Anti-intellectualism

[irenicspace]

Cliff Bostock recently wrote an essay for Creative Loafing called, Derrida and Dubya: Anti-intellectualism in America. It was very interesting. Some of his points made me immediately think of the OTO though. I read:

The anti-intellectual typically exhibits little curiosity about other perspectives and no skepticism about his own positions. When

Comments

[k_navit]

(sitting on fingers)

I would never say that class has nothing to do with the OTO. I *would* say that I am seriously skeptical of embracing the framing of behavior of "segments" of the OTO in terms of a view of class structures that is not only NOT very intellectual, but is elitist in a very different sense. I find the middle-classifying and corporate structur-izing of the OTO to dismay me more every single year. I am drawing a distinction between intellectuals and elitists, though sometimes they share the same section of the Venn diagram.

I'll also say, before I go back to sitting on my fingers, that I have always considered some people to have reason to feel intellectually superior, lol, because they do analyze and they do ask questions that are not merely clever disguises for trying to annihilate someone with whom they disagree -- and that in many cases the irritation that some respondents may have had on issues that have come up on these discussions has less to do with being confronted by someone who is "intellectualizing" and more to do with the arrogant tone in which some of the "intellectualizing" is done. I am drawing a distinction between analytical thinking and arrogance, yes. And no, I'm not talking about you (at least not this time [wink])

"A recent example was the heated debate about class. The constant denyal that class has nothing to do with the OTO. Is this due to anti-intellectualism?"

Possibly. But certainly not in all cases. In some cases it is due to serious discomfort with the ways in which the framing devices of class are used in a "fraternal" and "magickal" order in discussion of its development in the United States. "Class" is as social a construct as they get, and imo shouldn't be relied on too heavily, if at all, in a serious OR intellectual :-) discussion of the future of the Order. At least not until Fussell's amusing but static definitions are thrown out. I'm not a determinist, and I find the discussions of behavior as motivated solely by class origins to be deterministic to a degree that appalls me among members of the OTO. THAT is where my resistance comes from, and I'm with you in having been accused of being an intellectual elitist more times than I count -- so on that end, at least, my dis-ease lies elsewhere.

Thanks for hosting the debates though (grin), I've been learning a lot, whether I like it or not.

Well...

[keith418]

I find the middle-classifying and corporate structur-izing of the OTO to dismay me more every single year.

I think that anyone who was genuinely concerned about these trends - I am myself - would then want to explore, say, just how middle class values clash with Thelema and what the essential, and exact, nature of that conflict really is. Rather than see John and I as ideological opponents because we talk about these issues, it might behoove you to actually look at the way class issues impact on the OTO along the same lines we are. You don't have to agree with us to get value out of the discussion.

I'm not a determinist, and I find the discussions of behavior as motivated solely by class origins to be deterministic to a degree that appalls me among members of the OTO. THAT is where my resistance comes from, and I'm with you in having been accused of being an intellectual elitist more times than I count -- so on that end, at least, my dis-ease lies elsewhere. I'm not a determinist, and I find the discussions of behavior as motivated solely by class origins to be deterministic to a degree that appalls me among members of the OTO. THAT is where my resistance comes from, and I'm with you in having been accused of being an intellectual elitist more times than I count -- so on that end, at least, my dis-ease lies elsewhere.

Neither Jon nor I are determinists in this sense either. All we are doing is working to give the determining aspects of class a little airing. On the one hand, you say you are worried about the effects of middle class values on the Order. Isn’t that admitting to the import of class? If class wasn’t as important as say, astrology, as a determining factor, I don’t think you’d care. I think people resist look at the determining power class does have because it troubles them. This resistance is anti-intellectual in the way Jon is describing and it reveals a host of other problems. If Thelema cannot help us examine and address those problems, what worth does it have?

Re: Well...

[k_navit]

THIS is exactly what I"m talking about.

You don't know me, yet you assume that my only point of entry into any of these matters consists of my comments or lack thereof on flippin' livejournal.
And you make a reference to ideological opponents as if that is a bad thing to be. I think that is a necessary structure that does not have to be truly binary.

Keep your behooves off of me, man. And thanks for proving my point.

(goes back to sitting on fingers)

Curiosity

[keith418]

I think the issue of "class as a determining factor" needs to be looked at. On the one hand, I note that many people don't seem to have a problem with looking at, say, the possible determining aspects of astrology. They do, I think, have a resistance to looking at the determining aspects of class. Frankly, I think that something as basic as whether your parents went to college or not is going to have more of an impact on your values, your tastes, and any many other ways you approach your life than, for example, your sun sign will. I wish people in the OTO were able to look at class issues with the same degree of interest they show in astrology.

This doesn't mean one must embrace class distinctions per se. In fact, AC would counsel us to consider our origins, and our class position, as part of an exploration of who we are - not in order to submit to certain expectations and training, but to analyze them and overcome their limiting, even inhibiting factors. I think a reading of the early chapters in Liber Aleph would go a great ways towards verifying this argument.

How can we overcome class limitations, assuming we want to, without looking closely at the way class forms us - how it molds our likes and dislikes, our attitude towards culture, politics, ethics, values, etc? I would never suggest that class is "all determining" - but I wouldn't downplay its determining force or deny its import either. If we want to get beyond it I think we need to understand how it works. How can any process overcome anything that they do not understand clearly? I confess I do not understand all the ways class influences us, and the extent of its determining influence, but I want to understand it more. Closing off the discussion won't aid that process at all.

Tone issues are, I think, often a red herring. I, personally, detest the tone any number of people I communicate with, but I see that more as my problem that their problem. Rather than say, “Would you please stop talking about this subject!” people can point to the tone of the person who is bringing up something they do not want to hear about. Critiquing a person’s tone is far easier than critiquing their argument, or presenting a more compelling case. If I cannot filter the signal from the noise, I ask for clarification. Aren’t we all strong enough to talk to each other without complaining about “tone” constantly? I would hope so.

Thanks for the reply!

[actadiurna]

I find the middle-classifying and corporate structur-izing of the OTO to dismay me more every single year. I am drawing a distinction between intellectuals and elitists, though sometimes they share the same section of the Venn diagram.

I understand your dismay. I think this, again, points to the fact that the OTO has done little to clearly define its goals and objectives, work to explain why it does what it does, and hardly works to clarify the myriad of principles it operates under. If it had goals that were supported its moves to become more corporate, you may understand the motive better. That still would not guarantee you agree, but at least you'd know why they are doing what they do!

I'll also say, before I go back to sitting on my fingers, that I have always considered some people to have reason to feel intellectually superior, … has less to do with being confronted by someone who is "intellectualizing" and more to do with the arrogant tone in which some of the "intellectualizing" is done.

As I am sure most reading this know, I am often accused of having the wrong tone; being to abrupt or straight forward, even called rude. To this I am most often guilty as charged. However I often find people concentrating on this seem to use it as a way to bypass discussing the main issue. If I say 1 plus 1 equals 2, does it matter how I say it? 2 is either the answer or it is not. The same goes with the class issue. Class is a part of “what is going on” or it is not. The merits of this are the merits. Tone certainly can make a difference about how people read the writing and respond; it is often used by people to manipulate the reader, but it really does have little to do with the facts that are debated.

Possibly. But certainly not in all cases. In some cases it is due to serious discomfort with the ways in which the framing devices of class are used in a "fraternal" and "magickal" order in discussion of its development in the United States. "Class" is as social a construct as they get, and imo shouldn't be relied on too heavily, if at all, in a serious OR intellectual :-) discussion of the future of the Order.

I think that ignoring class would be a big mistake. It will manifest one way or another, we are a classist society. Instead of trying to deny the affects, I think it is smarter and more useful to examine it fully and see where it applies and does not.

I find the discussions of behavior as motivated solely by class origins to be deterministic to a degree that appalls me among members of the OTO.

All or nothing arguments are often of little use. Of course there are a myriad of motivations, reasons and causes. I know of nothing that is the sole cause of behavior in humans. Yet classism can and is a powerful motivator in Americans lives, as is the anti-intellectualism that is so prevalent today. I do not have all the answers, I more questions than anything. I do think we need to start asking questions and start struggling to find answers.

[z111]

they do ask questions that are not merely clever disguises for trying to annihilate someone with whom they disagree -- and that in many cases the irritation that some respondents may have had on issues that have come up on these discussions has less to do with being confronted by someone who is "intellectualizing" and more to do with the arrogant tone in which some of the "intellectualizing" is done.

This is so very well said I wish I'd written it myself.

This is the reason why I don't engage in public debates about the OTO. I don't wish to be engage with those whose real agenda is to prove their intellectual superiority by annhilating me and making sure to do their best to make me look like an ass by using spurious reasoning and by twisting my words.

[irenicspace]

Perhaps the OTO would be better of if discussion did take place despite "those whose real agenda is to prove their intellectual superiority." Dialog and examination of the factors that are currently active within the OTO will only help it grow stronger. If "those people" are wrong, prove them so. If they have something meaningful to say, try to filter out their perceived "agenda" and look at the heart of the matter.

Or perhaps you start the dialog on your terms, not theirs, in your live journal or blog. That way you can assure the ones with the "agenda" cannot ruin it. Either way you cut it, walking away from the dialog is not useful or productive for the OTO.

[z111]

If "those people" are wrong, prove them so.

If person A says the OTO is filled with anti-intellectuals, what could person B do to prove him wrong?

It's like having a bunch of blind men in a room with the elephant. The elephant feels like this over near the ears, it feels like something else when you touch its trunk, etc.

If you start with an underlying premise that the OTO is this or that (in this case, anti-intellectual), perhaps a better requirement would be to prove that what you say is true or at least to identify it as looking like that from your particular view of the elephant.

There isn't much room for dialog about an issue if there is disagreement with whether that issue exists or to what extent it exists.

From my view, yes there are anti-intellectuals in the order but they are not in the majority nor is it some kind of order-wide problem. Some of the most questing, curious people I've ever known come from the OTO. If anything, sometimes I think we suffer from a surfeit of logic.

We aren't arguing science here....we are arguing beliefs.

[irenicspace]

Are any of the blind men "wrong" or do they only have part of the picture? Perhaps if they all talked about their sperate experieinces they could see the bigger animal involved.

There isn't much room for dialog about an issue if there is disagreement with whether that issue exists or to what extent it exists.

Actually that is the prefect starting point.

From my view, yes there are anti-intellectuals in the order but they are not in the majority nor is it some kind of order-wide problem. Some of the most questing, curious people I've ever known come from the OTO. If anything, sometimes I think we suffer from a surfeit of logic.

OK lets take this and examine it. What are the results of having any anti-intellectuals? Does that cause division in themembership? Bring down the membership? Empower or disempower the intellectuals? What does this excess of ligic cause? What is a better solution?

We aren't arguing science here....we are arguing beliefs.

Expand on that please. Some would disagree. Either there are anti-intellectuals or there is not, is that a belief? Is the term "anti-intellectual" completely subjective or does it have some objectiveness?

"Its the attitude no one wants to listen to."

[rawmr]

Well then what the hell am I to do with all my attitude?

Re: Why should anyone have to work that hard?

[irenicspace]

The "intellectual" dialogue that you and Keith seem to want to engage in is occurring on various levels. It is the attitude no one wants to listen to. I would suggest "those people" take a different approach if they want to be invited to participate in some meaningful way.

This assumes that this approach or any approach is less meaningful or productive. What if the evidence do you have that it is not meaningful or productive? What if my experience shows that this type of examination is meaningful or productive?

Why would anyone expect me to tolerate it "in here?"

I expect nothing of you. You can do as you will, engage in this dialog any place you choose, any way you choose. But then again, don't I have that freedom too?

Re: Why should anyone have to work that hard?

[irenicspace]

I thought you were saying that people do not care or engage in these sorts of discussions. I was saying that they do.

No, you are correct, I was pointing out that the OTO rarely has these discussions in a meaningful way. If they did, examined issues and then did something about them, I do not think we would be in the position we are in today.

Results...

[keith418]

I thought you were saying that people do not care or engage in these sorts of discussions. I was saying that they do.

By this are we to understand that there is some fascinating debate occurring in the OTO, on the same subject, (i.e., the impact of class values on the Order and its relation to the leaders and the followers, etc.) and that some of us, because of allegations of incivility, are just excluded from it? Please share the insights you have derived from such an advanced discussion with us.

I'll also point out that if you think there is a better way to conduct these discussions you are perfectly free to model how that can be done. Why not demonstrate to us your superior tact -as you lay out the best way of looking at this disturbing and vexing subject? If you are better at talking about it than we are - why not prove it? All I can see now is critique of tone and method - but not, sadly, of substance. Some candy tastes good - but is bad for you. Some veggies taste bad - but are good for you. What happens to people who eat nothing but candy? They get fat, they get constipated, and their teeth rot. People who insist on only “sweet sounding” discussions may have the same problems with their brains…