THE |
|
a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining
to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects. |
To: tariqas@world.std.com From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (haramullah) Subject: Confronting Fundies (was fundamentalists/fanatics etc...) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 11:54:19 -0800 (PST) 49990208 IIIom assalam alaykum, my kin. altaf@people-link.com: #> I read a few mail here 'bout trying to look for some beauty, #> in that whatever they are doing is from a love for Allah. I #> guess I havent reached such a stage as yet where I can do #> that... I suggest that you have the ability to LOOK for beauty, even if you can't see it yet. if you can't see it, this doesn't mean that it isn't there, just that your eyes may be clouded by your attachment to your own role and perspective. #> I seem to have a well developed ability at getting #> into it with these people... it makes me angry that they #> should think they have the right to pass judgments on other #> people, kill them, and do other things such as Afghanistan #> etc. it is here that I like to oppose others publicly, not so much on the intellectual or abstract points. the conservative and fanatics run on at the mouth about their ideas, but when it comes to to DO something about them, I question the wisdom of violence in the name of the Most Compassionate, siding with the prophets Issa and Gotama in nonviolent resistence and yet understanding the value of Jihad as PURELY self-defensive after all other avenues have been explored. the saint Gandhi was not a pacifist, as is sometimes presumed, but instead was a warrior who would not accept violence as a solution to any problem, being willing to die as a warrior of satyagraha (i.e. 'soul force'), struck down by the unjust, rather than to capitulate to the most blatant ignorance of the herd. #> I suppose I need to work towards distancing myself somewhat #> from them... but that would also mean distancing my self #> from the Muslim community where these people tend to reside... #> being quiet at their audaucity is something one can do, but #> that means that they always have the floor, and another #> viewpoint is never heard... especially since even the more #> liberal mullahs will remain quiet to not face their wrath. #> #> What to do? one tactic is to assault their arrogance with comparative humility by requesting how it is that they come to know the mind and heart of the Almighty that they can make such judgements about others, how they can take up arms when it seems so obviously not a matter of self-defense, compared to negotiation and patient discussion amongst respectful kin. "Scott L. Pearson": # ...try asking them questions that calmly and rationally # expose what is underneath or behind their words and actions, # and then ask what other options they have explored to # accomplish these ends so that others can make a more honest # appraisal of them. a very wonderful suggestion which I first did not like but I see your wisdom. make plain what are the underlying motivations and values which lie behind the words, very wonderful. the danger of this is the arrogance of oneself presuming to know The Answer, but making all matters plain is honorable. # And above all, sink not to their level emotionally, physically, # spiritually, as if you start asking questions designed to # calmly expose these people, you will become for those watching # a standard which they will start measuring these others by. I would also suggest responding to their answer with your own thoughts and ideas in comparison, being respectful but humorously amazed at the differences that make up the world. in this way one can demonstrate the ability to be ACCEPTING of others, and this will be flagrantly contrasted by those who condemn you for your expressions in return. thus if the whole audience comes from a different background at LEAST they will see that you are more accepting of their ways than they are of yours. for example, after years and years of interacting with Christian religious (fundamentalist and liberals), I had occasion due to my job as a security guard to work with individuals who were of quite different religious backgrounds. during one evening I was training a man for my site who was a devout and fundamentalist Muslim. at the time I had just constructed a set of flashcards of the 99 names of God according to the Islamic Sufi tradition (from a book compiled by Sheikh Tosun Bayrak al-Jerrahi al-Halveti called _The Most Beautiful Names_). I told the man that I was very fond of Islam, had been to mosque and to a Naqshbandi center or two in my area, and admired those whom I'd met as quite sincere and devoted to the divine, that I considered myself muslim but did not practice the 5 Pillars as they are conventionally described. he responded with a long and complicated explanation of how one must be devout, that those who are part of "cults" are dangerous but that he'd heard very good things about Sufis, and that he'd considered a variety of religious paths but decided that Islam was the only one which really answered all his questions logically (he prided himself on his scientific approach). we then embarked on a philosophic discussion which I found quite interesting, though somewhat of a review -- one which I have had with many Muslims -- about how things came to be, whether all things have a beginning, whether all things have a designer and maker, etc. essentially they boil down to what is called in my philosophic studies 'the First Cause Fallacy' and 'Argument from Design Fallacy' in theology. he was somewhat disconcerted by my questions (such as 'if God could be around forever, why couldn't the cosmos?') and disgruntled in our interaction. I felt his discomfort and wished to set things aright during our eight hours together by sharing my food and my art with him. I asked him if he, knowing Arabic and English, would do me the favor of reviewing my flashcards and seeing if he thought the translations on the backs were valuably phrased. I'd tried to boil the sometimes proseic descriptions in the book upon which they were based down to a few sentences and words. he agreed and set about doing reviewing them. we also continued our philosophic conversation, though in a more relaxed atmosphere. I think he surmised that if I was doing this kind of art then I couldn't be completely lost, seeing hope for my future. he then asked me the occasional question (how I was raised -- agnostic/atheist; how I saw God -- I told him I was dedicated to Kali, whom I understood to be a face of the One; what other things I was studying -- I honestly told him I found the subjects of occultism and Satanism to be compelling and very important in my life). needless to say he once again became concerned for me and advised me that if I didn't change my ways, then I was surely headed for the Pit of Everlasting Torment, that Hell which he said was the endpoint for the wicked. I listened patiently while he described the horrors of my fate (another logical fallacy which I have learned to described as 'Pascal's Wager') and then told him that I would rather oppose such a "God" that would construct such a place of torment for those whom he had so wrongfully placed in this predicament, going there myself and ministering to those who may be lost, than to change my ways based merely on the threat of pain. he understood this *completely* and had never conceived of such an approach to life. I had informed him that I didn't believe such a Hell existed, that I thought of God as the Most Compassionate, that we were ALL destined for either extinction or some heaven of our own preferences which these days I enjoy calling the 'Garden of Roses' (I hadn't and still haven't decided between these, enjoying them both). yet this didn't change his mind (nor was I really trying to change his mind about anything, just share with him who and what I really was while listening patiently to his sharing). I bring this up as an example because I have found this approach to interacting with fundamentalists to be the most conducive to peaceful resolution and a greater understanding of one ANOTHER having passed between us. that is, I neither submitted to condemnation and an urge to be different, to change my ways, nor did I try to change the person with whom I was talking even when they described ideas and cosmologies which I found repulsive and had no evidence for believing. through this method I was able to meet some of the most kind and beautiful people whose ideas about the world were very conservative in comparison to my own. they were open- hearted enough even to admit ME into their presence (and I have often been very controversial in appearance, with black robes, pentagramatic jewelry, radical political shirts, and a quietly respectful but iconoclastic expression which sometimes yields explosive responses) and we have learned a great deal from one another about people whom we might have otherwise avoided or condemned. I found that the value of these individuals for ME was that they dwelt within a world of solid tradition (as compared to myself, walking a rather solitary and variably constituted path which one might alternatively call serendipitous or intuitively-driven), and that many of them were wonderful references for the scriptures of their study, providing me with storytelling and traditional interpretations which they favored or of which they were aware. I learn alot from people who tell stories, as compared to dead and dry books. I try never to underestimate the value of their efforts to be rigorous in their adherence to their cultural standards. more often than not what they have taken literally I can look at metaphorically and comprehend a supreme wisdom for which I cannot repay them, despite their unknowing role in my education. # Remember that you will not change these people, it is their # audience that you wish to preserved from fanaticism, and if # you take away their audience, they have no power. that's one way to approach them (competition). I find that I prefer instead to demonstrate the principles I have learned WITHIN the interaction itself (intellect is only one sphere of the conversation, as you have intimated above) -- generally I am quiet and patient until I feel that they have spoken to extremity; at which point I point this out and politely request that I have some time to respond to them. then I show them my heart (sometimes very pained or angry, and I try to connect this with specific events in my life or incidents that I feel are directly related) and explain to them in as few words as possible how I feel differently (if I do, there are times when I merely say that I agree but that I understand what they are saying to be metaphors rather than literal truths). I try to approach the interaction in manner I have learned that Freemasons call 'on the level' -- as equals, from a place of equivalent authority with respect to our discussion. over time those who know me understand this about me and respect me for it, shifting away from those who monopolize conversations and "know all over them" as my brother says. one of the benefits of cyberspace is that we have the ability to INTERLACE conversation so much, since there is no sonic medium which can admit only a single speaker. ;> # If you sink to their level and become involved emotionally # intheir arguments, they will win the audience. By listening # to the answers from the fanatic to questions you have asked # him (if they are the proper squestions), the audience will # feels that they are making up their own minds, and this will # have more staying powerAsk within what questions the audience # needs to hear from you, and keep yourself pure of the lower # emotions when doing this. surely valuable advice. I try (though do not always succeed) to avoid seeing discussions as debates which must have only a single "winner". instead I love contests which have well-matched participants so that it will be a "good game". this sometimes consternated my kin who wanted me to choose sides in spectator sports -- more often than not I would choose the side that was LOSING AT THE TIME to support, since I just wanted a close and exciting game. ;> in conversations I like to take this perspective also when I'm able. having whoever is present make up their OWN minds is what I really do enjoy, and I like to hear all the sides of the discussion so that a fair assessment can be made. for this reason I will often provide expression for unpopular and/or unusual points of view (and am therefore confounded with the 'sophist' or the 'gadfly' in their deprecatory senses). I don't think there are such things as 'lower emotions', but I do understand that you mean things like anger. I think that anger and sorrow are very important emotions to feel when expressing specific points of view (especially those about justice and historical oppression). unemotional expressions are less convincing to me these days. what I feel is more important to avoid are blame, condemnation and aggression toward person or group. this is important in negotiation and we all can learn to discipline ourselves from them when attempting to resolve conflict of any sort. # The questions should be something like, "If (whatever speaker said) # happens, what would you personally get out of it?" or "And what would # (whatever speaker said) do for you personally?" or perhaps something # like, "And if that (whatever speaker said) came to pass, how would # that benefit you personally?" or perhaps "How long have you been # doing (what speaker said) and it still hasn't worked for you?") and # for each answer the speaker gave, ask another question similar to # the above, always phrasing it in terms of finding out what the # speaker personally gains from what he is advocating. interesting, this is similar to what Anton LaVey (a popular Satanist) says in his writings -- identify WHO GAINS. I wonder how valuable this is as compared to asking for examples of when this person has placed the things she is advocating into personal practice and asking hir to describe the results. the issue of what 'works' for someone is a complicated one and is often ambiguous enough that focus upon it may yield equivocation ("it hasn't worked yet, but it will eventually", etc.). # The goal is to get to the real motivation behind the speakers # rhetoric. If you spot a victory point or weak spot in what he or # she says, Do not go for the victory point or stab the weak spot. # Just let their weak spot shine out in the open. The idea is to # do this with the same innocence that the child did when he or # she said, "The emperor has no clothes." However, being that # blunt usually does not work, and one has to lead the audience # to the realization that the emporer has no clothes by # questioning the emporer as to his goals (what he gets out of # wearing these) and by asking him about side effects ("Emperor, # don't you get a little cold in those brand new clothes?" or # "Isn't that shirt a little too thin to stop sun-burn?" or # "Given the emperial modesty that you are famously known for # throughout the land, having set the very standard of modesty # that has justly led to your fame, are you sure you should be # wearing just such an incredible garment out in public?"). again, very valuable advice. it goes somewhat beyond what I find comfortable when you advise trying to "lead" the audience (it can easily become pedantic or didactic if one is unskilled) and I do think that there are circumspect ways that one may indicate the divestment of the king: "Wow, that cloth is so fine that it appears I can see your skin right through it!" or better: "My eyes must be failing me, for I cannot see your clothing! Please show it to me!" admitting my failure, lack, or inferiority in a domain is one of the most important and humble things I can do -- sometimes it results in the kind of event described by that story to which you refer. ;> # ...speak at the same speed as the speaker you are addressing. If # he speaks quickly, speak as quickly as him. If he speaks slowly, # speak as slowly as him. It will help establish a little better # unconscious rapport, and he may answer more honestly. very interesting. I don't think I've learned this one yet and it may be why I have problems when in groups of people. I often will be quiet because everyone so dearly wants the group attention and leaves no space for quietness (my quandrant). so when I do speak I tend to speak more quietly (though loud enough to be heard), more slowly, and more densely, so as not to occupy too much time). of course in cyberspace I can see less reason to do this because I have all this quietness within which to type. :> here you go. # This will not work for everyone. There are some who are very # good at oratory and audience manipulation, and will realize when # they are losing the audience and will do there utmost to ignore # you and work to get the audience back. playing for an audience is less valuable to me than expressing what is in my heart, however unpopular. manipulation is something I have always detested, and when I see someone doing it to me or to a group of people I either oppose it or avoid it. it just isn't as important to me who is 'winning the audience over' if the audience is comprised of sheep who can so easily be led by their noses. let them be hauled off to the slaughter. I will do what I can to warn them, but they eventually get what they deserve and will be disillusioned by some slip-up of the manipulators if they have eyes to see. no, it is more important to me to be true to myself, concern my activities with my life and the lives of those who cannot even VOICE their concern (for want of attention or lack of voice), and to speak from my heart and head in the best way I know how from a place of calm intention. if I can do all this and remain nonviolent then I know I am doing the work of Allah. peace be with you, haramullah tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com
The Arcane Archive is copyright by the authors cited.
Send comments to the Arcane Archivist: tyaginator@arcane-archive.org. |
Did you like what you read here? Find it useful?
Then please click on the Paypal Secure Server logo and make a small donation to the site maintainer for the creation and upkeep of this site. |
The ARCANE ARCHIVE is a large domain,
organized into a number of sub-directories, each dealing with a different branch of religion, mysticism, occultism, or esoteric knowledge. Here are the major ARCANE ARCHIVE directories you can visit: |
|
interdisciplinary:
geometry, natural proportion, ratio, archaeoastronomy
mysticism: enlightenment, self-realization, trance, meditation, consciousness occultism: divination, hermeticism, amulets, sigils, magick, witchcraft, spells religion: buddhism, christianity, hinduism, islam, judaism, taoism, wicca, voodoo societies and fraternal orders: freemasonry, golden dawn, rosicrucians, etc. |
SEARCH THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
There are thousands of web pages at the ARCANE ARCHIVE. You can use ATOMZ.COM
to search for a single word (like witchcraft, hoodoo, pagan, or magic) or an
exact phrase (like Kwan Yin, golden ratio, or book of shadows):
OTHER ESOTERIC AND OCCULT SITES OF INTEREST
Southern
Spirits: 19th and 20th century accounts of hoodoo,
including slave narratives & interviews
|