Contents | Previous | Next
Date: 11 Nov 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Subject: Re: Arguments
Message-ID:
References: <3A083B7B.12F8@luckymojo.com> <20001109132426.23201.00000469@ng-fv1.aol.com> <3A0B1BF8.36A5@luckymojo.com> <8ufbr9$nad$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3A0B61EF.D77@luckymojo.com> <8ug7qo$cm7$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3A0C7666.6E68@luckymojo.com> <8ui0v7$siu$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
X-Sender: sf.thomas@faith.decancorp.com
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Complaints-To: newsadmin@bellatlantic.net
X-Trace: typhoon1.ba-dsg.net 973962133 138.88.49.41 (Sat, 11 Nov 2000 12:02:13 EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 12:02:13 EST
Newsgroups: alt.religion.orisha
On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, E. C. Ballard wrote:
> Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 21:05:46 -0500
> From: E. C. Ballard
> Newsgroups: alt.religion.orisha
Subject: : Re: Arguments
>
> Talking to you Mamaiisii (and Grisso as well) is a lot like talking to the
> mad hatter. It gets you nowhere.
And talking to you, Egohan, is like talking to the egocentric Humpty Dumpty;
you think that words, also facts and evidence, mean only what you say they
mean. Hence what Lucas says is "flawed", you say, but I notice that on the
pointed request to tell us how so, and more importantly, since there is no
work of man that is ever not "flawed" in some way, how and why those flaws would
demolish Lucas's central thesis, you have no response. On the other side
of the coin, however, when it is time for you to claim an Arab provenance
for aspects of Ifa divination, you claim that this is "obvious", yet
advance no evidence whatsoever that favors this as opposed to at least
two other logical possibilities. This is the double standard ever favored
by racists.
> You are in no position to claim that I am not a legitimate priest in an
> African religion. Your skin color does not make you an African Papess.
> Nor, evidently does it provide you with wisdom, although it should not of
> itself be a barrior to it. I was duly and legitimately initiated arriba
> nganga nkuyu malongo paso paso ngo en Mbanza Bana (habana, Cuba) by Roque
> Zamora Cabrera, himself an Afro-cubano whose family has practiced palo for
> generations. His entire spiritual house and the spirits themselves have
> accepted me.
The Master was never impressed by diplomas or degrees. [Or priestly titles
one would imagine.] He scrutinized the person, not the certificate.
He was once heard to say, "When you have ears to hear a bird in song,
you don't need to look at its credentials." [From One-Minute Wisdom]
The only legitimacy that one can ever claim is the one conferred by self.
Nobody can make you into that which you are not. Mamaissii is absolutely
right on that.
> I recommend you and Grisso do some serious soul searching of your own.
> What you are showing of your souls is not especially pretty. Sanctimonious
> yes, sanctified no.
My dear Egohan, I don't claim to be holy, far less holier-than-thou.
Certainly it is not the basis of my accusations against you. And I have been
very plain. I do accuse you. And I have accused you in a fair manner, which
means that the charges are not mere mud-slinging, they are of a sort where
as the accused it is clear how you may defend yourself. I charge you with
using a racial double standard in matters that concern Africa, Africans
and ATR and their accomplishments. That, as we all know, is what racists
do. And I have laid out, in cogent, coherent fashion, my reasons for
saying so. What say you in response? Sanctimony, or being holier-than-thou,
scarcely enters the picture. Mindful of the limitations of the Academy,
I come at you with fact, and argument. I have literally begged for a
response in like fashion, clearly to no avail. The result, my dear Eoghan,
is that the nakedness of your racist hypocrisy is exposed. Ultimately, is
you that impeach yourself.
Now, I take the time to do this, not out of some personal vendetta against
you, Eoghan. I don't know you, never met you, and frankly don't care ever
to meet you. I do this, as I have stated before, in defense of Africa,
Africans and ATR. Because here you are, not only lodged in the Academy, but
also claiming priestly title in ATR, i.e. laying claim to a credibility
only those on the "inside" may claim, saying things about Africa, Africans
and ATR that can only be classed as disparaging or diminishing of all
three. That I could not leave unchallenged. You and your new-found ally,
Eddie, may take that however you please. Take it as high compliment, or
take it as the opposite. I can assure you though that there is absolutely
nothing personal about it. Eoghan, the person, is worth neither the time
nor the bytes that I have expended seeking to surgically remove, layer by
layer, the layers of hypocrisy, racist at that, inherent in the positions
you take, and the modes of argumentation, or lack, that you employ in
making the remarkable statements you make in derogation of the tradition
in which you have taken up residence, and of which you claim to be
friend. You will notice that I do not respond to the provocations of your
ally. As he might rightly surmise, he is worth neither the time, nor the
bytes, and he merits not the honor, perverse or otherwise, of attention
from me. The main difference: You claim priestly title; he is just a
clever academician, or pseudo-academician, who has bought into the
Science-Worship of the age.
> Especially since to begin with, I never said anything
> critical of any African tradition. I hold them all in respect.
Now you take us for fools. You form an equation between priesthood in ATR
and sorcery, and you do not realize how that diminishes ATR? I take the
trouble to post "Ancient wisdom in Africa" that has the effect of rebutting
that piece of nonsense, and all I get from you is a warning about possible
copyright infringement, and now the best that you can come up with is
further nonsense about the supposed "sanctimoniousness" of your opponents,
the alleged ugliness of their "soul". No sir. The spotlight remains on
you. Not only do you get "beat" by the standards of your Academy -- facts
and argument ... but that shrivelled-up thing you call your soul cannot
stand the light of exposure.
> I seek to
> understand the histories in accurate detail, not private myths about their
> histories.
If they are "private myths" why not shed the light of facts and argument
that would explode these myths? Please. Even now. I am waiting. But I
do not hold my breath.
> If what is available historically and objectively disagrees
> with what I believe about history, then I look again at my beliefs and
> decide whether to change them.
Perhaps you might let us know what changes in your beliefs occurred as a
result of having a look at "Ancient wisdom in Africa", by Patrick Bowen,
another racist that took up study, ultimately failed as it would appear,
in the ancient priestly learning of Africa.
> My only sin was to disagree with your own
> dogmatic views about it.
From what I can see, the only one making ex cathedra pronouncements and
seeking to use argument from authority in place of argument from facts,
logic and argument, is you. You are the one with the dogmatic dismissals.
Guy writes a book, you say "flawed", that's the pronouncement from the
bench and that's the end of that? And you accuse me of dogmatism?
> You guys are not gods.
And who has made that claim?
> You don't even appear to
> be especially inspired priests and priestesses if you cannot see fit to
> exchange ideas without attacking and using the cheapest ways of attacking
> at that.
First you accuse us of sanctimoniousness. Now you accuse us of resorting to
cheap attack. Sanctimony tends rather more to the passive-aggressive than
either I or Mamaissii demonstrate. In my case, I have stated very clearly
and flat-out, that the standard that I use is a parliamentary standard.
Parliaments are not always "civil" in the nature of the discourse that
takes place therein. Freedom of speech is given wide latitude in such a
forum. It allows for robust, heated debate, because that is what is
sometimes necessary if unpleasant truths are to see the light of day.
Parliamentary speech has always allowed for ad hominem argument. It is not
an effective mode of argumentation unless the target of the attack has
opened themselves to it, which they do, for example, when they resort to
argument from authority. As does Eoghan, repeatedly, with his pompous
and arrogant statements from some non-existent bench. I do not in the least
retreat from argumentum ad hominem in the face of that, as one would not
in a parliamentary setting, and as one would not in a court of law. So yes,
the debate is robust and heated. In no case can it be called "sanctimonious".
And really, we do not need hand-wringing net nannies bleating nonsense
about keping it "civil", but who really seek to come to the aid of their
wounded champion. As to cheap attack, I have enough gray in my hair to
know that cheap forms of attack are hardly as effective as the surgical
peeling back of layers of hypocrisy and deceit. You, sir, stand naked and
exposed.
>
> Eoghan
>
Nirvana,
Grisso
"and the sight is not pretty."
--------------CB1974D48F71BAE38D591B92--
Contents | Previous | Next
Tips for your pocket: