Guenon applies here, sure, but in the opposite way they are saying. @ابو مريم cited Guenon too.
Guenon said that a true synthesis (which is what I'm doing) connects diverse traditions to a shared primordial root but syncretism produces Frankenstein-like hybrids often no less inaccurate in their aim than the traditions that combined to create them.
I'm not creating some Frankenstein out of a bunch of parts here. I'm taking science and language, and I'm coupling these things with knowledge of all religious traditions, declassified military intelligence correspondence and reports on the subject of paranormal espionage techniques, and in general the general evidence readily available from our global neighbors on various paranormal and extraordinary experiences from psychedelics to near death experiences to past life memories to sensory deprivation to UAPs and more.
When we experience crazy mystical, paranormal, extraordinary things, it is natural that we want to tell everyone else about it, if, for no other reason, because informing them improves their awareness of the set of possible experiences thus preparing them to better contend with whatever may come at them next as they navigate life. Pretty much all religions started with some kind of legitimate mystical, spiritual experience, but due to various limitations, failed to model reality perfectly or satisfactorily explain things. Because of those failures and imperfections, disciples of these pioneers of religion often grew attached to distorted understandings of reality. As time and fallible communicators propagate the message from one generation to the next, there is fidelity loss, like making a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy. The output becomes fuzzier and fuzzier requiring insanely sharp vision to decipher.
Well, there's another path. If one becomes adept at implementing the Golden Rule, one may "get inside the heads" of others...essentially profiling like the protagonists of that TV show Criminal Minds. If you can get inside of the head of whoever created the initial document that got photocopied iteratively into oblivion, you can bypass the distortion, go right to the root signal, and, at that point, you can actually see the original photocopy within the Matrix-like blur of the distorted 1000th generation photocopy. The thing is, looking at things from the perspective of others IS THE GOLDEN RULE. You don't want to be treated as anyone other than you, just as I don't want to be treated as a bar code or someone else or as a misrepresentation of who I am. I want to be treated as the me that I am, just as you want to be treated as the you that you are. We are to profile and tailor our interactions lovingly.
But, most people do not do this. I know this because the Golden Rule is found in every religious tradition which tells us at least 2 things:
1. It's important
2. Humans suck at it, by and large. It would be unnecessary and redundant for every religion to attempt (in vain, mind you) to teach us all the same lesson if we were already doing a bang up job of abiding that rule. Pretty basic logic.
So, by being a Golden Rule adept, I am able to bypass the centuries and millennia of distortion that has crept in through successive iterations of photocopies of photocopies.
How? When people experience weird things, they want to tell others about them but if the weird thing is a first time experience for the witness or witnesses, they must invent a way to speak about what they witnessed, often resulting in new words. Understand the words and you will bypass thousands of years of bullshit and get down to the signal in the noise...literally...the noises we utter to communicate contain signal. Who'd have thought? Duh...
There is one least distorted, most accurate perspective on the truth which flies in the face of the existence of many religious traditions. But, on the other hand, while we're all some level of retarded, humans have proven to be smart, adaptive, and resilient enough to have flourished to dominate the planet in the manner we have. While people can and for the most part do cling to distortions of reality to varying degrees, we also have a nose for truth. Our noses may not be bloodhound dog sharp, but we can tell when someone's barbecuing in the neighborhood even if we're not quite sure which house. That's what is going on with popular adherence to major religious traditions. People stick to them because they have a sense that there's SOMEthing there, even if they fail to find precisely what and where that something is.
And they're right. There IS something of value in each religious tradition. That's why they're all worth studying. But most people are fearful little bitches who are so deficient in wisdom and discernment that they actually are afraid to go explore ideas that oppose their currently held beliefs. I did that many times through out my life, including stepping back around age 20 from the Roman Catholic tradition I was heavily steeped in growing up. It wasn't that I saw no value in it. I just couldn't attach myself dogmatically to their whole belief set. Likewise, I can't attach myself to any tradition's whole belief set.
There's baby and bathwater in every tradition but the people who fail to study them all, who fail to polymathically synthesize conclusions drawing from science, philology, etymology, psychology, praxeology, etc will not be able to iron out the wrinkles or distill a well crystallized solute from the solution of truths dissolved in distortions and lies.
Guenon has a point. The people wielding Guenon in this conversation are about as adept at applying Guenon to me as Plaxico Burress was at handling his own pistol.
Login to reply
Replies (2)
"The wise of heart will receive commandments, but a babbling fool will come to ruin."
This dude is headed off a cliff!
'I am doing what has never been done before - I am providing the ultimate synthesis of everything!'
this is a bloviating charlatan!
my contention was that you, declared that one could not "penetrate the mysteries of reality" by studying one religious tradition... thats bullshit is all I was saying - and I am correct.
leaving aside the juvenile presumptions included in just that ... i.e. what the fuck do you mean by "mysteries" or "reality" for one - you dont know - its complete nonsense...
you would know this (if you werent so arrogant) simply by getting to first grade in all of the shit you are, apparently drowning and flailing about in, like a hysterical woman in a spiritual shopping mall...
"The kingdom of heaven is within you."
Not to mention the seed and foundation of the entire western philosophical tradition in Parmenides which is the foundation of all the other supplemental trash you are filling your mind with: in your Unparalleled And Exclusive Effort To Complete The Grand Synthesis
VIII
One path only is left for us to
speak of, namely, that It is. In it are very many tokens that
what is, is uncreated and indestructible, alone, complete, immovable and without end. Nor was it ever, nor will it be; for
5 now it is, all at once, a continuous one. For what kind of origin
for it. will you look for ? In what way and from what source
could it have drawn its increase ? I shall not let thee say nor
think that it came from what is not; for it can neither be
thought nor uttered that what is not is. And, if it came from
10 nothing, what need could have made it arise later rather than
sooner ? Therefore must it either be altogether or be not at
all. Nor will the force of truth suffer aught to arise besides
itself from that which in any way is. Wherefore, Justice does
not loose her fetters and let anything come into being or pass
15 away, but holds it fast.
" Is it or is it not ? " Surely it is adjudged, as it needs must
be, that we are to set aside the one way as unthinkable and
nameless (for it is no true way), and that the other path is real
and true. How, then, can what is be going to be in the
20 future ? Or how could it come into being ? If it came into
being, it is not; nor is it if it is going to be in the future. Thus is
becoming extinguished and passing away not to be heard of.
Nor is it divisible, since it is all alike, and there is no more
of it in one place than in another, to hinder it from holding
together, nor less of it, but everything is full of what is.
25 Wherefore all holds together; for what is; is in contact with what is.
Moreover, it is immovable in the bonds of mighty chains, without
beginning and without end; since coming into being
and passing away have been driven afar, and true belief has cast them away.
It is the same, and it rests in the self-same place, abiding in itself.
30 And thus it remaineth constant in its place; for hard necessity
keeps it in the bonds of the limit that holds it fast on every side.
Wherefore it is not permitted to what is to be infinite; for it is in need of nothing ; while, if it were infinite, it would stand in need of everything. It is the
same thing that can be thought and for the sake of which the thought exists ;
35 for you cannot find thought without something that is, to which it is
betrothed. And there is not, and never shall be, any time other, than that which
is present, since fate has chained it so as to be whole and immovable.
Wherefore all these things are but the names which mortals
have given, believing them, to be true –
40 coming into being and passing away, being and not being,
change of place and alteration of bright colour.
Where, then, it has its farthest boundary, it is complete on
every side, equally poised from the centre in every direction,
like the mass of a rounded sphere; for it cannot be greater or
45 smaller in one place than in another. For there is nothing
which is not that could keep it from reaching out equally, nor
is it possible that there should be more of what is in this place
and less in that, since it is all inviolable. For, since it is equal
in all directions, it is equally confined within limits.
50 Here shall I close my trustworthy speech and thought about the truth.
Henceforward learn the opinions of mortals,
giving ear to the deceptive ordering of my words.
Mortals have settled in their minds to speak of two forms, one of which
they should have left out, and that is where they go astray from the truth."
in both context and content you are gone far from truth... which i presume is what you mean by "mysteries of reality"
you are also bastardizing what Guenon said but one cant be surprised at that after this self-confession that can only bring to mind images of absolute chaos and disorder.
@redtailhawk has fallen into the Pit of confusion and galactic-sized spiritual narcissism- dont follow!
wow!
I seriously doubt you've even read Guenon after that Frankensieinian post 😹
Guenon did not believe in a synthesis of religions (unlike some of his students). He was a Traditionalist and the idea of establishing a 'synthesis' of the different traditionals forms is explicitly something he opposed. No traditional religion is complete without the whole of it - it cannot be broken up without being destroyed. Such aggregates never have any unity and are be nothing more than a chaotic jumble of disparate elements.
You're completely off the edge of the map. Very sad.
See Quenon himself here in RoQ:

