
I am of the opinion that you are just one of hundreds, thousands and for all that I know millions of people who have worked to define their relationship with God or existence. And all of those people - at least of those that I am aware of (having read their works) - never leave off their connection with their 'matrix'. To employ the story of Jesus' confrontation and conflict with his matrix seems to me to be intensely problematic. Meaning, it does not work really to the advantage of your argument. Because quite simply to react against a stale or stultifying matrix means to rejuvinate and bring new life into it. But not to abandon it, and not certainly to abandon people.
I cannot judge your choices and I think you are very aware that each person oversees their sovereign processes. Life is so strangely complex in this sense and really, when one has opened up to the activity of divinity in one's life, really rather weird. Again, prepositions (as in 'here' 'there' 'up' 'down' 'in' 'out') have little meaning since, without being able to explain really much of anything about life, we all live it.
Yet I sense that we are not speaking on the same level, nor to the same concerns. And I also sense that you basically cannot relate to the concerns that I highlight, and that the only thing that interests you, and draws you along, is your very personal path. Who can argue against that choice? or that destiny? Again, I would not, and in reality I am not, even with my critical endeavors which, as I say, have relevance and utility for me (the value of conversation/confrontation to help one to articulate and concretize ideas). It is a fair statement though to note that everything that you write, and your entire focus, is thoroughly personal and thoroughly private. In other conversations you have indicated, more or less, a desire or an intention to be done with physical incarnation. This can be seen as part-and-parcel of the Christian path (though I understand that such notions are likely the 'bridges' you no longer need or want): Life here as part of an exit-strategy. I cannot be sure because you have not to my knowledge stated it directly, but that is my impression.
Because I have lived through downfalls and pits of various sorts - difficult periods of collapse that yet laid foundations for rejuvenation - I can, and I think many can, understand what you are saying. It does require maturity though. But as I said I think your own 'story-line' does not ultimately work to the advantage of your argument, and for the following reasons. It is when one deals with the consequences of a fallen structure, or a failed choice, that one is forced to rebuilt. And when one rebuilds one must build 'on solid ground'. And if it happened that, to emply the metaphor of a plant as I did before, that the water with which one nourished oneself was after all bad water, one will likely make better choices, new choices, and seek clear and nourishing water.But in trying to subvert the destructive element of dropping the cultural matrix (and it is indeed experienced as a destruction) you are also subverting the transformation that results of this necessary destruction. I'm speaking of your own subversion here, because, in truth, you have no power to stop anyone from seeking the truth of themselves.
And that is now and has always been the core of my 'argument': that this is what we 'must' do and that this is 'spiritual work'.
But you paint what I am speaking about as if I am defending the outmoded temple structures of ancient Judea against spiritual revolutionaries. This is not a fortunate metaphor for my endeavors. It fits into your story though, and your conception of yourself in this world.
We are not speaking to the same thing. And despite your view of what QRS did or did not do, and whether 'matrix' was offered or not, and because some aspect of their specific radicalism is similar to yours, such that you are inclined to 'defend' it (or explicate it might be a better word), what they very much did do, and with a great certainty, is to define 'wisdom' and 'ignorance', truth and delusion, in very specific and stated ways. And THAT is very much a matrix. And it is a matrix which I - and I am not alone though it would appear I am one of the more percervering! - have taken a stand against. Not for spite and not to simply stir up trouble, and not because I am 'ignorant' or 'deluded', but in defense of a whole group of things which they too quickly dismiss.I agree that the QRS did not offer any supporting matrix on the forum, but they did not discourage them either. David and I had many lively discussions regarding the metaphorical “male and female principle.” Have you read the letters between David and Kevin “Letters between enemies?” Although they are not a matrix per se, they do reveal the difficulties and challenges experienced by both on their quest for truth. While they took more of a monk-like path than I (I worked in the world for 30 years, I am married with two children and two grandchildren and am engaged in their lives) I do relate to their quest and the struggles they encountered.
And once again, and for the hundrenth time, I restate my overall project, not because I hope to convince you or 'you', but because it is something that needs to be understood better.
That is, I think, a stament of significant misunderstanding. Ideas in truth have very real consequences. Partial or incomplete truths can have and often do have very bad effect. It would be really foolish, in my way of seeing things, to have failed to have risen to the occasion and taken adantage of an opportunity to look into and research the missing peices. My concerns and my endeavors have nothing to do with these various personages, and you have I think failed to grasp the larger issues to which spiritual concerns, and concerns of life, or civilisational concerns, point us. Not you of course, this I understand. But I am speaking to things beyond your zone of interest and things which, quite simply, have no relevance and meaning for you.Do you you not question the continuance of this battle with QRS when none of the three have posted here for a long time?
I would also like to suggest that in numerous ways, though it is not something I have much interest in talking about, just how 'life and death' issues have impinged on my life, my ideas and my choices, and of course my present concerns. I also know that you have the insight to know that you can't. Yet if I fiercely (to put it dramatically) defend certain 'conceptual pathways' it is because of meaningful realizations and promptings about these things, not because I have not experienced them.
It is simply a truism that people are called in different directions.
Is one of those inarguable statements. Until it is more closely looked into. What gives you the truth of yourself is a shared human self, and language, and the endeavors of countless generations of people who have carved out of the world everything that we understand as *meaning*. Your statement, Pam, actually encases a certain ignorance. You imagien yourself as independent and perhaps 'beholden to none' but your God (you might not say it like that). This I would have to say is a false statement. And so I speak to another level or layer of truth, and make suggestions about 'preservation' or 'better understanding' or more considered, mature analysis of things, ideas, literature, our history, and much else.Who else can give me the truth of things but me?
All that I can 'know' of motivations is what I pick up through reading the words written here. It is a given to me that we ALL get it wrong, and often. But we are forced to deal in generalities and this is what goes on in all fora.
I'd ask you to notice how you have corralled me into a specific 'corner' which, naturally, you established from the start! Your argument and thrust is cogent though. It all follows from your predicates.Finding out what and who we are under the covers of our cultural identity is not for everyone. But for those who are driven to know, it is everything. Which means, no one, not you, not a priest, not a child, not a husband, not a friend can stop those who are driven to know. Have you considered that your desire to stop the quest only adds fire to the quest, sort of like forbidding your daughter to date a certain boy only serves to drive her into his arms? Do you believe you have stopped a single poster on any forum to which you are a member from continuing their quest to know?
But: I am not oposed nor do I argue against deeper ways of knowing 'who we are'. I would also say that the path that you privelage, because it is a 'platform', can be and should be examined. Radicalism should be examined. There is no such thing as a 'pure (untainted) radicalism'. Radicalism indicates a group of different motivators (usually).
To couch my endeavor as a 'husband or priest' (etc) who desires to 'hold you back' from self-knowledge could indicate some of the obstacles you've had to deal with, but I am in no sense advocating fearful holding back from exploration. Nothing of the sort. And I am recommending what I consider to be a fuller and more mature type of 'knowing' and relationship to what can be known, and what use to make of it. Duty is a big idea for me.