Participatory Spirituality for the 21st Century
Hear ye! Hear ye! The annual meeting of the Oleg Linetsky is the Enemy of God Society (the OLEGs) is now in session:
The first order of business is to be absolutely crystal clear that this is not all about Mr. Linetsky. He is clever enough to be interesting and foolish enough to be even more interesting but he is only a symbol. If "he" were to read that last sentence he might seize upon the world symbol and denounce us all as merely abstract symbol users who are not open to the experiential and phenomenological truth. That is the kind of "Oleg" that our society was formed in Vienna in 1608 to combat.
Our society is devoted to teasing apart (or else faux-brutally & absurdly hacking apart) the DEPTH OF THE MESSAGE from the SHALLOWNESS OF THE MESSENGER'S STYLE. An "Oleg" -- of any gender, race, etc. -- is someone who frequently attempts to communicate their highest philosophy and spiritual wisdom in a manner that unnecessary exaggerates division.
The most famous Oleg of all time is the one who invented the idea: "Jesus loves you and if you do not accept that unthinkingly you will be tortured in Hell forever". But there are many more. The community of spiritual practitioners and progressive thinkers are surrounded by and riddled with Olegs.
An Oleg might say: "I'm dealing with reality -- you're just doing philosophy" with no sense of the irony that this is an overtly philosophical statement.
An Oleg might say: "You guys are absolutists but I know that EVERYTHING is relative!".
An Oleg might say: "I understand that everyone must be loved, embraced and validated -- but YOU don't!"
An Oleg understands that there are levels of being and experience -- but does not accept that there are important levels of communication and style. They have a lumpen and covertly narcissistic view of REAL wisdom.
As we all know from previous meetings, the problem with Olegs is not their "content". They have fine things to say. The problem is that their style opposes and undermines their content, reinforcing egotism, creating needless cultural division, rejecting everyone who does not agree with them on their own terms and in their own terms. But the notable thing about an Oleg is that when he or she is confronted about this they act as though the content of their message was being rejected (usually for some unfathomable reason).
An Oleg is a like a person screaming Buddhist secrets at strangers on the sidewalk. If you ask them to quiet down they think (or pretend to think) that you are "one of those dupes, intellectuals, corruptoids" who reject holy truth in favor of a self-limiting lie.
This happens frequently in real life (i.e. on sidewalks) and is usually noticed only by those who have both a taste for real wisdom, which causes them to listen, and a taste of the wisdom of a more nuanced presentation. But it happens even more in all attempted online forums devoted higher philosophical or spiritual investigation. It happens often enough that we might want to devote some time to exploring it -- for it will certain afflict the leading edge going forward.
So consider this thread a place to either share stories about Olegs in your life OR speculate about the structure and implications of this "enlightened content with unconsciously divisive and primitive style".
Regular IL contributors "Helen" and "Stanley" both have some great things to say but also enter into extended tit-for-tat tailspins which amplify their own OLEG tendencies. Here are two typical examples (not OF these people but OF their Oleg-ity when it manifests)..
I noticed that Miss. Helen would like to have everyone believe that Stanley is her singular problem and that if she could hatefully, hostilely, and deceptively (by trying to disguise her animosity as love, of all things; a deception that is glaring to most people except to her) have him eliminated or at least censored she could peacefully go back to her self-appointed job of arrogantly always telling everyone what to think and do.
If indeed Stanley is the only “problem” in her lifetime to be stupid enough to risk her narcissist rage...
If I didn't repeatedly say I don't expect anyone to agree with me, I would be guilty as charged. You needed me to acquiesce / capitulate to your will, but it didn't happen, and you still hold a grudge? It sure looks like it. . . It looks like it, since obviously you think Stanley is qualified to make a judgment call w/regard to my character and what I share -- which has everything to do with you, and not' at all with me!
Two Oleg styles. No wonder they trip each other up / over-engage each other sometimes.
The former makes the classic Oleg mistake of trying to sound reasonable while stipulating negative and provocative qualities about the psyche of the other -- bitchin' about bitches. Self-appointing its own need to arrogantly explain who is arrogantly self-appointing their "spiritual" or "integrative" position.
The later verbally insists on the need to verbally defend her lack of need to be validated by others (due to her integrative and spiritual attainments). It also tasks other members of the community to either rally to her cause or "admit" that it is "obvious" that they are acting from unenlightened emotional egotism.
We should be reminded of:
-I'm going to call her and tell her that I'm never speaking to her again...
-When did you stop beating your wife?
-Why don't YOU realize that everything you're saying about ME is really about YOU???
The hidden unfairness of the communication pattern, in several versions, seems to characterize and Oleg.
Don't forget DARVO, the sure-fire killer of any under-moderated forum.
Ah, nice to know the term. This is the stuff Indian TV dramas are made of.
And the typical profile of US political regressives.
I'm just getting started on a simplistic wiki of definitions and concepts. Here is the entry on OLEGs.
I feel the need to say something here. Writing satire on this forum is one thing, but given that Mr. Linetsky is NOT (to my knowledge) a public figure, taking this campaign onto the internet (your wikki) is in my opinion, ill considered and in poor taste.
Fair enough. It does the test the line.
However it is (a) still very obscure (b) carefully explains in each location that this is NOT about Oleg Linetsky and ascribes authentic wisdom to Mr. Linetsky (c) does not treat him as a public figure much beyond his willingness to post photos, statements and documents under that name in places that can be publicly linked to.
It certainly goes further than I am normally comfortable with and represents a kind of "stand alone" event. Yet because personas are at the very heart of the issue, and because the exaggerated assertion of self on both sides of communication is very much the area in which I think extra inspection is required relative to how "higher matters" are exchanged online, it seems a little appropriate.
So while it may be in poor taste I would argue that it is not ill-considered.
You are right in the sense that it should not go much further. It now becomes an interesting question as to whether Oleg ought to be presumed to apply to one of many persons with that name or whether it is a branded concept attributable to myself. However, beyond the use of the term my own efforts will not be elaborated beyond what I have already experimented with -- and it is probably best if I enclose a small apology within the entry on the Christmas Wiki. Although I would not wish such an apology to undercut the frivolous utility of having Mr. Linetsky as a mild conversational antagonist. Still...
Does anybody know exactly what absolute wisdom ( different from non-dual oneness) is? It seems to be depriving us from the live wisdom of the heart ( especially in the west). Does that mean that god doesn't know where Vancouver is ?
I guess the same can be said for my calling Wilber Kennilingam, or just the Lingam. And his body of work, and those that parrot it verbatim, kennilingus. But I'm sticking to it!
to assume your question is on topic for this thread means to think it as a critique of the reference to 'absolute wisdom' in thought and conversation -- to think this reference as unintentional hijacking of the type of insights that speakers wish to communicate. Does that sound right or this a subject for a different conversation?
Firstly I will, rather pedantically, note that (a) nonduality should not be thought of as oneness (b) the West is not special in its difficulties with the live wisdom of the heart -- as news from the rest of the world reveals nightly.
No then, what could "absolute wisdom" mean?
Well it might pertain to the wisdom of absolutes (i.e. causal reality). But causal reality is basically disembodied and qualityless -- thus easy prey for exploitation by our nihilistic instincts.
Or we could say, in a dynamically unfolding universe in which there is not "past" or "future" already existing, that we can only imagine Absolute Wisdom as being relative to the patterns and trajectories that are operating at the moment. So absolute wisdom is always "optimal" or "best fit" wisdom at a given moment.
obviously we have to weigh individual sanctity against public personae (but that is an uncertain distinction in the hyper-electronic global environment) AND we have to weigh self-enthusiastic expression against etiquette AND we have to weigh the need to be a little rough (anti-fragile) against the need to be non-abusive and non-destructive.
All that balancing admits to quite a variety of different outcomes.
Lingam always makes me think of the "Shankara stones" from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Kali Ma! Kali Ma!
Agreed. Which is why I'm not anti-Wilber and in fact agree with a lot of what he's written. And say exactly how so, and where I disagree. So my nicknames are not just vitriol in the negative sense, but more in the alchemical sense (see key 14).
VISITA INTERIORA TERRAE RECTIFICANDO INVENIES OCCULTUM LAPIDEM.
“Visit the interior parts of the earth: by rectification thou shalt find the hidden stone”