>>14125592
The things they think don't have to necessarily be untrue. They use inversions a lot, they use titles, making you think they're talking about specific people (when they're just referencing archetypes), they improperly use symbolism (or a deprecated version).
They run off on a lot of tangents, sure.
But you must understand that Syncretism actually lends one an overarching perspective that can help really break down all of the missing pieces and fit them in where there are gaps. Sure, they use some tainted reasoning or come to absurd, abstract conclusions that seem like giant leaps. I can't argue those things. But you must understand that what they're attempting to disguise demands that they obscure it by divulging it in pieces.
Your job is to put those pieces together. There are even people that will help you along the way if you show discernment and determination. Don't misunderstand, these people aren't perfect, but they at least help.
One of the first steps to unlocking these perspectives is the abandonment of dichotomy. We don't need it anymore, especially after certain points.