Anti-intellectualism
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 ( Read more... )
The anti-intellectual typically exhibits little curiosity about other perspectives and no skepticism about his own positions. When ( Read more... )
I haven't seen the debate...
It is interesting to look at don't you think?On some levels, sure it's interesting. The idea that members of the OTO are afflicted and conflicted by the values and morality of their culture, however, seems tautological to me. I get bored very quickly of hearing about the same conflicts over and over, and obsessive diagnoses that turn out to be nothing more than rationalizations and fantasy a significant percentage of the time. It is not that I am anti-intellectual, but that there is a bigger picture: Do we not also see hostility and name-calling among the "pro-intellectual" critics? It isn't hard to see the same adherence to blind ideology among intellectuals and poseurs. In fact I have made, and heard others make, the criticism that "pro-intellectuals" make post-hoc rationalizations of hearsay or their own assumptions to conform with their beliefs about people in the OTO. Do "intellectuals" listen to ( ... )
Reply
What it comes down to is where are we? How did we get here? Is our current state where we want to be.
If you are happy with the status quo, then I can see how you would be bored. However, if you are not ok and think things can be significantly better, how can you be complacent? That seems to me to be the bigger picture.
Or is there something deeper going on, manifesting in both sides of the name-calling? Is it a cycle?
An interesting question, what do you think?
Reply
You're putting forward the idea that I'm complacent, and that it is because I am happy with the status quo. These are two post hoc rationalizations.
Reply
No, observed reactions.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Perhaps if the conflicts were resolved, or if you worked to help resolve them, you wouldn't have to hear about them.
that turn out to be nothing more than rationalizations and fantasy a significant percentage of the time
Could you name something to back up this assertion.
Do we not also see hostility and name-calling among the "pro-intellectual" critics?
Undoubtedly, however, those adhering to logic, facts & research are more likely to be acurate. Calling someone a "Bitch" may be insulting, but not identifying them as such does nothign to change their attitude.
What kind of activity is it when they do not listen to this, and instead start immediately attacking?
That behavior sounds anti-intellectual, and I believe that it has been commented (at least elsewhere) that there are many of the willfully ignorant who think they are paragons of intellect.
Is it a cycle?More of a battle, there are those attempting to drag everyone down into the quicksand of ( ... )
Reply
Somehow I doubt that we will see complete relief of all pressure from the surrounding culture to conform with christian morality within my lifetime. Discussing tautaulogy is to me not much more interesting than talking about the paint on the wall.
Could you name something to back up this assertion.
I'm sure you recall the so-called EGC "poll," as one example.
Reply
This sounds like a fatalistic resignation & the assumption of fact.
I'm sure you recall the so-called EGC "poll," as one example.
It doesn't ring any bells. Can you provide more info?
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
I'd like to help out with more facts - the problem is that this is often seen as betraying people. For example, I served on the EC for 9 years and have been in the OTO for nearly 18 years. I'd love to tell stories and give out all kinds of facts and incidents that would back up my positions - even now there are events occurring locally I would love to reference. It's just very difficult to do so, even in a veiled manner, without compromising folks. You, I think, have been put in similar situations - when you knew potentially embarrassing things about the leaders of the Order, but promised not to reveal them.
irenicspace, for example, recently cited some emails from a friend in the OTO. Rather than look at the content of his post, people expressed outrage that he had seen fit to cite this problem on LJ, even in a filtered post. Would this reaction, do you suppose, prompt him to cite more cases as they came up? If people really wanted to debate facts, one would think they would welcome a discussion of exactly ( ... )
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Leave a comment