I didn't foresee that you might have perceived my comments as diminishing the strength and motivation of your contributions; if the pursuit of reason is well served by good manners, then all the better (for all of us).
And I would be interested in your comments on the problems of what you refer to as "metaphysical essentialism".
Actually, the way I intended it was more along the lines of, "It's so impressive to me that Pye accomplishes so readily the perfectly good manners that I would like to possess myself. Kudos to her for doing that, she sets an example I can try to emulate".Dennis Mahar wrote:you get a patronising pat on the head for being a 'good little girl'..
Pye already knows that I respect her intellect, and my comments were not intended to detract from that.
Right, that's interesting. From that perspective, your behaviour is totally consistent with Dennis's program, and you're "flattening" his "reactive buttons" as much as he's flattening yours. What a great healing partnership.Laird: When people like Alex not only fail to respect the forum and its "teachers" in that way, but actually criticise it/them harshly, Dennis reacts from the same "protective streak"...
Alex: And this is how 'aversions' and 'preferences' arise. Technically, my hitting those reactions point could be seen as a sort of 'healing activity'. Alex as psychic acupuncturist!
I'm not too comfortable with the term "medieval" in its implication of regression - of that which has been superseded - and of ignorance and brutality (e.g. the Inquisition), but I think there's some truth in what you say here. It's hard for me to evaluate exactly how much though because I'm not well enough read with respect to our cultural history to comment intelligently on (1) what exactly that Medieval structure was, (2) how and why it was shattered, and (3) the extent to which I would defend it against the shattering.Alex Jacob wrote:You represent and to some extent describe a Medieval God or the memory of it. The basic ordering of your world, the world you 'see', is a reflection of that Medieval world that is our common heritage (that of Europe). Your vision of the Ideal Society underpins your writing, generally, and the forces you describe operating 'as against' both man and society are similar if not the same as those oppositional forces that held Medieval Europe in check: essentially demonic.
But that Medieval structure, the first and only creation of European and Mediterranean culture that envisioned a Whole and created a unified system of philosophy, religion, government and economics, was completely shattered and broken asunder.
I defend my actual perspective (medieval or not) simply out of experience and intuition. I experience "the demonic" personally. There's nothing that anyone can say that would cause me to deny that. I have also (it seems to me) been assisted on separate occasions when I have asked directly and sincerely for divine assistance - these experiences are less clear-cut than the negative experiences, but I find them hard to deny too: the assistance certainly arrived, and immediately, although a hardened sceptic like Diebert might question its true source. I intuit on top of all of this that there are, indeed, godly ways of living and, in contrast, profane ways of living, and that the challenge for both individuals and humanity (and all living beings) as a whole is to live a godly life.
Take these two facts - the fact of the demonic, and the fact of divine assistance - and the intuition of the need to live a godly life, and I challenge you to come up with a perspective on the world that isn't much like mine. :-)
The problem is, as you suggest, how to reconcile this perspective with "modernity", which, it might seem at first glance, has indeed "superseded" it. Unless one had had experiences like mine, one might be led to believe that such things were mere "superstition"; that science has made them redundant... and I don't think that this is an accident by any means. There are forces invested in hiding this knowledge from us, in leading us away from godly living and into profanity.
So, when you talk about us having "fallen away from a Guiding Structure into ... a form of chaotic life", about us being "herded along, or propelled along, by extraneous force", and about us being "'one and all, muddled and divided men', who have lost our unity with a Whole that we conceive and believe in", I suggest that this reflects what success the demonic has had in sowing confusion amongst us, in leading us away from godliness (possibly - pure speculation - because of inadequacies in "the Medieval structure", which "cracked asunder", wherein the baby was swept out with the bathwater). Thankfully, there are counter-balancing forces in the world too. I think we're in a tumultuous time spiritually.
In my darker moments, I too succumb to the "vestigial anticipation" you mention of a 'demonic future', and I see this as potentially being facilitated by technology, in particular by artificial intelligence. Various movies have played on this possibility, which, I think, given the forces involved, is a real one. On the other hand, I think that the more energy we devote to denying this possibility, the less likely it is to happen, so I don't particularly want to dwell on it unless it's to consider ways of avoiding it.
Yes, and this is more and more the point I'm getting to.Diebert van Rhijn wrote:It's very simple then Laird, especially with John of the Cross as reference. Put all your valuables, trust and effort in one relationship, the fundamental one and all other relationships will be explained to you and given to you. There's no other way around it. As St. John and the Gospels and whatever relevant tradition you want to bring to the table would agree on: there's no way to serve two masters, to start a devotional "sacred" marriage and still sleep and party around just because you "need" various relations to blow off your steam.
I can accept self-denial in the sense of humility and deference to a higher power, but not in the sense of denial of my own existence. How does that gel with what you mean?Diebert van Rhijn wrote:But the whole "message", if there is any, is that this stubborn half-hearted image of "us" is actually the only real opposition involved. The utter unavoidable reality of this causes projection of evils everywhere to vanquish, to cast out, to drown out, whatever. The problem is always ourselves: the first step to take, the first rabbit hole.
Well, John, right now I "feel" like discussing the subject matter of this thread, and not my (other) feelings. Is that cut-down and authentic enough for you? It's awfully dry and boring, I know.SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Laird, if someone asks you a question in person, do you give them a 45 minute answer? No, you reply authentically, cut it down for me, how do you feel??
Though, if no one were to "react" to anything anyone else said, none of us would post anything and we'd have a dead forum. Or do you distinguish "non-reactive" posts from "reactive" posts? If so, how?Dennis Mahar wrote:See what I mean?
reacted.