His historical works are as valuable as his esoteric ones, chiefly his history on Theosophy and the Spiritualist Movements, in which he isolates an interesting hidden current behind some social and political happenings.

Regards

I hear that your feelings are hurt. I am very sorry you feel that way. It was never my intention to hurt your feelings. I’m not perfect, but I’m working to the very limit of my energy and ability to be reasonable, and I no longer feel like I’m getting the same effort and goodwill in return.

I am not comfortable with the level of hostility this conversation has reached. It seems to me that I’m unable to disagree with you without it being taken as an emotional attack, and once you have been disagreed with, your empathy vaporizes and your reasonable points and questions are lost in a flurry of everything hostile you can think to say, no matter how unfair, uncharitable or irrelevant. I would predict you’ll say that’s my imagination. Perhaps you’re right. Or perhaps you lash out emotionally when disagreed with without realizing it. Whatever the case, I need to be fair to myself and withdraw from an environment where I don’t feel it’s emotionally safe to disagree.

You wrote: “The presumption is not that that I don’t have a conscience but that I’m not using it and that you’re going to show me how.”

You are correct in that I believe you are not applying your moral compass to Hamlet, but only your axiomatic ethical brain. The reason I think this is not because I am claiming to read your mind, or know your secret soul — the reason is that the apprehension of morality in Hamlet that you have expressed so far in our very-long discussion has so far been exclusively axiomatic. (I’m using the word “moral compass” instead of mirroring your word “conscience” because for me conscience is more of an umbrella term that includes both the heart-voice/moral compass and the axiomatic ethical mind.) Go back and read your own posts if you don’t believe me. I think to approach Hamlet exclusively axiomatically is missing out on some of the most profound aspects of what Shakespeare was trying to communicate. I am not attacking you as a person, I am making I think a reasonable criticism of your approach as you describe it.

Here’s an example of an exchange that seems uncharitable to me: I expressed an opinion about Hamlet by contrasting it with your approach as I understood it from what you said. You expressed displeasure at my presumption at (in your eyes) claiming supernatural knowledge and attacking your character. In response to your objections, I (1) clarified that my criticism was directed at your approach, not your character, (2) agreed to express my idea in the abstract moving forward, rather than in contrast to your approach (which had been conflated in your eyes with your character), (3) I owned my limitations and apologized for treating you disrespectfully on occasion in the past, (4) I committed to reframe the perceived authority of my ideas in an entirely different way moving forward, in an effort to address your concerns. What was your response? To *continue* to berate me for, in your eyes, having presumed supernatural knowledge and critiquing your character. Do you honestly not see how it might come across as ingracious to continue to berate someone after they’ve explained that the perceived insult was a miscommunication, offered an apology, and agreed to do things your way from now on?

I am particularly disappointed that we seem unable to communicate well at the moment because I think we were on the verge of an “Aha!” moment, like with the PKD empathy discussion. I think if I were able to explain my new metaphor on how to see Hamlet through the eyes of the moral compass rather than the axiomatic mind, and the advantages of so doing, it would have really clicked for you. I think a lot of what you now perceive as insulting presumption on my part would appear in a very different light to you. I was looking forward to you helping me identify and fill gaps in the model. Harrumph. If you’re still curious what I had in mind in 2012, I have a book coming out which will include the idea.

I’m so sorry we don’t seem able to click harmoniously. I will cease troubling you.

Best of luck,
Anonymouse

What is the link, if any between, evasiveness and creativity?

Hamlet delays his own demise, as well as that of Denmark through proxies. First, he delays recognition of the Ghost as that of his father in favor of other entertaining possibilities. He delays the closure that is the setting of things right, the killing of uncle Claudius, in favor of other notions — notions of what kind of afterlife the Prince would be setting up for him, as well as what kind of afterlife is in store for Denmark.

Hamlet being as self conscious a character as ever could be, he must be telling us the story of himself through his actions. He must be telling us of his own demise. To tell it, he needs to forestall it, even as he approaches it. He proceeds by proxy. His delays in recognition are delays in revelation, and hence, delays in realization. As he delays the demise of Claudius, he is delaying his own. As he refuses to recognize Ophelia, he is leaving his mortal coil. My sense is that Hamlet approaches his own death through peripheral events, and delays them through central events, thus allowing the whole thing to sneak up on us. Yorik — the jester that Hamlet also is, as playwright and histrionic player —dead. The jester entertains, keeps the horror at bay — allows us to live.

To me, it is unavoidable to project Hamlet’s authorial delays into Shakespeare himself. But why the tragic end? Does this mean Hamlet was unsuccessful, or Shakespeare, in keeping the proverbial balls in the air. I think that Hamlet the play is Shakespeare’s baby (Shakespeare’s real-life son’s name was Hamnet). He kept Hamlet safe as long as he could until the play itself, and Hamlet, grew beyond the playwright. Hamlet’s death actually represents a birth, for it represents the moment in which the delays as creations needed to be set free. The torch now passes to Horatio — the sole survivor.

If you’re on a Mac, here’s how to do it with iTunes.

If you’re on Windows, here’s a downloadable freeware app that should do it. If that doesn’t work, just poke around on Google.

your ‘hearing’ that i am saying Shakespeare believed Hamlet right in not killing Claudius seems to me a consequence of your thinking in black and white terms, so that if i don’t believe Shakespeare meant the tragic end of the play as a reification of Hamlet’s failing, i must therefore believe that Shakespeare regarded Hamlet as having made the right choice. in short, you’re not mirroring what i’m saying but rather inverting your own perspective and assigning it to me.

first, Claudius is guaranteed to face the judgment of God in any case.

second, the issue Hamlet is deciding upon is whether or not to greatly benefit Claudius relative to this judgment. your rephrasing doesn’t represent that point, which as i wrote in my subsequent post is in my view critical.

also, if i ask you a direct question such as above, ‘do you see why i read it that way?’ that you simply answer the question. you seriously don’t see how i could be confused by your “syntax”?

what if i wrote this:

You have a habit of rephrasing things in a way that’s self-serving and deceptive. For example, [example of rephrasing that is neither self-serving nor deceptive].

1. which part of my assertion did you focus on? “rephrasing” or “self-serving and deceptive”?
2. which part did you feel required an example?

3. would you feel i was making an unsubstantiated attack?
4.would you feel i’d addressed the attack if i rewrote the sentence:

You have a habit of rephrasing things in a way that’s sometimes self-serving and deceptive. As example of rephrasing, [example of rephrasing that is neither self-serving nor deceptive].

5.Is the unsubstantiated accusation unchanged by this rewording?

6.Might you be wondering why, if i only meant to discuss the “habit of rephrasing” i added the unsubstantiated attack in the first place?