Greer post on philosophy

[AshvinP]

JMG censors my comment, which I posted here and is very polite, where I try to elaborate on why he is misunderstanding PoF, because his ego feels threatened.

Regardless of how polite one may be in pointing out to some well-regarded intellectual like Greer how their egoic fragility and fallibility is undermining the clarity and consistency of their thinking process, why would one expect that, due to that very same egoic fragility and fallibility, it would not be taken as an impolite slur? One of those 'catch 22' dilemmas, no?

Yes, a major catch 22. We are asking the intellectual ego to take a hard look at itself and to freely make itself a servant of higher order Thinking activity. Furthermore, what we are really speaking of here is the activity of more evolved spiritual beings, just as Jung spoke of intellectual possession by 'autonomous' psychic complexes. People simply assume "intellectual ego" is something personal to our minds, again because of the intellectual ego's subject-object division, which then leads them to conclude we are exaggerating the claim of "dualism" and making a big deal out of nothing. All of this is born from their own misunderstanding or complete rejection of what spirit-soul forces we are actually dealing with here.

[Ben Iscatus]

Further to the 'censoring' issue, this Ecosophia blog post on that topic by JMG seems a tad perplexing, given his axing of his exchange with Ashvin.

But bear in mind that he also always says: "no long screeds proclaiming the infallible truth of fill in the blank..."
In spite of your linked post, he is very impatient with dissent.
As a guide to his character, you may know that he's an astrologer. Year after year he gives a forecast and, at the end of the year, usually declares that he's 90% right. After Covid 19 arrived, he immediately downplayed it because he hadn't forecast it, and last winter declared he didn't intend to give his usual forecast and end of year assessment. The planets must be misbehaving.

[AshvinP]

JMG states that Steiner "tried to prove that thinking really could grasp the objective truth about the world." Is that a reasonably correct statement?

No, because JMG means it in a dualistic way. We should really internalize the notion of "co-creating" the world through Thinking. As Cleric wrote previously, the obssession with "proving" things about the world with our thinking only makes sense under modern age dualism. Once we shift to a consistently monistic perspective, where Thinking is a sense-organ which perceives ideal content in the world, then it makes no sense to talk about "proving" or "grasping" objective truth about the world with thinking.
...Really there is nothing we can write to "convince" people this is working within them, only hope that something we write, perhaps unintentionally, sparks off an inspiration which leads them to discover it on their own.

Ashvin, thanks for the clarification. I admire your rhetorical skills and I accept many of your arguments. I hope you won't find it offensive, but I feel that you could encourage others to be more receptive to your ideas by reducing your own level of impatience and prickliness. And your byline about freedom seems a bit arrogant, does it not? Right off the bat, you're putting your audience on the defensive. That seems unhelpful. I hope this message will be received in the spirit it is offered, with respect.

Kyle

DKP,

I have no problem with constructive feedback. But I need more detail for the above to be constructive. What, for ex., in my comment to you did you find "impatient" or "prickly"?

If you are referring to exchanges with Eugene, FB, Jim, once in awhile Ben or Lou, then that's a whole different story with much history...

And I really want to emphasize here that I don't want anyone to be 'receptive' to 'my' ideas, if that means they feel comfortable in their understanding of them when they have not, in fact, understood them. Or if that means they simply accept them at the intellectual level on my authority and do not reason through the logic for themselves. Those would be the worst things which could happen.

[dkpstarkey]

DKP,

I have no problem with constructive feedback. But I need more detail for the above to be constructive. What, for ex., in my comment to you did you find "impatient" or "prickly"?

If you are referring to exchanges with Eugene, FB, Jim, once in awhile Ben or Lou, then that's a whole different story with much history...

I'm not talking about your comment to me at all. I made an observation about how you present yourself to JMG, for example. It didn't surprise me at all that he responded as he did, and then you suggest he's the one with an ego issue. But this isn't about a particular incident, it's an overall impression. There is very little humility in the attitude that people need to more or less become your students, on the basis of Steiner's authority or on any other basis. This is echoed loud and clear in your byline.

[AshvinP]

DKP,

I have no problem with constructive feedback. But I need more detail for the above to be constructive. What, for ex., in my comment to you did you find "impatient" or "prickly"?

If you are referring to exchanges with Eugene, FB, Jim, once in awhile Ben or Lou, then that's a whole different story with much history...

I'm not talking about your comment to me at all. I made an observation about how you present yourself to JMG, for example. It didn't surprise me at all that he responded as he did, and then you suggest he's the one with an ego issue. But this isn't about a particular incident, it's an overall impression. There is very little humility in the attitude that people need to more or less become your students, on the basis of Steiner's authority or on any other basis. This is echoed loud and clear in your byline.

My byline is a quote which sums up Plato allegory of the cave. It's a reflection of the message we keep trying to convey here, i.e. one who views themselves as a complete being will idolize their current perspective and have no motivation to learn and evolve spiritually. As Steiner put it, "If we do not believe within ourselves this deeply rooted feeling that there is something higher than ourselves, we shall never find the strength to evolve into something higher."

Again, what you write above is extremely vague and therefore not helpful to me. Can you quote something I wrote to JMG and explain why or how I should "present myself differently" so as not to be censored by people like him? I am just patiently and politely asking you for specificity here so as to make your original feedback more constructive for me going forward. Thanks.

[dkpstarkey]

Again, what you write above is extremely vague and therefore not helpful to me. Can you quote something I wrote to JMG and explain why or how I should "present myself differently" so as not to be censored by people like him? I am just patiently and politely asking you for specificity here so as to make your original feedback more constructive for me going forward. Thanks.

Yes, I should be more specific, so the next step is as you suggest, a quote from your 2nd message to JMG:

“I just meant, based on what was written here, I don't think you have *understood* The Philosophy of Freedom. So your critique of it in subsequent articles will likely be critiquing your own misunderstanding rather than his phenomenological arguments.”

On the surface, this could be taken as polite at least in a formal sense. But in truth, it is a bold and broadly insulting statement that insults not just JMG's position on some particular point, but his intellectual capacity to comprehend Steiner. Of course, it may indeed be true that JMG doesn't comprehend Steiner. I would expect him, alongside a great many other people who I have no reason to insult, to in fact take this as an insult. This is no way to begin a conversation unless one is speaking to someone who answers to you, like a staffer.

Then there's: "So I hope you accurately represent the "evolution of consciousness" as people like Steiner and Barfield and Gebser understood and communicated it in their writings." Again, this is a proper way of speaking to someone who answers to you, signaling that they are subject to your expectations. Such authority! Great move, dude. Not.

It's almost as if you expect people to answer to you because you represent such a powerful authority. Not to mention your impeccable arguments in regard to Thinking and to Steiner. I mean, why doesn't everyone just throw down their weapons and surrender in the face of your superior firepower. I have an aversion to warrior types, which you remind me of, but regardless, I do wish you well.

[AshvinP]

Again, what you write above is extremely vague and therefore not helpful to me. Can you quote something I wrote to JMG and explain why or how I should "present myself differently" so as not to be censored by people like him? I am just patiently and politely asking you for specificity here so as to make your original feedback more constructive for me going forward. Thanks.

Yes, I should be more specific, so the next step is as you suggest, a quote from your 2nd message to JMG:

“I just meant, based on what was written here, I don't think you have *understood* The Philosophy of Freedom. So your critique of it in subsequent articles will likely be critiquing your own misunderstanding rather than his phenomenological arguments.”

On the surface, this could be taken as polite at least in a formal sense. But in truth, it is a bold and broadly insulting statement that insults not just JMG's position on some particular point, but his intellectual capacity to comprehend Steiner. Of course, it may indeed be true that JMG doesn't comprehend Steiner. I would expect him, alongside a great many other people who I have no reason to insult, to in fact take this as an insult. This is no way to begin a conversation unless one is speaking to someone who answers to you, like a staffer.

DKP,

I am curious why you are leaving out JMG's stubbornly dismissive response prior to my comment you quoted - "Awakening, if by “promising” you mean accepting the truth of everything Steiner said, yes, you’re going to be disappointed, but then I never promised that."

Should this, the fact that he has no idea what I am talking about and therefore confuses my initial comment for a claim for him to blindly accept "everything Steiner said" - have no bearing on my response?

That being said, I think you are correct in some sense. I have become so familiar with the blind spots re: PoF and Steiner that I can immediately spot why someone is misunderstanding my comments. What I forget is that the other person is not familiar with our discussions here and therefore cannot understand what or how I have immediately spotted the flawed assumptions in their comment. I should try to remind myself that and really start over from scratch with every new person. Not to avoid offending them, but because they will have no idea what I am specifically pointing to and therefore cannot follow the logic.

Then there's: "So I hope you accurately represent the "evolution of consciousness" as people like Steiner and Barfield and Gebser understood and communicated it in their writings." Again, this is a proper way of speaking to someone who answers to you, signaling that they are subject to your expectations. Such authority! Great move, dude. Not.

It's almost as if you expect people to answer to you because you represent such a powerful authority. Not to mention your impeccable arguments in regard to Thinking and to Steiner. I mean, why doesn't everyone just throw down their weapons and surrender in the face of your superior firepower. I have an aversion to warrior types, which you remind me of, but regardless, I do wish you well.

Ok, I suppose I could have left my hope out of it at the end. Again, I write that because I clearly discerned from his "linear model" comment that he was completely misunderstanding all those people I mentioned. But I can also see why he would not be aware of that and therefore take it as a sleight.

The deeper unspoken thread running through your comments here is that people's ability to think through things for themselves, without antipathies of all sort coming into play (your "aversions"), is and should be related to my online "authoritative" tone. If someone yields their own logical thinking in the face of such a perceived tone they are averse to - no less a person who writes blogs and answers many comments each day - then they stand no chance in the 'real world' where much harsher realities will confront their ego when investigating their own spiritual and soulful activity. The comments you quoted above are so minimally aggressive and condescending as far as online commentary goes. I have no interest in further coddling that entirely irresilient attitude towards life. And, again, JMG is a blog writer, author, and general commentator on topics so foreign and 'controversial' to modern people that he really has no excuse to let my tone, however slightly negative it is perceived to be, blind him from the logic of what I am writing and make him feel forced to censor me.

I don't think he felt the way you do, though, for the above reasons. Rather I think it's clear he simply wanted to avoid the arguments I was making because he had never thought of them before and therefore had no response.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Again, what you write above is extremely vague and therefore not helpful to me. Can you quote something I wrote to JMG and explain why or how I should "present myself differently" so as not to be censored by people like him? I am just patiently and politely asking you for specificity here so as to make your original feedback more constructive for me going forward. Thanks.

Yes, I should be more specific, so the next step is as you suggest, a quote from your 2nd message to JMG:

“I just meant, based on what was written here, I don't think you have *understood* The Philosophy of Freedom. So your critique of it in subsequent articles will likely be critiquing your own misunderstanding rather than his phenomenological arguments.”

On the surface, this could be taken as polite at least in a formal sense. But in truth, it is a bold and broadly insulting statement that insults not just JMG's position on some particular point, but his intellectual capacity to comprehend Steiner. Of course, it may indeed be true that JMG doesn't comprehend Steiner. I would expect him, alongside a great many other people who I have no reason to insult, to in fact take this as an insult. This is no way to begin a conversation unless one is speaking to someone who answers to you, like a staffer.

Then there's: "So I hope you accurately represent the "evolution of consciousness" as people like Steiner and Barfield and Gebser understood and communicated it in their writings." Again, this is a proper way of speaking to someone who answers to you, signaling that they are subject to your expectations. Such authority! Great move, dude. Not.

It's almost as if you expect people to answer to you because you represent such a powerful authority. Not to mention your impeccable arguments in regard to Thinking and to Steiner. I mean, why doesn't everyone just throw down their weapons and surrender in the face of your superior firepower. I have an aversion to warrior types, which you remind me of, but regardless, I do wish you well.

dkp ... Then I suppose you must be equally critical of BK, who has no qualms about calling out academic philosophers/scholars who have written volumes on their interpretation of Schopenhauer, or Jung, which BK has emphatically and severely dismissed as gross misinterpretations, calling them irresponsible to perpetuate it, while hardly being polite. As long as he backs it up by making a strong, cogent case for how they are misconstruing things, and offers a sound alternative for others to consider, it seems fair game.

[dkpstarkey]

The comments you quoted above are so minimally aggressive and condescending as far as online commentary goes.

I have to agree if we're talking about responses to articles, they are often quite lacking in emotional intelligence. It all depends on what you're going for, and with JMG, well he is an Archdruid, you know. So in that case, it is inevitable that you and he will struggle for dominance, and on his blog, of course, he rules. Thus, no surprise there.

Bye for now.

[dkpstarkey]

dkp ... Then I suppose you must be equally critical of BK, who has no qualms about calling out academic philosophers/scholars who have written volumes on their interpretation of Schopenhauer, or Jung, which BK has emphatically and severely dismissed as gross misinterpretations, calling them irresponsible to perpetuate it, while hardly being polite. As long as he backs it up by making a strong, cogent case for how they are misconstruing things, and offers a sound alternative for others to consider, it seems fair game.

This is of course true of BK and many academic philosophers/scholars, they can be quite severe with each other. But they are engaged in a sort of dueling in which they have every incentive to do so, and this is what I expect of them. However, if I am on someone else's home turf, it is only common sense that if I want to be welcomed there, I will not go around asserting my authority but will proceed with care. Also, I do not believe that conversations on this forum benefit from the kind of attitude that BK displays. But of course, the fact that BK started it suggests that posts here might follow his example. I think that would be unfortunate.