Contents:
- About this Page
- The Problem of Unanimous Complete Agreement
- Girl Instantly Destroyed by My Not Fawning Reverently
About this Page
This page is not to present corrections; this page asserts that correction is good.
The Problem of Unanimous Complete Agreement
For good critique, a person should understand the main ideas of the Egodeath theory. For the most profitable disussion, a person should accurately and consistently understand and represent the Egodeath theory.
The Egodeath theory can handle discussion, correction, expansion, revision, critique, etc. We should not feel we have to walk on eggshells.
I shut off comments in the Egodeath Yahoo Group because some comments confused other people by misrepresenting the Egodeath theory; such posts were doing more harm than good, and were a liability — exacerbated by the fact that such misrepresentative posts were given the same prominence as my own posts.
There is no requirement for advocates of the Egodeath theory to hold the same views on exoteric Christianity. I have no right to dictate the views on exotericism held by other adherents of the Egodeath theory, and other adherents have no right to dictate the views on exotericism held by me. We need plenty of elbow room to try on and hold various views.
The Egodeath theory enables a flexible variety of views; one’s view on exoteric religion is non-essential. One’s view on exotericism, and on unity or alliance between exotericists & esotericists, is non-essential for adhering to the Egodeath theory.
The Egodeath theory is robust and able to accommodate a variety of views. The Egodeath core theory is more rigid. The issue of allying esotericism with exotericism is not part of the Core theory, but is a Peripheral matter.
I felt too constrained, having to be careful and politic, when I added a qualifying point or two to what someone else wrote; “yes, fair, but also consider that X”. Egodeath theory adherents should not be hampered by walking on eggshells. We are spoiled from too much unanimous agreement, leading to brittle shattering as if the slightest disagreement of emphasis would demolish the whole theory.
In an unrelated forum, I posted intellectual critique of intellectual content, and the content creator flipped out and misinterpreted the timestamps/posting-flow sequence, and she hastily declared she would no longer reply to me (ever, without qualification) — literally before I had a chance to actually reply to her post.
Girl Instantly Destroyed by My Not Fawning Reverently
Everyone was fawning over her content; it seemed like she had never heard any critique or pushback before. She was quick to torch the bridge and prevent any possibility of cooperation. All or nothing, in her mind. I continued writing on the subject matter as always. She owns her own trip and it’s not my business to control that.
Healthy dispute or weighing of considerations is healthy. Go ahead and post “contrary” points or “corrections”. The Egodeath theory is not so delicate. We can handle discussion and critique.
An example of a minor “correction” or “dispute” or “clarification”, that’s not at all a problem, was when someone said I changed my view on the merit of mushrooms vs. L-25. I believe my view was always that mushrooms or synthetic psil capsules is tops, and that L-25 is tops. Both are king. Psil has advantage of short duration, enabling redosing like Greek banquets did another round of mixed wine.
I never can be sure exactly what I wrote or said in the past, and it can be hard to locate what I wrote. I don’t believe that my expressed view ever changed on this matter. I wondered what may have given him the impression that my view changed. I think my expressed view has been simply, completely consistent; this matter hasn’t required back-and-forth refinement of my views.
In contrast, my recent view on needing some qualified acceptance of freewill thinking is a little nuanced and a matter of a little recent development or refinement, and I would not be surprised at needing to clarify the development of my position.
I am always working-out, grappling with my own ideas, seeing it this way, then also seeing it that way. This “critique”, “disputation”, “clarification”, “correction” or whatever, is not a problem at all, and is a basic requirement for thinking, for idea-development.
The Egodeath theory 