Bluemoon, you said,
I am not going to write directly to JAMR as I have already explained that I find his attitude to be antagonistic. I have read his responses but still do not believe his motive is sincere in the respect of understanding, but rather in the respect of grinding other views down.
Understood.
However, since this is a public forum where others can read the posts even if they don’t contribute, I would like to point out a few things which have IMO been misrepresented by JAMR.
You need to read my posts more carefully, see below.
Also, the claim that a perspective is only valid of it can be broken down in a particular so-called ‘logical’ fashion, and if ‘empirical’ evidence can be provided to back it up, is IMO an assumption. There are other ways to dialogue without ripping apart the points made by others which tends to imply a total lack of respect for any other perspective than that of the person doing the ripping apart.
You appear to think that being ‘rational’ is the ‘right’ way to do things and so imply that I am not really being rational (by using ‘so-called to qualify it). My point is that your approach is irrational and simply means that you are not using logic or evidence to support this position, and then beomes faith based. I have not suggested that irrational approaches should not be used, simply noting that as an irrational approach there is no need to try and rationalise them as you are doing. An irrational approach simply requires ‘just because I say so’, and it can be left. You are stuck with the idea that humans are rational and should therefore be able to argue this out. I do not hold the view that humans are rational, although we have a limited capability to do this. Yet you are holding irrational ideas and find the conflict between the socially enforced idea that we should be rational will clash with the irrational ideas you hold.
For example, I hold the irrational idea that I have an immortal soul. I have no logic or evidence that supports this idea but I am unable to confront my mortality. I am unwilling to subscribe to systems like the SES, religion, your book on feminine soul, that try to logically argue the irrational position. In my earlier post and did say that I have no issue with intuitive, faith based positions, but I do not think they should be presented as rational ones.
So, why should others dialogue with such a ferocious mindset, which is itself not necessarily valid?
I have not said my position is a valid one, I have asked you to support a position with some logic and evidence because you keep implying that you are being rational. I hold many irrational positions, and even though many of these can be explained in a rational way, the positions themselves cannot be supported. As a human I expect to be irrational and unable to support how I feel with reason, and since I am interested in being in control of my life (much of this in conflict with others trying to do the same), I behave irrationally.
These assumptions I mentioned are very similar, if not exactly the same, as those I spent 20 years dealing with in the SES. For example, the quote from the book about the feminine that JAMR posted, and the claim that because it cannot be ‘empirically’ proved means that it is invalid, is not correct in my view.
Here we agree. I did not say the book was invalid, I said it was irrational, however I am not easily prepared to accept the irrational views of others, I have plenty of my own irrational views. Where I take issue is that the book (and you) are trying to support an irrational position as if it were rational. Its enough to say, here is what I feel is right, it has no logic or empirical support, but so what. Religion used to be this way, and it was felt to be unnecessary to take a reasonable position, however now they have been drawn into the 20th century mindset that humans need to be reasonable to be valid. The issue with irrational positions is they are not subject to scrutiny, and vary from person to person, group to group. So if your feminine soul resonates with you, and you do not need it supported, it might still give you peace of mind and a sense of control in your life. You might ask me to simply accept it based upon your intuition, but you are trying to argue logically to support it, and that will fail.
Indeed the whole point of this book is that it is because of this kind of assumption that it was written in the first place, to present a perspective about the importance of the feminine that has been undervalued (to put it politely) for a very long time.
The book still puts up a front that it is still a reasonable position to hold. The part I quoted is a get-out-of-jail-free-card, about how the author intends to position the feminine soul – ie. by not subjecting it to analysis.
Also the ancient feminine mysteries, her initiations and teachings, were never written down. She is not easily fixed and defined, but is mysterious in her continual movement and change. She belongs to the silvery light of the moon and its many reflections rather than the harsh glare of masculine sunshine and its rational constructs. She is more easily alluded to and hinted at, expressing the mystery and matrix of creation that is always a wonder rather than something to be explained
The thing with this is that the above is quite well explained by biology and sociology, instead the author wants to deify something that is easily explained by rational means. If you want to take an irrational position, it should be based upon something that is not explained rationally.
Trying to discuss anything with JAMR is like being back in SES and I have only realised since I left just how much time and effort I wasted there.
You will find the same issue in any group. You and I have opposing ideas, so does the SES, so does the teacher of one of my kids, so does a customer of mine, and a work colleague, so do plenty of politicians and bureaucrats, and the end result is emotion and conflict, and since we hold our own ideas dear above all else, we will die trying to support them. Welcome to what it is like to be human, its almost never a rational place, however much we imagine it to be.