When I wrote this I knew that some might not understand a word of
what I'm saying and therefore not react or respond. Others would
understand and perhaps relate but not trust themselves to openly
express an agreement due to the pressure of political-correctness.
Still others would partially understand what I'm saying or
misunderstand it and either not react or react negatively or even
express their version of agreement for reasons I certainly never
intended. The latter cannot often be helped, but next to that I
actually prefer those who, like James, have read it through and
strongly disagree and express authentically and with passion –
even if we remain in disagreement on aspects, I prefer this.
While
I don't take James' or others' criticism of my criticism personally
– however you express it, which I understand and respect – you
seem to have taken my piece quite personally and I'm sorry to hear
that, so I have to underscore one thing above all: anything good,
risks being intellectually and morally compromised and hijacked once
it's allowed to become an ideology – which does happen – and
passive, unquestioning compliance toward any ideology, toward any
agenda (corporate, gummint, or societal), especially when it has
reached the forced and enforced dictate of PC-by-decree, is
unconscious and dangerous. It is the death knell for Thinking, for
Thought. Critical thought is the basis for deepening understanding,
mutual recognition and renewal. Compliance will never deliver that –
so where do we want to go with this?
One's sexual orientation or
gender identity as one defines it for oneself (if one still can) is
not only a private matter but a sacred one and one's right to be
that and to own it. It should not concern anyone else or society,
and persecution or ostracization is outof the question. I hope I am
being clear on that.
I don't know which lexicon others are using,
but according to my understanding: racism is hatred or contempt and
mistrust toward any particular race, i.e., ethnic group – so what "race" was being addressed here, wherewith I come off as "racist"?
Sexism would have been a better attempt to diss me,
however sexism is an outward societal expression of contempt or
mistrust or need to humiliate, covering for a deeply embedded
misogyny – i.e., toward the opposite sex which means in a
male-dominated culture as we've known, toward women.
Either
racism or sexism can be overt or covert, as with antisemitism,
another "ism". Speaking as a Jew, can anyone here imagine me
calling someone an antisemite because s/he doesn't consider Jews the
best thing on earth since chickens gave us soup? Or doesn't share my
brand of flag-waving Zionism or non-Zionistic recognition of Israel
(whose policies are of course 'always right') or jump on the
Holocaust-Industry wagon with the mantra 'never-again'? Frankly, my
toleration goes so far as to tolerate anyone his or her
antisemitism, racism, sexism – until that one is placed in any
position of power at whatever level, whether lobby or political or
autocratic. And then I will man the barricades, I will take to the
streets, whatever means are at my disposal, I will always speak, and
if it's at the cost of my life, for the weak, the repressed, the
disadvantaged.
Are my FB-friends reading this aware of the
persecution toward gays across the board in every Muslim country?
That gay Palestinians who face mistreatment, even torture and
execution in Gaza, scramble over that damned wall into Tel Aviv so
they can just be themselves, and this among the "sworn enemy"?
Why
does The Great Lobby never address the draconic repression of gays in
Muslim countries? Why, for that matter do American "Christians"
feel so persecuted when the real persecuted Christians are in most
if not all Muslim countries, where you dare not open a Bible, erect
or repair a church, but the mosques and Qur'ans are flourishing all
over the States and Europe without any concern for local indigent
culture or customs? Because another Great Lobby, calling itself
Islam, has got the West by the short hairs and no one is (likewise)
permitted to even question this for fear of "offending Muslims"
– who are notorious for shunning hard reflection, introspection,
self-criticism, development. My own views toward Islam after 40
years of Sufism are my concern, and that's for me to work out –
yet I am anything but shy about critically looking at it.
But
back to my statement from Gurdjieff concerning homosexuals, which
brought this reaction oninthe first place: if one reads that
carefully, I - i.e., he made it clear it was not one's homosexuality
which mattered, but that generations-old conditioned shame toward
it, coupled with it's corresponding and compensating notions of
specialness. A very great American Swami who'd left behind a serious
school of inner work and spiritual development, Rudrananda by name,
or Rudi, was – so I'm told, I don't know because he never said so
himself – gay. I can imagine this possibly being so, and it's
not only fine, it also poses no contradiction here. What I find more
interesting is that he made no matter out of it, it neither prevented
nor enhanced his development – and knowing Rudi I can only surmise
why: because he was free of shame over this or anything else about
himself, nor did he indulge in any degree of feeling special (as
opposed to – what, normal or ordinary).
I'm more in agreement
with what you have written than may appear, but that's par for the
course. I understand that my writing hit a nerve, so whether you can
hear this or not, I do and always will embrace, for yourself:
manifesting as you are, who you are - with all dignity and with all
lovingkindness.
Dear James – and Jane/Aunty – this is already much
longer than I'd wished to say, so I'll close here, wishing any
readers and/or commnetators well, and as always welcoming your
reflective input.
+001.JPG)
+003.JPG)
+004.JPG)
+005.JPG)
+006.JPG)
+007.JPG)
+008.JPG)
+009.JPG)
+010.JPG)
+011.JPG)
+012.JPG)
+013.JPG)
+014.JPG)
+015.JPG)
+002.JPG)
