Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

?[

Do you believe you have lived in a past life, that you have been reincarnatated into this current life?

No.

[Alexis Jacobi]

It is funny how much you seem to imagine about other people and their experience and capability as if you know better than they do about what concerns them. How can it NOT BE that experience, awareness, and ability are greatly diverse beyond any single viewpoint (such as yours)?

Given the *project* I have defined for myself I do not have a great deal of choice in the matter: I am forced to develop opinions, make guesses, about the sorts of ideas that inform those who (here on this forum) write. I think that what you are referring to is those guesses, or those opinions, I have come to about you?

Further, why would this immense world we are part of be driven and directed by a single plan/purpose understood by a human being and which revolves around that human? Seriously. Let's drop the self-indulgent nonsense.

Once again, what you have written here is your own *exposition* about The World and as such this idea of yours is similarly interpretive, and just as active, as those that you wish to argue against, as if you simply cannot believe how ignorant they are when they believe, as they certainly do believe, that there is a plan and a purpose to human existence. What I suppose (here I also wax interpretive) is how structured and how *certain* you are when you make the assertions that you do. But you see it is that, that essentially, that is now and has always been at the base of your core predicates. If I had to locate you within one area of concern, and you do seem to have a principle area of concern, it would be in this area. It is in fact pretty much all that you talk about! It is just a question of variation.

Now the reason I think it is important to locate and to see you (I mean this opinion-structure that you work in) is because it is actually quite common. You are just one among millions of people who if asked to reveal their basic, operative predicates, will say something along the same lines. The interesting question is to try to understand why they do this. I have concluded that it is an act of resistance but also of self-protection and self-preservation. You seem to me to be a perfect example of this. You have mentioned that you grew up facing that Christian pulpit and dealing with those men who told you, emphatically, that their religious philosophy was the only way. You once quoted something written on that pulpit: something to the effect of What was once true is always true (I paraphrase from memory).

And as I have often said (in relation to you) it seems to me that you have defined a rebellious stance (against certain assertions you genuinely feel are false or at best insufficient) yet it is in that resistance that you remain. Given your frame of mind, given your core predicates, you could never define a 'forward path'. But here I do not only mean you as a person. I really mean society and culture. You know what you resist but what you advocate for, in larger, metaphysical terms, is left undefined.

Christianity (like some other religions) relies on teachings of division and separateness... between oneself and a god... between believers and non-believers... between good and bad... between saved and condemned... etc. Without such, there would be no reason to subscribe to such convoluted notions that are clearly for the purpose of convincing people that they must follow a particular path, else they are somehow lost/condemned. How magnificently compelling! Actually, it is delusional and irresponsible (and in some cases wicked) to mislead and distort in such a way.

When one studies 'comparative religiousness' (comparative religions) one quickly sees that any particular stance becomes the building blocks for the cultural system. Obviously, a given civilization had been constructed on the basis of the sorts of definitions that had been decided on. Take Rome before it became Christian as an example. Or one of the great civilizations of the Indian subcontinent. A cultural system functions through a set of agreements and those agreements operate as the very basis upon which perception is based.

So that is why I say that just as you assert that you have come into a stance that enables you to make sweeping generalizations (and you definitely assert that you are right and in fact the sense of indignation that others have the audacity to present their certainties to you is a big part of your own project!) is what interests me about you and about your assertions. Therefore, if you examine the culture surrounding us, and that culture is formed by many people who think and see as you do (you are *one among millions*) you will I think also see that they carry over their assertions of their views in a similar fashion: "teachings of division and separateness... between oneself and a god... between believers and non-believers... between good and bad... between saved and condemned". The terms may have shifted but a great deal of the core animus remains the same (or in any case similar).

So the same thing could be said not only about Progressive political and social culture: "Without such, there would be no reason to subscribe to such convoluted notions that are clearly for the purpose of convincing people that they must follow a particular path, else they are somehow lost/condemned" but in a larger sense about the very time that we are in.

What interests me is the conflict and the lack of agreement -- the lack of ability to see eye-to-eye and to be capable of large-scale cooperation -- that shows itself when social cultures are on the brink of division (and of course we have all heard the term 'civil war' when, just a few years ago such a term would not ever have been used, nor conceived).

What is there for us to leave or be separate from? Such imagination!

This is also an 'assertive statement' and not quite the simple observation you suppose you are making. But it seems to me that it lacks self-consciousness. That is, it is made reflexively, reactively. You are making a statement (which I sort of understand but also sort of don't) about that in which we all subsist, right?

Finally, and as I have always said and repeat again: I am here for my own purposes. I have purposes. Over the last, what? six months (?) I have been able to move through whole ranges of ideas that I had been considering. As you know (if you have read my recent writing of the last 2-3 months) I have come to completely question the entire stance of our own belovèd Immanuel Can. Whether he or you or anyone writing here understands or can understand is not highly relevant to me.

Some people writing here seem *lost* in their own narrow perspectives and they simply do not have any sufficient platform to have ideas or opinions of much relevance or importance (Harbal and Henry are two good examples). In a sense I also place you in a similar camp: you do not read, you have very little background intellectually, and you have almost no interest in such things and even less in contemporary affairs! In what way do you-plural even imagine that what you think and say has any relevance at all within the contemporary context?

A great deal of what you-plural write (though I appreciate it) is just chatter. It does nothing, it goes nowhere. But even this interests me since, as it is, it is part of the general circumstance of our day! People spinning in eddies without consciousness of where they are and how they got there.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Irving Babbitt wrote in “Interpreting India to the West” (1917):

"On the one hand is the ascending path of insight and discrimination. Those who take it may be termed the spiritual athletes. On the other hand is the descending path towards the subrational followed by those who court the confused reverie that comes from the breakdown of barriers and the blurring of distinctions and who are ready to forego purpose in favor of “spontaneity”; and these may be termed the cosmic loafers."

____________________________

I am aware of how people have become more decadent, but whether we mean the same thing by that term, I don't know. People have always wanted stuff, but they recognised that sometimes they couldn't have it, and sometimes they would have to wait for it. All too often these days folks seems to think that all their desires come with the right to have them fulfilled. Popular culture also seems to have dumbed down greatly. I don't think I could be accused of being too decadent, though, and I am probably far less so now than I used to be. I run a very old car, I don't go on holiday and I don't surround myself with useless matereal possessions. I don't even have a TV set to watch all the mindless crap they broadcast these days. So, while I won't join you in your campaign to reform society, you can rest assured that I am doing very little to contribute towards its decline.

Know for certain that that you do not know what I mean by the term decadent. For you to gain that sense you'd have to read a great deal more than you seem to. You would have to become current about current affairs. You would have to become willing to entertain ideas & perspectives that would take you out of your isolated circumstances.

So, while I won't join you in your campaign to reform society, you can rest assured that I am doing very little to contribute towards its decline.

Naturally, you will not like what I say and think, but you are an example of the sort of person who has become subsumed in the *decadence* I refer to. But the curious thing is that it would require on your part a will to become conscious of what that decadence is. You'd have to begin to entertain and work with a range of ideas you have (apparently) never felt any need to examine. You'd have to become sensitized to what is being talked about.

However, you say "Popular culture also seems to have dumbed down greatly" but I would ask you that if it is dumb now when was it smart or less dumb? And what do you mean by dumb and what by intelligent?

I have my own answers of course. The era of the Nineteen-sixties marks a point when intellectualism and intellectual rigor, based on solid principles, turned many people's minds mushy. I do not know how else to describe it. Whether you understand what I am talking about (It is not really me of course) or not is not of great concern. But you and many who write on this forum, and I do not exclude myself from the general current, are picture-perfect examples of outcomes. We are the products of intellectual, moral and ethical mushiness.

In any case, to get a better sense of what 'decadence' means consider examining the philosophical essays of Richard Weaver: Visions of Order: The Cultural Crisis of Our Time (1964) or perhaps René Guénon The Crisis of the Modern World.

A search pulled up this article.

[Harry Baird]

It was in the same section you linked to.

I have no idea what you're referring to. What is "the reason [you] gave" that Christianity is not "one of the religions"?

That it's not works-based.

That's not an attribute I'd consider even remotely relevant to the question of whether or not a set of beliefs and practices constitutes a religion.

How do you define "religion" such that this attribute of Christianity is relevant?

Harry: Either way, prayer is spiritual, it's just that in some cases, that spiritual practice occurs in an institutionalised context.

IC: Then "institutionalization" isn't after all the thing that makes prayer spiritual or not, according to you? So what makes the difference between your idea of a "spiritual" prayer and a "religious" one?

Harry: Try reading for comprehension. Mull it over a little.

IC: You said "institutionalization." Now you say that's not it. So what is?

I literally have no idea what you're on about. I haven't changed anything.

Look, it's simple. Prayer is spiritual no matter which context it occurs in - so, yes, whether or not that context is institutional is irrelevant in that sense. A prayer is in addition a religious one if it occurs in the context of an institutionalised system of spiritual belief and practices (i.e., a religion).

Ah, right, so, there are a bunch of people going around referring to themselves as "Christians", with a "Christian theology", but that doesn't constitute institutionalisation in the (religious) sense I intended (for which I provided a bunch of synonyms).

There are.
I can't help it, if you don't know there are. Most secularists and others only know the larger, institutional groups, and don't know anything about personal Christianity or actual Biblical theology, because they don't really think Christian theology is about anything (so why familiarize yourself with it, they figure) and because institutions are much easier to locate.

Dude. "Even" those Christians (such as yourself) have:

1. A formalised set of core beliefs ("the Story" as AJ refers to it), including that the incarnation, death, and resurrection of God as Son provides for the salvation of humanity.
2. A formalised theology.
3. A formalised set of scriptures (the Bible) from which these beliefs and theology are derived.
4. A formalised set of spiritual practices (including prayer and worship).
5. A formalised set of procedures for worship (including Holy Communion).
6. A formalised moral code.
7. A large, widespread, and active community which shares in the above beliefs and practices.

This is the sense in which I refer to Christianity, and to the defining feature of religion in general, as being "institutionalised". I have offered various synonyms to help you better understand what I mean by that. Here they are again: organised; codified; systematised; doctrinal. As implied in my list above, an additional synonym is "formalised".

So, yep, Christianity, even as you practice it, is certainly a religion.

[Y]our view of "spirituality" seems entirely based on the subjective and personal

Whereas yours is objective and impersonal? How do you justify that distinction?

Re your exchange with Harbal:

IC: I asked, what do people mean when they say they are not relgious but "spiritual?"

Harbal: People have tried to give you answers

IC: I have one from Lace, and one from Harry. They're different. They don't agree.

This is like asking a Hindu and a Christian what their religious beliefs are, and, upon finding that they're vastly different, concluding that there is no agreement on the meaning of religion itself.

It's perfectly expected that non-institutionalised spiritual beliefs and practices are going to vary between individuals. That doesn't mean that there is no agreement on the meaning of "spiritual but not religious" itself.

I suspect that Lacewing would at least roughly agree with my general definition of "spiritual but not religious" as something like "having a set of spiritual beliefs and practices that are not institutionalised", but I don't know for sure, so I ask: what say you, Lacewing?

[Immanuel Can]

I have no idea what you're referring to. What is "the reason [you] gave" that Christianity is not "one of the religions"?

That it's not works-based.

That's not an attribute I'd consider even remotely relevant to the question of whether or not a set of beliefs and practices constitutes a religion.

How do you define "religion" such that this attribute of Christianity is relevant?

I also gave that explanation.

Christians consider it crucial. But if you consider it unimportant...

Look, it's simple. Prayer is spiritual no matter which context it occurs in - so, yes, whether or not that context is institutional is irrelevant in that sense. A prayer is in addition a religious one if it occurs in the context of an institutionalised system of spiritual belief and practices (i.e., a religion).

There is is again.

You reverted to the "institutional" = religious prayer, and presumably non-institutional is "spiritual"? But then you used the word "spiritual" to describe those "beliefs and practices" within an "institution."

So is "institutionalization" the defining characteristic of a "religion," or is it possible alternative for the "spiritual"? In which case, "non-institutionalization" does not distinguish "spirituality" at all, but is merely an optional feature.

Dude. "Even" those Christians (such as yourself) have:

1. A formalised set of core beliefs ("the Story" as AJ refers to it), including that the incarnation, death, and resurrection of God as Son provides for the salvation of humanity.
2. A formalised theology.
3. A formalised set of scriptures (the Bible) from which these beliefs and theology are derived.
4. A formalised set of spiritual practices (including prayer and worship).
5. A formalised set of procedures for worship (including Holy Communion).
6. A formalised moral code.
7. A large, widespread, and active community which shares in the above beliefs and practices.

"Formalized"?

It's much simpler than you're thinking. There are those who read and believe the Biblical message, and there are those who do not. Nothing else is even important. So the presence or absence of "formality" does not distinguish a Christian at all. One can be completely "informal" in every way but adherence to Scripture, and one is a Christian in the only sense that matters.

[Y]our view of "spirituality" seems entirely based on the subjective and personal

Whereas yours is objective and impersonal? How do you justify that distinction?

Well, so I'm right, then...your view is subjective and personal. A person "makes up" his or her own "spirituality," according to his/her tastes.

But yes, Christianity is both objective and personal. All Christians believe their faith is objectively real and true, and all take it completely personally, rather than, say, relying on collectivism in an institution to bring about what they are personally uncommitted to.

In short, each Christian is saved individually, not collectively. The Catholics, for example, or the Islamists, believe the opposite. The Catholics have a dogma called, "ex ecclesiam nulla salis," which means "outside the ecclesia (or Church), no salvation." The Islamists believe that "salvation" (they really don't have that concept, but we'll parallel, for simplicity) comes only to those who submit to Islam itself. They're collectivistic. The individual beliefs and condition of the person are less important than the efficacy of the institution, for them.

The difference could be simplified this way: Christians are saved individually, through personal faith in Christ. Catholics and Islamists, as well as many other "religions" believe that their institution works like a bus...and if the individuals "jump on the bus," then they get to paradise.

Another difference, of course, is that both Catholics and Islamists believe that salvation is by doing "good works," as defined by the institution. Christians absolutely deny that is even possible.

Re your exchange with Harbal:

IC: I asked, what do people mean when they say they are not relgious but "spiritual?"

Harbal: People have tried to give you answers

IC: I have one from Lace, and one from Harry. They're different. They don't agree.

This is like asking a Hindu and a Christian what their religious beliefs are, and, upon finding that they're vastly different, concluding that there is no agreement on the meaning of religion itself.

I haven't "concluded" yet. I just note that you and Lace have different answers to what "spirituality" is. And that's all I said about that. And it's true.

Now, of course, I don't deny that even now, you can draw your own conclusions. If you don't agree with her, it's logical to assume that one of you is wrong, or both of you are. But as Aristotle's basic Law of Non-Contradiction says, it won't be the case that you're both right. That much, we can know by logic. But it's not a conclusion I've given to Harbal, or to anybody.

But I have drawn no conclusion at all so far, because I'm waiting for futher information.

It's perfectly expected that non-institutionalised spiritual beliefs and practices are going to vary between individuals. That doesn't mean that there is no agreement on the meaning of "spiritual but not religious" itself.

Let's see if that turns out to be the case. Let's wait on the data.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Well, the OT has been given a bad rap on that. Jews know better, though: they say that a major characteristic of God is (Heb.) "chesed," meaning, "lovingkindness." Most skeptics don't read the OT that way, and that leaves the impression that the OT God is somehow harsher and less loving than the NT one. But I see no difference in character, only in covenant.

Though it may be of no relevance to anyone else but me, and again I say I am here for my own purposes, it is not so much European-Germanic Christianity (it is important to state it in this way) that needs to be confronted, but the very core Hebrew Bible stories.

The Old Testament is given a *bad rap* when the implications of certain of the stories in it are examined with some critical care. Fundamental, and extremely core lies and distortions (which I term loosely as Hebrew Idea-Imperialism) have set the tone. At a fundamental level, then, these stories and the animus standing behind them must be examined carefully.

The god-image known as Yahweh is a figure of sheer evil. To have pictured a god in this way -- as absolute imperialist, as tyrant, as a vicious and cruel supernatural being intent on destroying, murdering and thieving from those people who saw things, and saw the world, in different terms, is evidence of evil. The Christian intolerance for other conceptions (for other gods) and the attitude of warring that is initiated against other people's beliefs and lives, is again evidence not of 'good', and certainly not of 'chesed', but of a self-manufactured tolerance and encouragement for one's own people (Yahwism as a tribal religion of an arrogating people.)

If the figure of Jesus of Nazareth is to be understood, and respected, a greater part of that must be discerned in his supposed revolutionary resistance to the tribal elders and the intellectual (priestly) elite of that culture. The fact of the matter is that Jesus would today be called an anti-Semite for taking a stand against these idea-constructs and the elites who oppress the (Jewish) people through control of narratives. Looked at in a certain way, and looked at correctly, it is not 'god' who is speaking through Yahweh, as if these messages were sent down to man from *on-high* but rather these messages demonstrate how a priestly elite invents, controls and manages destructive lies and messaging. In support of wicked interests.

I will cite references shortly.

As I say none of this is likely to have much relevance to others who write here, but in my case the dismantling of Immanuel Can (who is himself a man profoundly invested in destructive lies but who yet sees himself and presents himself as a man sponsoring *the good* and also *goodness*) does not so much involve dismantling Christianity as it has to do with critically seeing Judaism.

A quote I saved but forgot where it came from:

This is precisely why the Jews are the most disastrous people in world history: they have left such a falsified humanity in their wake that even today Christians can think of themselves as anti-Jewish without understanding that they are the ultimate conclusion of Judaism.

For myself, having been raised in the fringes of Judaism (California Reform Judaism), getting to the point of seeing that Jewish self-image is questionable and rather devious -- this has led to a cascade of different critical ideas. I would not want to inspire blind anti-Semitism (and naturally any critical assertions about Judaism and Jews is construed to be just that) but the real core of all that we have been discussing is precisely in the Jewish character of Christianity.

It involves a false conception of self. "I am good because I am aligned with Jesus. And because aligned with Jesus I am aligned with God. It is not me talking to you (saying thus-and-such) but God Himself! If you oppose me, you oppose God".

This is evidence of how this deviousness functions. Just look at it. It is plain as day.

But then what happens when this figure -- Jesus of Nazareth -- is described as and is understood as a being (messanger of god if you wish; prophet if you wish; or simply historical figure) comes onto the scene with such an adamant position against hsi type of lying and deception? Then the figure of Jesus of Nazareth takes on a whole other intentionality.

But who then takes over the *mission* of that figure? Paul. Christianity is really a Pauline religion. If this is so, then it does leave in question who the figure of Jesus really was. How can this be known?

[Lacewing]

Given the *project* I have defined for myself I do not have a great deal of choice in the matter: I am forced to develop opinions, make guesses, about the sorts of ideas that inform those who (here on this forum) write.

I'm sorry, I would like to have a meaningful discussion with you, but I just can't wade through all of the imaginings you project.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Given the *project* I have defined for myself I do not have a great deal of choice in the matter: I am forced to develop opinions, make guesses, about the sorts of ideas that inform those who (here on this forum) write.

I'm sorry, I would like to have a meaningful discussion with you, but I just can't wade through all of the imaginings you project.

You have two basic alternatives: 1) Explain yourself or 2) Go silent.

Define 'imaginings' and then define 'meaningfulness'.

[Lacewing]

I have one from Lace, and one from Harry. They're different. They don't agree.

This is like asking a Hindu and a Christian what their religious beliefs are, and, upon finding that they're vastly different, concluding that there is no agreement on the meaning of religion itself.

Yes! I've been thinking we agree and speak similarly on quite a lot, Harry. But I'm not surprised that I.C. refuses to recognize that and prefers to distort for his purposes.

It's perfectly expected that non-institutionalised spiritual beliefs and practices are going to vary between individuals. That doesn't mean that there is no agreement on the meaning of "spiritual but not religious" itself.

Yes!

I suspect that Lacewing would at least roughly agree with my general definition of "spiritual but not religious" as something like "having a set of spiritual beliefs and practices that are not institutionalised", but I don't know for sure, so I ask: what say you, Lacewing?

I agree. There is much to agree on... even between those who are spiritual and/or religious... except with those who insist on dismissing the divine everywhere except through their own limited view.

[Alexis Jacobi]

It's much simpler than you're thinking. There are those who read and believe the Biblical message, and there are those who do not. Nothing else is even important. So the presence or absence of "formality" does not distinguish a Christian at all. One can be completely "informal" in every way but adherence to Scripture, and one is a Christian in the only sense that matters.

The structure of your mind, and the structure of the way you conceive and hold ideas, is so wedded to lies & distortions that, even if you were to try, you couldn't un-wed yourself enough to see clearly. And when one reads a paragraph as the one quoted it is easy as pie to see.

You are talking to an entire forum composed of people who simply cannot read the Bible and *believe* in it. In varying degrees, and when they have read, they might believe in some sense (I'd put Harry in this class, but also Nick in a different way) but they cannot accept the strict and straight Biblical line. So, it is not simpler! You place it is a simplistic dichotomy because that is an aspect (or tactic) of your apologetics. You are here -- entirely -- as a Christian apologist. You have no other intention and no other purpose. Therefore, you either 1) accept the standard message and 'believe', or 2) you do not believe.

But there are certainly other options. Those options, however, do not and cannot appear on your intellectual radar. They do not exist for you. It is within the area that is inconceivable to you that many other things are important. In fact I would say that the real importance is not in your silly (if not stupid) definition of 'salvation' but in different, and more advanced, forms of thinking are needed. But you are intellectually blind to this because you are a religious fanatic at your core.

You wish to assert that there is not a 'structural formality' in Christianity. Because you actually see yourself as a 'special interpreter' of Christianity. You have a special insight into the *true* avenue to arrive at Christianity. And you so easily hop over the reality, the realness, of what it actually is! You are deeply invested in these deceptions. So invested that you could not tell the truth even if you sincerely desired to.

So your entire presentation, once it is seen, makes itself plain. Now, the real challenge, it seems to me, is to discover the origins of this entire construct into which you have invested. It far antecedes you.

I your own weird way you are a type of 'priestly elite' and you have elaborate narratives that you wield. Once this is understood then the dismantling of those becomes possible.

Won't you try to participate in this (healthy) process or must I feed you to the lions? What's it gonna be?

[Lacewing]

Given the *project* I have defined for myself I do not have a great deal of choice in the matter: I am forced to develop opinions, make guesses, about the sorts of ideas that inform those who (here on this forum) write.

I'm sorry, I would like to have a meaningful discussion with you, but I just can't wade through all of the imaginings you project.

You have two basic alternatives: 1) Explain yourself or 2) Go silent.

Define 'imaginings' and then define 'meaningfulness'.

3) Ignore you

I have plenty to say elsewhere with others.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I'm sorry, I would like to have a meaningful discussion with you, but I just can't wade through all of the imaginings you project.

You have two basic alternatives: 1) Explain yourself or 2) Go silent.

Define 'imaginings' and then define 'meaningfulness'.

3) Ignore you

I have plenty to say elsewhere with others.

I unnerstan. There are a few I ignore as well.

Still, and without your permission, I will continue to comment on the things you say.

[Immanuel Can]

You are talking to an entire forum composed of people who simply cannot read the Bible and *believe* in it.

We'll see.

People can do what they decide to do. That's something Christianity teaches, too. You have a right to set your own destiny. But nothing frees a person from the consequences of his or her choice.

Hopefully, one of the people you're talking about is not yourself.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You are talking to an entire forum composed of people who simply cannot read the Bible and *believe* in it.

We'll see.

People can do what they decide to do. That's something Christianity teaches, too. You have a right to set your own destiny. But nothing frees a person from the consequences of his or her choice.

Hopefully, one of the people you're talking about is not yourself.

Fuck off. I simply see through your entire self-presentation. You are a con-artist. I suggest to you that you make the choice to stop being such. To become more honest. What you will not see from me, any longer in any case, is consent in accepting, as authentic, the false-image you present.

I will demonstrate shortly how I back-up my recent assertions (regarding Hebrew Idea-Imperialism).

Even in what you wrote here, the quoted part, the essence of your con-artistry is still perfectly plain. It is a form of psychological manipulation.

I reject it.

But that does not mean that I reject 'decisiveness', nor the importance of molding one's own destiny through sound choices; and I certainly recognize 'consequences' and that all life-decisions are consequential.

And this is why I say that one must preserve a great deal of Christian content and why it is unwise to toss it all away even when the falsity is clearly distinguished.

I am very definitely and precisely *one of the people* I am talking about.

We'll see.

[Harbal]

Know for certain that that you do not know what I mean by the term decadent. For you to gain that sense you'd have to read a great deal more than you seem to.

I can't seem to read less that nothing, which is what I actually do read.

You would have to become current about current affairs. You would have to become willing to entertain ideas & perspectives that would take you out of your isolated circumstances.

My circumstances are not quite so isolated at the moment, so I don't really have time for the above, as tempting as you make it sound.

Naturally, you will not like what I say and think,

That's very perceptive of you. And I thought I was hiding it so well.

you are an example of the sort of person who has become subsumed in the *decadence* I refer to.

Not yet, but I have plans.

You'd have to begin to entertain and work with a range of ideas you have (apparently) never felt any need to examine

I'm already engaged in entertaining a range of ideas, and I also intend to fully examine them. Just not your ideas.

"Popular culture also seems to have dumbed down greatly" but I would ask you that if it is dumb now when was it smart or less dumb?

I can tell you exactly when: It was ages ago.

The era of the Nineteen-sixties marks a point when intellectualism and intellectual rigor, based on solid principles, turned many people's minds mushy.

I don't know what turned my mind mushy, but I don't think it could have been intellectual rigour. No, there was definitely no intellectual rigour where I grew up.

Whether you understand what I am talking about (It is not really me of course) or not is not of great concern.

How true.

In any case, to get a better sense of what 'decadence' means consider examining the philosophical essays of Richard Weaver: Visions of Order: The Cultural Crisis of Our Time (1964) or perhaps René Guénon The Crisis of the Modern World.

Okay, I've considered it, and I don't really feel any wiser. But I appreciate your efforts to educate me. You obviously see potential in me.