Alexander Gruber-comment on theme-note

Dissenter Commentary Mails

Alexander Gruber


Thank you for this interesting essay. I think a dissenter is someone derivating from and being in opposition to the mainstream. And someone having a derivating opinion in the mainstream is just critizising the mainstream or is critical within the mainstream. A dissenter is in turn always critical of the mainstream, but even more he is opposing, protesting against it. What the mainstream is, is just relative to about which society or institution is the talk of. I guess the topic should be treated much as exposition of the terms. This should be separated from the topic of spirituality in especial. First the terms, the sociological terms: dissenter, critizist, protestant and the like need to be clarified, befor turning to spirituality at all. I would seperate the two topics (of these terms and spirituality).

To put it together, I am a dissenter in my opinion on spirituality, because my spirituality is that of dreams, far off from the mainstream of either religious (I mean traditional religious) spirituality or from spirituality as contemplation. OK truth playes a role in my spirituality too, well this is the single point, where my spirituality meets the mainstream. I hope this explanation is helpful.

Well this is an issue, which can make the brain neurons smoke.

Have a nice day and dream something fine - Alex


Just one more idea. I wrote an essay short time ago, with the title (translated): "Thoughts of a Dissenter" and I wanted to say I am opposing the mainstream in Germany. But when I say that the essay you sent to me is just dealing with a question of minor importance, I am critcal in this debate of ours (this mainstream). But I am no dissenter in this debate, because I enjoyed to think about it and I have no problems with the rest of the discours. And I am critical on feminism, but not a dissenter to feminism, as I am afiliate to it. This is how I try to clarify my thought to you.
Thank you - nice day and happy dreams - Alex


Now to turn to the social sphere of spiritual traditions. In some traditions a criticist is allways a dissenter, because they do not allow for critizism at all within their mainstream. Many ideologies are like this.
Then another sociological term is this of a sect. A sect according to Karl Marx is an organization, defining itself by the differences to the working class, not emphaszising what they have in common with the working class. And a French Marxist explained to me, a sect is an organization, which has really lost the contact to the working class.

To apply it to my own convictions, I don't want my dreams culture to be a sect. I am emphazising, what I have in common political with the interests of the working class, but I add my dreams culture spirituality as an advancement.

The difference between being a dissenter and a critizist is sometimes floating, Just depending on the reception of an opinion.

And what is with an anti-X, for example an antiracist (as I am for example). Is an anti-racist a dissenter to racism? Yes I would say so, even as it seems a little weak an expression. And anti-racist is not only dissenting with the mainstream of racism, but he is opposing racism at all. There is no word for this really. It is missing in sociology. Just to express being an anti-X by some word.

Ok nice issue this exposition. I think the author of the essay, you sent to me is just entangled in these conceptual problems, carrying them out on the back of the topic of spirituality, spinning arround in intellectual circles arround these difficulties.

Have a nice day and dream something fine - Alex

So we have to define and distinguish („clare et distincte“ as Descartes demands) the related terms in the same field: critizist, dissenter, sceptizist,
outsider, anti-x, sectarian. All belonging to one sociological field. This is the first step.
And then the second step is to apply these definitions to spirituality.
This is a structualist approach (scientific structuralism), because I first define the terms structually and this means independent of any application (using applications only as examples to illustrate the theory) and then I look for the intended modells concerning spirituality.
Sorry it is all a lttle scattered over my mails. I am just sitting here in the night thinking and drinking coffee and smoking a cigarett and making jokes with our computer specialist. Somone threw a false coin in our beer atomaton and we are making jokes on it.
I have explained him the essay you sent to me and my answers and at the same time going on to think.
Have a nice day - Alex

I have forgotten the term non-conformist. A non-conformist is no dissenter, but someone, who has essantially the same ideology as the mainstream, but he is not conform - that is not aggreeing with the mainstream. Non-conformism is often the result of critizism. But as critizism is not necessary a continual state of opposition, non-conformism is permanent. Have a nice day - if you like I will copy you my little writings and statements together to one essay for you and for the author - Alex

In the third step you can proove your theory fruitful by connecting it to historical questions and taking up a wider view as only the terms. You can connect it to the question of violence of religions and hiostorical struggles between ideologies and to class struggle. This is a good scientific layout for the work dealing with the topic of the essay. This includes to introduce the term dissident. A dissident is someone persecuted by some ideology or religion or other belive for either his critizism or dissence or anti-x position whatsoever. Thus the view is widened from the sociological fild of concepts for intellectual oppositin to that of manifest social behaviour on intellectual opposition.
I hope you are not angry because of this rag rug (patchwork) I sent you. Just my ideas are comming one by one.
Nice day - Alex

Habermas and secularism...Is secularism totally outdated in Western europe?

.....I have forgotten the term non-conformist. A non-conformist is no dissenter, but someone, who has essantially the same ideology as the mainstream, but he is not conform - that is not aggreeing with the mainstream. Non-conformism is often the result of critizism. But as critizism is not necessary a continual state of opposition, non-conformism is permanent. Have a nice day - if you like I will copy you my little writings and statements together to one essay for you and for the author - Alex