What are you on about?
Let me quote you in vital part: “(My heuristic is that the more pagan, the more brilliant one’s mind, and the higher one’s ability to handle nuances and ambiguity. Purely monotheistic religious such as Protestant Christianity, Salafi Islam, or fundamentalist atheism accommodate literalist and mediocre minds that cannot handle ambiguity.)” We have a saying in US English: “[he] became a legend in his own mind.” “Heuristic” is related to the Greek “eureka”, meaning, “I have found it.” Now the first rule of anything is that “something cannot simultaneously exist and not exist.” Do you agree? I would go so far as to suggest that this rule implicates faith in God via the identity, God=being. Now there is a subtlety there, known as participation, the analogy of being, the intensity of being. If I am God, why don’t I remember creating the universe? I participate in being, where God is being itself. That doesn’t help, this might. We know via the senses, so know one thing at a time. When we come to say what we know, we have “no place to stand on” from which to compare what we say with what we describe. We are committed, more than commit ourselves, to the law of sincerity/sobriety/seriousness/solemnity, which is to say (since all these terms come unchanged from Latin) there is, may I call it, a grandmotherly wisdom by which, quoting someone, “figures don’t lie but the liar figures.” Not only can you hear someone else’s mind going “clankety, clank” while they’re trying to sell you a story, you are aware of this yourself when you say something you know is not apposite. You feel divided. Let me explain, as this is a bit new to me. The truism, “the senses do not lie,” without which there is no science, sanity, other people, anything at all — perhaps a logician would call that a contradiction, since I cannot sit here and say that nothing exists — carries with it the rule of behavior, conduct, which is that one finds one’s own words (symbolic gestures) if one wants to find them: the finding device is reliable. This word means what it looks like it means. I know what this word means the same way I know this computer sits before me. Now when I lie, I cram a word into a place where it does not fit, which I notice. The agitation of that cramming is evident to me and to others. Speech has become a bit of home carpentry in this instance. So one may wonder about my faulty speech, “What is he on about, what is his game here?” You say that the West is committing suicide by, what, you do not specify, but in general by being tolerant of intolerance, and you mention the party to celebrate the fall of the Saudi regime.
“Kill them all and let God sort them out.” Is that it? How do you tell who is intolerant, so in need of being killed without any hope of interaction by which she could impose her intolerance on us?
This is ridiculous. I don’t believe a word you say.