Agreed; if there is a counter-argument, the opposition must provide the citation against. Too often the decriers ask for sources proving the original statement without searching for it themselves, it's a lazy and faulty response.
I overall agree with your views as I myself am on the similar spiritual path and inclination. However, I do think the reasoning is a bit tricky.
So let's take one of the arguments:
p1) Figures throughout history like Homer, Plato and Nietzsche are often cited as sources
p2) However, these figures were really just tuning into and allowing the "source" or ultimate truth to flow through them
∴ Citing an individual source is illogical from a spiritual perspective, as the real "source" is the deeper truth to which they connected, not the individual themselves.
We cite these philosophers not primarily because they were somehow more connected to the source than we are, but whether or not they got their inspiration from whatever spiritual source or personal gnosis they were able to communicate that to others through arguments and explanations.
By itself a personal gnosis is like somebody's dream; are you going to tell somebody they did not in fact dream of slaying a dragon? But then again until Elon implants his chips in our brains there's no objective way to proving to somebody that there was in fact a dream of slaying dragons.
I think these two presuppositions of yours better explain how to handle ther personal gnosis of a person or a group of persons:
- Individuals and groups can qualify as legitimate sources by engaging in sincere spiritual work and practice over time to develop a connection with this ultimate source of truth.
- When actualized, connecting to the source allows one to express truths to others in a way they can understand, even if the "source" itself is beyond direct citation or identification with any individual.
And thus they become legitimate sources of truth if they are able to help other people better understand these truths, even if that means just showing the person how to undergo the same process you went through in order to obtain that truth.
Speaking of Odin, we can discern the spiritual truth of the Runes through Odin's sacrifice. The source of this is the story where Odin hung from the Yggdrasil tree and sacrificing an eye. The significance of the hanging, the sacrifice, the Yggdrasil tree, etc. all contribute to the truthfulness of what the runes represent.
'Cite your source' is a rhetorical ploy. It's almost never requested by anyone who will accept the source when profferred.
The correct answer to 'cite your source' is 'No'.
The person seeking 'citation' is simply not ready to receive the information proffered no matter what form the answer is given.
If one is feeling less belligerant, then the proper response is 'What do you think having the citation would do for your understanding?'
Agreed; if there is a counter-argument, the opposition must provide the citation against. Too often the decriers ask for sources proving the original statement without searching for it themselves, it's a lazy and faulty response.
But I'm also opposed to the 'do your own research' time-waster as well.
99% of all disputes involve bad faith by one or both parties.
No amount of 'evidence' is ever going to change the other person's mind in such situations.
The purpose of public disputes is to beneficially affect the understanding of the audience, not your opponent.
The remaining 1% are usually due to magnifying trivial differences among persons who share at least 80% of the same beliefs.
If someone says 'Do research' my response is 'Make your own argument or get out of the conversation.'
I overall agree with your views as I myself am on the similar spiritual path and inclination. However, I do think the reasoning is a bit tricky.
So let's take one of the arguments:
p1) Figures throughout history like Homer, Plato and Nietzsche are often cited as sources
p2) However, these figures were really just tuning into and allowing the "source" or ultimate truth to flow through them
∴ Citing an individual source is illogical from a spiritual perspective, as the real "source" is the deeper truth to which they connected, not the individual themselves.
We cite these philosophers not primarily because they were somehow more connected to the source than we are, but whether or not they got their inspiration from whatever spiritual source or personal gnosis they were able to communicate that to others through arguments and explanations.
By itself a personal gnosis is like somebody's dream; are you going to tell somebody they did not in fact dream of slaying a dragon? But then again until Elon implants his chips in our brains there's no objective way to proving to somebody that there was in fact a dream of slaying dragons.
I think these two presuppositions of yours better explain how to handle ther personal gnosis of a person or a group of persons:
- Individuals and groups can qualify as legitimate sources by engaging in sincere spiritual work and practice over time to develop a connection with this ultimate source of truth.
- When actualized, connecting to the source allows one to express truths to others in a way they can understand, even if the "source" itself is beyond direct citation or identification with any individual.
And thus they become legitimate sources of truth if they are able to help other people better understand these truths, even if that means just showing the person how to undergo the same process you went through in order to obtain that truth.
Speaking of Odin, we can discern the spiritual truth of the Runes through Odin's sacrifice. The source of this is the story where Odin hung from the Yggdrasil tree and sacrificing an eye. The significance of the hanging, the sacrifice, the Yggdrasil tree, etc. all contribute to the truthfulness of what the runes represent.