SOME RULES OF INTELLECTUAL DIALOGUE
Particularly now during the period of changes that result from shifting paradigms, a war is being waged between a certain kind of intellectual and those who believe in the merits of non-linear perception. It has always been so and is perhaps now more pronounced, due to the growing influence of women thinkers and the impact of the New Age. Its manifestation is silent and invisible until the moment when an “esoteric” point is introduced. Then the critical mind of these intellectuals, who take it upon themselves to sharpen the word into a fine stiletto to defend social rights and preserve the impeccability of Consciousness as defined by them, goes on the offensive. It is curious how they label “mental” whatever forces them to go beyond their usual system of categorization, anything that obliges them to extend or deepen the experience of the mind. New perspectives, unless they are backed by extensive quotations and some form of scientific rationale, are highly suspect and come under immediate scrutiny. New Age thinkers whose objective might be to raise awareness of inner non-linear reality and diminish the importance given to appearances, are ridiculed. Intellectual materialism under the guise of spiritual concern gains the upper hand.
I have encountered this again and again. This brand of intellectuals base their thinking on formulas and references in order to arrive at logical well-documented conclusions. That is evidence enough for them. On the other hand, trained researchers amongst the “resistance”, in other words us, base our conclusions on self-evident experience and direct observation where the object is considered part of the subject. Our impression tells us if something is right or if something is off. Sometimes words are difficult to find but when they are, they are spontaneous and wholly ours. We do not need intermediaries. We know what we “know”. The former accuse us of flimsy thinking and instead of defending our perception, we tend to keep to ourselves in concerted indifference, feelings of incomprehensible guilt or veiled inferiority, or at least “almost” always.
When roaming posts in Facebook, have you noticed in articles that present solid arguments alleging scandalous behaviour or suspicious situations that the critiques always recur to known sources and important literary figures? The writers scout for these sources deliberately and then adjoin their store of encyclopaedic knowledge. You have probably been as impressed as I have, but maybe you have not made the mistake that I made recently in attempting a dialogue with them.
It was a gruelling experience but one that was extremely beneficial in that, I believe, I learned some of the rules of the game (“their” rules). The first is that you must, at all costs, stay focussed on the subject at hand. You mustn’t stray onto peripheral or irrelevant tangents, such as intangible causes, what might underlie the problem, or the energetic dynamics of a situation. Whatever is said must be compatible with what is being shown. If it is not, either they do not understand us, and kick back with something that they do understand, or they take it as an offense and kick back anyway. Above all do not speak of “energy” or “perception” and do not refer to “love” or feelings of any subtle nature.
There are other rules. Do not state the obvious or what is implied. Whatever is said must be couched in a wide berth of possibility, so as not to offend anyone. Always preface what you say with “in my opinion…” so that they do not discount what is being said as a “generalization”. Endowed with vast literary evidence, only they are entitled to make theories. Never step on anyone’s toes and always watch not only what you say but “how” you say it.
The argument proceeds pretty much along straight lines. These persons are mentally wired and usually rigid. If we do not agree with their premises, some kind of put down is sure to surface. Nothing gets them angrier than switching subjects or interrupting their discourse, as often happens when painting a whole picture, and when adding insights that spontaneously emerge.
Women drive them especially crazy, even if the intellectual is a woman herself. We make innumerable detours without losing sight of the main issue and come back to the beginning with a new framework. Women intellectuals have by and large put in a lot of effort into learning the ropes and attaining to the importance that their rational minds now grant them. Acknowledge that and remain quiet.
I broke all the rules when I entered a conversation with a notable thinker and conscientious objector in Facebook. It was a highly unpleasant exchange that only got worse with each phrase I wrote trying to explain the previous one. In the end I was pegged as yet another deluded New Ager and besides, with a guru complex. Adding insult to injury, I was handed an academic text meant to edify me and reveal the hidden motives behind my obstructionist intervention.
These people enjoy being critical and ripping comments apart without any real human concerns. They use precise terminologies and work through segmentation. Their analysis is restricted to parts within parts that ultimately add up, each in their isolated integrity. Conclusions are not always stated, but rather implied in hypothetical impartiality. Their repetitions, particularly when attacking, become a kind of hypnotic mantra similar to the chanting during a football match.
The only choices we have are to back off, get clobbered, or clobber back.
Their bandwagon is “debunking” rather than finding the meaning or causes behind the phenomenon they claim to investigate. Weighed down by formidable indexes, dates, labels, terms and book titles, there is little creativity or innovation possible. There is no vision of the whole, no depth and no real perception of the energetic dynamics behind appearances. “Perception” is a result of thinking. Anything else is simply wrong.
I have written often about the dangers and benefits of the thinking mind, so I will not repeat myself here. Numerous entries, particularly in the “Know Thyself” sector, refer to the levels of Mind, tracing it from its highest expression through its conceptual and abstract manifestations, and culminating in our technological, rational, or concrete mind. All of it is based on direct experience, which I invite from the reader. I have also written quite a bit about the emotional mind and its capacity to distort true perception by injecting personal agendas. True perception is derived from grounded work on the self – body, concrete mind and emotions. Once true perception is distinguished from impetuous sensitivity, Consciousness is possible. In Consciousness there is no object. All Is. This is a very difficult state of being for someone who has built his or her entire identity upon rational perception and whose sensitivity is so diminished that subtle feelings do not appear to exist.
The rational mind as supreme ruler is something of an anachronism that is undergoing slow but continuous transformation. The benefits of linear thought are necessarily restricted to third dimension utility where it constructs, analyses and organizes activity with excellence. It serves as perfect communication of events, business, finance and scientific data. Other than as reference, it has no right to pose as Consciousness. Undoubtedly, intellectualism is here to stay, but such forms of senseless, retaliatory and often cruel criticism will have less prominence in the emerging paradigms of the future where humanity understands because it comprehends through direct experience both foreground and backdrop and all sides of a condition.
The rational or linear mind is not true Consciousness. It is important that we distinguish all forms of mental activity from the ever-present dynamo of Life as Energy, weaving throughout all aspects of manifestation. There are no issues to be discussed but rather conditions to be explored.