G
Guest
Guest
An uncle of mine teaches university level philosophy and has been quite popular among the student body for his interpretations of “bearded schizoidal fanatics”, as well as many non-bearded ones. My own youth was beset by much turbulent confusion, and being thrown about “pillar to post” in making “the first mistake” until I realized that my uncle himself was schizoidal.In spite of the fact that the writings of schizoidal authors contain the above described deficiency, or even an openly formulated schizoidal declaration which constitutes sufficient warning to specialists, the average reader accepts them not as a view of reality warped by this anomaly, but rather as an idea to which he should assume an attitude based on his convictions and his reason. That is the first mistake.
Even so, his fanatical stance against science and anything scientific allowed me to appreciate the limitations of the scientific view, which I had placed upon a pedestal at the time. Thus, at the risk of making the first mistake, I often feel the need to explore and examine what can be construed as schizoidal in a critically corrective manner, at least to understand what is behind the expression, in this case a highly pontificated critique of the direction behind this site and those affiliated with it.
It is obvious Durand considers all advocates of this direction as well-meaning fanatics on the wrong track, doomed to extreme and apparently painful failure. I am sure he is not the first or the last in this view among the many who have come across this material.
He seems to call out a warning almost in dire prophetic fashion for C advocates to mend their ways, or suffer the consequences of their folly. The “C-way” has struck a tone of discordance in this person, and he has judged, scoffed and mocked.
I have taken the trouble to look at the author’s web site, or at least some of the main writings therein:
http://beingquest.com/Rel_Trad.htm
I was surprised to see that the tone of writing is rather clearer than that in his comments on this forum. If he would have expressed himself at least according to that level of coherence perhaps constructive dialogue would have followed. Instead, he judged, scoffed and mocked.
Durand, are you surprised that you were judged, scoffed and mocked in return? Where is the mercy and compassion of which you speak in your religious writings? You seem to me to be playing the role of Jesus overturning the tables of the moneychangers, yet THOSE were not well-meaning as you have professed these souls are.
Don’t you realize that the Tower of Babel of the “One Truth” has long been rent asunder (for better or for worse)? The path, which you describe, is but one room of that former tower, however you may view it, just as the path described on this site is but another room.
The difference is that your path is eclectic, and has always existed in some form or tradition. Your room may seem to be lofty, and may in fact be lofty, but it is tiny and as long as versions of it have existed IT HAS DONE NOTHING. The fact of the matter is that it has contributed just as much to the woes of the world as any other “well-meaning” path.
This room is larger and more accessible to a wide variety of individuals. Your writings suggest egalitarianism leads to fascism. I will not disagree that it has led to fascism, because of the collectively immature level of the “many”. However, given the nature of the times, the “many” or at least a portion thereof, must be addressed in some fashion.
If the proponents of this site and those affiliated with it were simply propagators of a doctrine, I would not take the time to read the material, let alone respond to it. What I see happening here is that people are being motivated to think and network, who may have otherwise been left in isolation. Opinions regarding whose truth is or is not valid aside, this dynamic is far better than fatalistic complacency.
I for one do not place you in the position of pauper. You have actually done this yourself. And judging from the number of contributions on your site, your voice is truly alone in the wilderness. If the “many” are fools as you say (and the views of C-supporters are not of any majority by far), then why have you taken the energy and time to express your dissent, and why have you lost the degree of clarity evident where you do express your views?
In any case, as I mentioned in the beginning of my own rant (which I admit is only a superficial exposition), I am simply applying my own reason to what I have read from you, just as I can only apply my own reason in reading the other contributions in this forum. I can only conclude that your motives (here, not on your own site) were not to communicate, but to admonish for the sake of admonishment.
The gulf between your view and those held by many of the contributors here is now insurmountable. You have been labelled pathological, and you seem to have labelled the C direction pathological, and all its truly well meaning attempts as fruitless and futile. I would have thought that one such as yourself, who allegedly believes in mercy, truth, integrity and compassion, would have figured out a way to approach this gulf more in accordance to your professed beliefs.
To quote Proverbs .22:
This unfortunately has been your legacy on this site....scoffers delight in scoffing, and fools hate knowledge.
It is a shame.