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 this? Some do, some don't. What kind of activity is it when they do not listen to this, and instead start immediately attacking? Irrational anti-jockism? Intellectual ressentiment? Or is there something deeper going on, manifesting in both sides of the name-calling? Is it a cycle?
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
You are now in a position of having to defend yourself. If you believe X you are Y. (If you believe the status quo is okay, you are complacent.)
You are now pretty boxed into a corner. You can either:
1) argue that you are not happy with the status quo and you're not complacent either
2) argue that you are happy with the status quo but you're not complacent
3) work very hard to attempt to communicate how one can accept what is, strive for better, and communicate what beliefs surround this notion to one who has an agenda (including the agenda to make those who disagree look lazy, sugary, complacent, anti-intellectual, etc, etc, etc)
Joseph, I don't mean to be putting words into your mouth. I'm really speaking for myself here. I just see this all as a nasty mindfuck game in which anyone engaging with a differing viewpoint will be sure to lose or need to work very hard to not get creamed by the kind of thing that happened in the prior post (accusatory comments based on ill-formed assumptions that require one to go on the defensive.)
As Gerald so rightly pointed out -- why would anyone want to work that hard.
Personally, I'd rather focus on the positive and on moving things forward than sitting around engaging in masturbatory bitchfests.
(Heh, I can do it too!)
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 stupidity, and those struggling to break free.
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 this kind. That was not, however, what we observed. If you want the message, you cannot kill the messengers. If you busily kill each messenger that bears the bad news, you cannot complain if people are wary of bringing you more information.
If the shoe doesn't fit - well, no one is, of course compelled to wear it. If I, for example, have none of my facts straight and am totally wrong, time will prove this to everyone. On the other hand, if those I think are in denial prove to be ignoring things they need to pay attention to - well, time will prove that to all of us too.
I would suggest that there are, indeed, people in denial and who seek to spin the facts to suit their agendas - the same way I am accused of spinning facts to illustrate my criticisms. This is to be expected. On the other hand, I have consistently called for objective goals with objective metrics, or measurements, that would, among other things, serve to resist spin. If we set a goal to raise X amount of money, by Y date, we either will or we won't. The marked reluctance of the leaders to set the kind of strategic goals that are measurable, and on a fixed time-line, suggests to me that there may be a significant difference between their positive PR (spin) about the OTO on the one hand, and what they privately think the OTO can really be expected to accomplish on the other hand.
One of the ways we judge our leaders is to see whether or not they are capable of sharing bad news with us - and whether they can admit to mistakes. A leader that does nothing but repeat “happy talk” - of one kind or another - does not inspire confidence. Likewise, followers that demand nothing but chirpy “good vibes” are only asking for trouble, As I have said before, when ambition fails to reckon with sacrifices, things will get problematic in a hurray. Have the leaders of the OTO described their ambitions for the Order and what sacrifices they expect us to make to realize those ambitions? I do not think they really have. Thus, we have all sorts of problems.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Leave a comment