dkpstarkey wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 10:01 pmYes, I should be more specific, so the next step is as you suggest, a quote from your 2nd message to JMG:AshvinP wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 8:03 pm 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.
“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.
There is something to be said for that approach in very limited contexts IMO. With some person who shows up on the forum or out of the lurk asking questions, like you did, my approach will be more accommodating for a good long while. But with archdruids and professional academics, I don't think so. We are commenting mostly to point out the flaws to others, not the person with a massive following who is writing the articles and should have knowledge of the core arguments of the philosophers he is referencing. I just didn't think JMG would shut down my comments immediately after the first one. Not only my comments to him, but to someone else who directly asked me a question. I am really concerned how censorship is not only tolerated but defended these days, as some sort of preemptive strike against passionate and well-reasoned arguments.