# The Joy of Postmodernism



## heretic888 (Jun 17, 2004)

Originally posted by rmcrobertson on the "Alternatives to Capitalism" thread:

*See trees, see forest, quite well. Stop. Avoid logic-chopping at all costs stop. "Animal House," level heretical discovery that we all are like atoms in a giant hand not helpful in regard stop. You not understand argument stop.

From "Encarta," which basically has it right:

"Derrida's work focuses on language. He contends that the traditional, or metaphysical way of reading makes a number of false assumptions about the nature of texts. A traditional reader believes that language is capable of expressing ideas without changing them, that in the hierarchy of language writing is secondary to speech, and that the author of a text is the source of its meaning. Derrida's deconstructive style of reading subverts these assumptions and challenges the idea that a text has an unchanging, unified meaning. Western culture has tended to assume that speech is a clear and direct way to communicate. Drawing on psychoanalysis and linguistics, Derrida questions this assumption. As a result, the author's intentions in speaking cannot be unconditionally accepted. This multiplies the number of legitimate interpretations of a text. 

Deconstruction shows the multiple layers of meaning at work in language. By deconstructing the works of previous scholars, Derrida attempts to show that language is constantly shifting. Although Derrida's thought is sometimes portrayed by critics as destructive of philosophy, deconstruction can be better understood as showing the unavoidable tensions between the ideals of clarity and coherence that govern philosophy and the inevitable shortcomings that accompany its production."

The whole point is that attempts at asserting one's absolute authority over meaning are inevitably going to fail, WHATEVER that assertion happens to be, because the "origins," of one's attempts are always already elsewehere, and one cannot catch up. This includes the idea that "one," and, "asserting," and every other proposition in what I just wrote represents another failed attempt at complete assertion of authority.

If you want to claim that this locates absolute authority in the denial of absolute authority, be me guest. But that's kind of really, really sophomoric--like sitting around, stoned, and arguing that, like, we could all be atoms in a giant fingernail, and did you ever think about are we a man dreaming he's a butterfly, or...

Yes, there are arrogant deconstruction types. Sure, gosh, college professors can be dicks, never knew that before. Wow. 

The point of citing Derrida, here, was pretty ordinary: it was to point out that one of the difficulties of political change is that the reasons for your assertions, demands, whatever, "slides beneath," your consciousness in the moment you make the assertions, which a) helps open up the buried relations of power (for example, Karl pontificated about capitalism while Jenny washed his shirts, which helps explain why the revolutions guys start are perhaps doomed from before the start), b) serves as a warning to wanna-be revolutionaries (the revolution has an unconscious to which you will never have full access, so watch out, and a little modesty wouldn't hoit).

Even if you had a point, the important thing is to try and locate--in particular rather than general terms--just where the "unconscious," went in the case of Derrida's hypocrisy, and just what the conditions were that sent it there.

These "Gotchas!" simply ain't much....especially when what you are really doing (CATCH that sliding signifier!) is trying to assert the primacy of your own authority over the, "simple, raw truth."

Personally, I'm just trying to assert my authority over slippery words and elusive ideas, and I know damn well that the attempt is doomed.*


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 17, 2004)

I'm sure viewing this in the context of the previous thread would answer some of these questions.  But hey, since this is a new thread, what the hell...



> See trees, see forest, quite well. Stop. Avoid logic-chopping at all costs stop. "Animal House," level heretical discovery that we all are like atoms in a giant hand not helpful in regard stop. You not understand argument stop.


Yeah, even reading this again I still have no idea what you (robertson) are trying to say here.  Must be my closed-minded, ignorant self.  




> This multiplies the number of legitimate interpretations of a text.


It certainly points out that there are numerous _possible_ interpretations, although one must wonder what makes them all legitimate ones.   





> This includes the idea that "one," and, "asserting," and every other proposition in what I just wrote represents another failed attempt at complete assertion of authority.
> 
> If you want to claim that this locates absolute authority in the denial of absolute authority, be me guest. But that's kind of really, really sophomoric--like sitting around, stoned, and arguing that, like, we could all be atoms in a giant fingernail, and did you ever think about are we a man dreaming he's a butterfly, or...


I really don't understand what's so sophomoric about this.  If, according to deconstructionism, all claims are just "failed attempt(s) at complete assertion of authority", wouldn't this apply to deconstructionism itself?  Or is it only a partial assertion of authority?  These are legitimate questions that shouldn't just be brushed off as stoner guffaws.  




> Yes, there are arrogant deconstruction types. Sure, gosh, college professors can be dicks, never knew that before. Wow.


Again, I'm sure the context of the previous thread should help, but I must ask, what was the point of this?


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 17, 2004)

For the sake of clarity, I'm going to ignore all the personal attacks and focus on the issues raised:

*The whole point is that attempts at asserting one's absolute authority over meaning are inevitably going to fail, WHATEVER that assertion happens to be, because the "origins," of one's attempts are always already elsewehere, and one cannot catch up. This includes the idea that "one," and, "asserting," and every other proposition in what I just wrote represents another failed attempt at complete assertion of authority.*

All of which I basically agree with. I believe what you are referring to here are essentially the central tenets of contextualism and structuralism, no??

I have absolutely no problem with the contextually-layered nature of language, knowledge, meaning, and what-have-you (while simulataneously understanding that that understanding itself is situated within an even broader context, and so on ad inifinitum). Not at all. 

The problem, methinks, is that when certain individuals (not necessarily Derrida, mind you, but some of his "followers" for sure) take this understanding and blow it out of proportion. Make it an extremism. Y'know, take the idea that "fact and interpretation are inseparable" and turn it into "there are no facts, just interpretation". Or, take "all knowledge is context-dependent" and turn that into "therefore, all 'knowledge' is arbitraryily assigned and has no true validity". Or, take "absolute truth or meaning can never pinned down" to "thus, all 'truths' are relative".

These extremisms, I feel, are performatively self-contradictory (as well as being observably untrue). They claim for themselves what they deny to all others. More balanced, moderate forms of postmodern philosophy do not do this.

*If you want to claim that this locates absolute authority in the denial of absolute authority, be me guest. But that's kind of really, really sophomoric--like sitting around, stoned, and arguing that, like, we could all be atoms in a giant fingernail, and did you ever think about are we a man dreaming he's a butterfly, or...*

*laughs* Personally, I think its a lot more sophomoric to simply call somone's argument sophomoric without providing any attempt at a logical rebuttal.

And, again, I was not talking about ultimate "authority" or "meaning". I was referring to the hypocrisy of extreme consctructivism's denial of a priori principles (none of which are necessarily independent of context).

*Yes, there are arrogant deconstruction types. Sure, gosh, college professors can be dicks, never knew that before. Wow.*

I wasn't talking about people being "arrogant" or "dicks", as I personally doubt a lot of these tendencies are intentional or conscious. But, the point remains that a _lot_ of postmodern writers out there subscribe to positions that are plainly contradictory, as well as narcissistic.

*The point of citing Derrida, here, was pretty ordinary: it was to point out that one of the difficulties of political change is that the reasons for your assertions, demands, whatever, "slides beneath," your consciousness in the moment you make the assertions*

Yes, yes, yes. The intersubjective and cultural context(s) the individual is situated within inevitably conditions and influences his thinking, knowledge, meaning, language, etc. I am not contesting that at all; in fact, I whole-heartedly support such ideas.

However, again, I feel that extreme expositions of such a philosophy are self-defeating and self-contradictory. Y'know, when you go from "the intersubjective context inevitably influences and conditions the subjective" to "therefore, the subjective is a bunch of hooey and there is ONLY the intersubjective/cultural". The death of the subject, ho hum. I think not.

*Even if you had a point, the important thing is to try and locate--in particular rather than general terms--just where the "unconscious," went in the case of Derrida's hypocrisy, and just what the conditions were that sent it there.*

Whoa, hold on a sec here. I was talking about how _extreme_ constructivism is performatively contradictory (which it is). The notion that you were putting forth in the capitalism thread is that literally _everything_ humans "know" is a social construct with no a priori reality --- which is what I contest. 

Y'see, the problem is that this idea of extreme constructivism itself is taken to be some sort of a priori reality independent of the human conditions of intent, history, language, and so on. A more honest approach would see that social constructivism itself is socially constructed, neh??

Look at it this way: the extreme constructivism that you were championing before claims there are no a priori realities, that all "truth" and "knowledge" are mere constructions of human beings. The problem here, is that with statement like that, the principle of extreme constructivism _itself_ is taken to be somehow magically divorced from these conditions --- that it "acts itself out" through us humans, and is somehow independent of the constraints of culture, history, language, and so on. It is taken to be some kind of context-free "ultimate truth" --- which, as we know, isn't really possible.

Wasn't talking about contextualism, structuralism, or deconstructionism at all. Just the silliness of divorcing constructivism from a priori realities, because the two are obviously intertwined here.

*se "Gotchas!" simply ain't much....especially when what you are really doing (CATCH that sliding signifier!) is trying to assert the primacy of your own authority over the, "simple, raw truth."*

Of course. As are you, Derrida, and the whole lot of us. My only contestion here is that we need some kind of a priori grounding to make sense of this all (without falling into the claptrap of epistemological relativism).

Laterz.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 17, 2004)

So heretic, studying for that final?  lol


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 17, 2004)

Off and on.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 17, 2004)

OK, here we go.

First off, if you don't find it pretty much trivial to trumpet that,"social construction is itself socially constructed," well, what can I say? Of course; big whoops. 

If you'll actually read what I wrote, you will find that (especially in the chunk extensively quoted on this thread) I noted again and again and again the ways that assertions such as Marx's might be understood as constructed, "elsewhere."

So, for example, the habit of ending sentences with  a, "no?"  or a "neh?" is in fact the invocation of the intellectual authority of the foreign, either European (insofar as it is concerned with the so-called, 'classsical,' intellectual tradition) or Asian (insofar as it is an assertion of one's Zenny wisdom on a martial arts board). Do you find this sort of stuff goes anywhere? I don't, particularly, given that we are all inevitably open to this sort of cheap  analysis. Ho-hum; been there, done that, got the t-shirt from 1983. 

And yes, certainly the statement I just made can be analyzed for its assertions of power and attempts to conceal. That's why I made it.

As another in my virtually endless list of examples of this, there's the way that theory-waving among men actually amounts to the waving of...something else. See for example Constance Penley's, "Feminism, Film Theory and the Bachelor Machines," in her book, "The Future of an Illusion: Film, Feminism and Psychoanalysis," University of Minnesota Press, 1989, 57-80. 

And yes, the references are necessary: among other issues (like that's the intellectually-appropriate way to do it), you need to do the work of actually reading the material in order to understand what's under discussion, much asin martial arts you need to do the mat work in order to have a clue. 

As for post-modernism. Well, first off, let me refer you to a book edited by Bill Readings and Bennett Schaber, "Post-Modernism Through the Ages," Syracuse University Press, 1983. It will pretty much feature the real deal, discussed to death, po-mo theory with its shorts all the way down.

There are, roughly speaking, the following ways to define the post-mdernist:

1. As a technical 'art history' term, applied to visual art like, say, "Spiral Jetty," and Ed Kienholz's constructions: po-mo is the period after modern.

2. As a "self-reflexive," or "recursive," style of writing: see John Barth's novels such as, "The Floating Opera," and "Giles Goat-Boy," or Robert Coover's deconstructions of stories, or Angela carter's rewrites of fairy tale in, "The Bloody Chamber."

3. As an intellectual development in criticism of various sorts, an, "interrogation," of the possibility of constructing meaning: see about 50 zillion books of literary criticism.

4. As an, "explosion," of older attempts at constructing certain types of meaning, most notably those built around asserting the primacy of men, the middle class, "whiteness," as an assertion of the "zero degree," of  race, the primacy of the "first world," over the third, and the normality of heterosexuality: see, among who knows how many others, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak's "In Other Worlds," and Micheal Moon's work. 

5. As a radicalization of Marx and Freud's work, and their application to questions of the law, literature, culture, etc.: see the Critical Legal Studies people, who all pretty much got kicked out of Harvard about sixteen years ago.

6. As a Western cultural development coming out of an economic base, defined generally as the cultural productions of a period of advanced/corporate capitalism. 

7. As the "old mole," there all along from at least the Greeks, integral to the episteme of Western thought in  all its manifestations, just now getting out and about so that anyone can see it much more clearly than they'd like....see Derrida's, "Of Grammatology." 

I'm glad you kinda asked; I don't get the chance to discuss this sort of stuff much anymore professionally speaking--among other issues, people's eyes seeem to glaze over. And I'm glad you're interested in this stuff--just lay  off the, "gotchas," or at least go read Richard Rorty and Gerald Graff, so you'll have more to work with.

Oh yeah--and for a good solid thrashing of most of this stuff, try E.P. Thompson, "The Poverty of Theory."


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 21, 2004)

*First off, if you don't find it pretty much trivial to trumpet that,"social construction is itself socially constructed," well, what can I say?* 

No, I don't --- although I did find your seemingly (from my perspective) low-brow wording of my argument in the previous post as rather "trivial".

Its really quite simple. 

If you are establishing criteria by which to judge _all_ views and truths by, then you shouldn't "conveniently" exclude your own view and truth from this criteria. That is exactly what most of the extreme constructivists I am familiar with have done --- they claim for themselves what they deny to all others (namely, a "culturally universal" and "ahistorical" truth). That, to me, is hypocrisy.

If you're going to claim that ALL human knowledge, truth, and meaning is nothing but an arbitrary cultural construction, but then claim that your own position is universally true, applicable to all cultures, and eternally binding --- then, to my mind, you've got some damn good explaining to do.

If you're going to claim that there are NO a priori truths or meanings, that everything we "know" and "value" was created a posteriorily by human beings --- but then turn around and claim that this process of social construction is somehow universally true, perpetual throughout ALL of human history (and possibly before then), and independent of the constraints of history ---- then, to my mind, you have yourself in a pretty pickle. Not that the particular social constructions are ahistorical, but that the great "Process of Social Constructivism" itself is ahistorical.

If you're going to claim that all meaning is "ultimately deferred" and all truth to be "sliding chains of signifiers" (with any kind of a priori signifieds being ultimately denied), then you also have to explain how your own position, truths, and meanings could also possibly be true. Why is it not also a part of this "sliding chain"?? Why is it not also "ultimately deferred"??

No, I don't see any of that as "trivial". I see it as a vital flaw in extreme postmodernist philosophies. And, of course, this doesn't even take into account the cross-cultural data that actually debunks the notion that there are no psychological/cultural "universals" among humanity...

Now, granted this only applies to extreme postmodernism. I have absolutely no problem with, and am in general agreement with, constructive and balanced postmodernism that doesn't overstate its case.

*If you'll actually read what I wrote, you will find that (especially in the chunk extensively quoted on this thread) I noted again and again and again the ways that assertions such as Marx's might be understood as constructed, "elsewhere."*

Yes, yes --- and why is this "truth" not also applied to the postmodernists themselves?? Marx's position was evidently constructed "elsewhere", but extreme constructivism itself is somehow some culturally universal, historically independent a priori principle?? Sorry, I don't buy it.

I think, again, it comes down to a matter of divergences in degree, not kind. To say that a person's intentions, values, and truths are inescapably situated within (and thus influenced by) his/her intersubjective background context(s) is one thing. To say a person's intentions, values, and truths are nothing _but_ that background context(s) is another thing altogether.

The ultimate use of these extremisms, of course, is justification for completely immoral and irresponsible behavior ("the ultimate liberal fantasy", as you put it in another thread). We see the underlying narcissism: I, heretic888, did not write this sentence and am not responsible in any way for its content, but it is history/language/culture/society/capitalism/patriarchy/etc. that is writing _through_ me. I am not to blame, it is. Thusly, when I raped and killed that woman last night, you can't blame me. Blame society. Its no coincidence that Victim Chic soon followed a lot of these philosophical pronouncements.

Of course, it seems strange that, considering language wrote those comments, that the royalty checks are going to subjects that apparently don't exist. The writer may have claimed that language wrote "through" him in his works, but that didn't stop him from claiming the cash for himself.

*So, for example, the habit of ending sentences with a, "no?" or a "neh?" is in fact the invocation of the intellectual authority of the foreign, either European (insofar as it is concerned with the so-called, 'classsical,' intellectual tradition) or Asian (insofar as it is an assertion of one's Zenny wisdom on a martial arts board). Do you find this sort of stuff goes anywhere? I don't, particularly, given that we are all inevitably open to this sort of cheap analysis.*

No, I don't. Claiming that things like patriarchy or culture or language is the real culprit here, and not the subject himself is wishy-washy to me. It was (and is) used to justify all sorts of inane nonsense in attempts to alleviate personal responsibility for one's actions, as the two million frivolous lawsuits in this country are testament to.

Culture or patriarchy or language definately _influences_ a person's subjectivity ---- it does not _define_ it.

Laterz.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 21, 2004)

Ah. So you rest your faith--and it is faith, since such categories are not by definition empirically provable--in some "identity," or, "soul," outside, and prior to, any and all construction.

It is utterly incorrect to argue that the groups of post-modernists I've cited--and I note, again, that you don't seem to want to tangle with the bulk of the discussion--are never taken to task for precisely the, "extreme constructivism," to which you keep returning. Fer cripes' sake, that's the FIRST GODDAMN THING I ever heard about the whole line of enquiry, back around 1981. 

Read Graff, read Rorty, etc. etc. etc...read the darn works I cited, and the issue comes up over and over and over and over. 

I'd also point out that this whole claim of, "extreme post-modernism," simply isn't an intellectually-reputable approach to the topic. The point, rather, is to follow to extent to which the work of Derrida among others operates to, "deconstruct"--which means to expose, to make legible, to render in their production by structures--the categories of classical philosophy, for example, "Man," and, "soul," and, "perception, "and "justice." Why? To show the lies, and the means by which power circulates. That's why "it," doesn't endlessly slide in reality, incidentally. You might say that language and criticism hit snags...

It's a critical methodology, aimed at exposing reality, not at claiming that reality will dissolve somehow. If you think that's what's at stake, you need to read the material and its intelligent critics, rather than third-hand, middle-brow, biased translations. Otherwise, you're going to simply repeat third-hand the same old same old accusations of, "moral relativism," or whatever, that have been going around for thirty years now.

It's not news to me. I get it; I got it by about 1985; I got it, OK? I see your point. I understand your argument. I realize what you're trying to say; I don't  know how else to say it: I got it.

I don't agree; I'm pretty sure you're wrong, and I'm pretty sure you're wrong because you're not actually reading the material. I'm pretty sure you're not reading the material because you don't seem to get the fact that I understand your point, and because you keep doing things like collapsing "formalism," "aestheticism,"  "deconstruction," "post-modernism," and "post-modernity," together. 

Ken Wilber's a dead end, man. You'd do better to approach these matters from the existentialist angle I already mentioned, or from any number of the Buddhist--particularly Zen Buddhist--"deconstructions," of the fantasy of the ego, of perception, etc.

Or, you might try consider, say, Ed Parker as a, "deconstructor," of previous, formalized and perhaps even fetishized martial arts traditions. That stuff's right in the movie, "Dragon," and it's a much better way to understand both martial arts and deconstruction.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 29, 2004)

*So you rest your faith--and it is faith, since such categories are not by definition empirically provable--in some "identity," or, "soul," outside, and prior to, any and all construction.*

Ummmm.... sorta. A few things:

1) Not everything that can be "empirically provable" rests on faith, as you put it. Hell, most of the theories of psychology and anthropology are not "empirically provable". Empirical-analysis is not the only means of acquiring data.

2) If I were to rest my faith in anything, it would be more accurately described as a Non-Identity. Then again, I don't think you were talking about Absolute Reality there.

3) My position is that a degree of construction, or interpretation rather, takes place with any form of knowing. I would not reduce all knowledge to nothing _but_ construction or interpretation, however (a hypocritical stance).

*It is utterly incorrect to argue that the groups of post-modernists I've cited--and I note, again, that you don't seem to want to tangle with the bulk of the discussion--are never taken to task for precisely the, "extreme constructivism," to which you keep returning. Fer cripes' sake, that's the FIRST GODDAMN THING I ever heard about the whole line of enquiry, back around 1981. *

Yes, and its an inquiry you have yet to provide a logical refutation for --- as opposed to a lot of huffing and puffing about how well-read and "intellectually-reputable" you are.

*I'd also point out that this whole claim of, "extreme post-modernism," simply isn't an intellectually-reputable approach to the topic.*

Apparently for no other reason than you say so. Sorry, I don't buy lines like that.

*The point, rather, is to follow to extent to which the work of Derrida among others operates to, "deconstruct"--which means to expose, to make legible, to render in their production by structures--the categories of classical philosophy, for example, "Man," and, "soul," and, "perception, "and "justice." Why? To show the lies, and the means by which power circulates. That's why "it," doesn't endlessly slide in reality, incidentally. You might say that language and criticism hit snags...*

All of which I basically agree with. But, still, there's a difference between some forms of knowledge and some forms of "truth" are cultural constructions meant to perpetuate power --- and saying that ALL "truth" and "meaning" is like that. You haven't clearly differentiated between the two.

Also, just because something has been shown to have some degree of construction outside of its author --- does that necessarily make it a "lie"??

*I don't agree; I'm pretty sure you're wrong, and I'm pretty sure you're wrong because you're not actually reading the material.*

No, you're not. Or else you would provide a logical refutation instead of this perpetual huffing-and-puffing. You also wouldn't use qualifiers like "pretty sure".

*I'm pretty sure you're not reading the material because you don't seem to get the fact that I understand your point, and because you keep doing things like collapsing "formalism," "aestheticism," "deconstruction," "post-modernism," and "post-modernity," together.*

Gee, who's exposing lies now??   

Never "collapsed" any of those --- in fact, some of those don't even seem to be directly related so I'm not quite sure where you got the idea from. I don't even recall mentioning some of those. 

*Ken Wilber's a dead end, man. You'd do better to approach these matters from the existentialist angle I already mentioned, or from any number of the Buddhist--particularly Zen Buddhist--"deconstructions," of the fantasy of the ego, of perception, etc.*

OH MY GOD, that's funny !!  

Gee, where to start??

4) Drawing a clear-cut dilineation between Ken Wilber and Buddhism just illustates one's ignorance of either Wilber, Buddhism, or both. The entire basis for his system is reliant on Buddhist teachings, particularly those from the Vajrayana school (his Spectrum of Consciousness is essentially identical to the Buddhist vijnanas and the Vedantic koshas).

5) Buddhism, in almost all its forms, explicitly teaches many of the components that you have chided me for --- including a priori truths, levels of consciousness, an acknowledgement of "Ultimate Meaning", and so on.

6) Buddhism, with the exception of the limited approach of the Theravada school, does not hold the self to be a "fantasy". It gives the self-system relative reality, but not Absolute Reality --- and these two are ultimately held to be Non-dual anyway. Zen included. 

*Or, you might try consider, say, Ed Parker as a, "deconstructor," of previous, formalized and perhaps even fetishized martial arts traditions. That stuff's right in the movie, "Dragon," and it's a much better way to understand both martial arts and deconstruction.*

Ummmm.... right. *raises eyebrow*

Laterz.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 29, 2004)

More huffin' and puffin,' I guess.

I could continue to recommend doing the reading, preferably before further talk about post-modernism. However, I see no sign that you're willing to do that.

Of course, "a degree of  construction," takes place with all forms of  knowledge, or, "interpretation,"  well, OK fine. I'm not sure I see the point in repeating the obvious, but again, OK, fine.

I used, "pretty sure," because I don't consider it intellectual reputable to pretend to absolute certainty.

I remarked upon the collapsed of different concepts such as "aestheticism," and, "post-modernity," because this  is in fact what you're relying upon. Further, because there is a very well-mapped line of  discussion of these very issues that traces back to Oscar Wilde's discussions of the aesthetic and forward to Lionel trilling's, "Sincerity and Authenticity," as well as forward from "The Formalist Method in Literary Scholarship, and Lukacs' critiques of the aesthetic, and several other lines.

Assuredly certain forms of Buddhism teach reified notions of  such things as, "the soul," or, "the Buddha." However, it is completely incorrect to assert that, "Buddhism, with the exception of the limited approach of the Theravada school, does not hold the self to be a "fantasy". It gives the self-system relative reality, but not Absolute Reality --- and these two are ultimately held to be Non-dual anyway. Zen included."

I direct you to D.T. Suzuki, "Zen and Japanese Culture,"  Princeton University Press, 1973, and to its many discussions of ego/ego-lessness. See among others the following quote from Takuaan:

"The uplifted sword has no will of its own, it is all of emptiness. It is like a flash of lightning. The man who is about to be struck down is also of emptiness, and so is the one who wields the sword. None of them are possessed of a mind which has any substantiality. As each of them is of emptiness and has no, 'mind...' the striking man is not a man, the sworrd in his hand is not a sword....This 'empty-mindedness' applies to all activities we may perform..."

I also recommend the whole of this section, titled, "Where to Locate the Mind," which begins on page 105. Or, you could just watch, "The Last Samurai." But to argue that some solid self, some grounded soul is fundamental to Buddhism, is extremely strange--even the Four Noble Truths say otherwise.

I--again--probably  shouldn't have said anything about Wilber, but I have to say that the more you  insist, and the more I get a look at his claims, the more suspicious I become. Not only is he guilty of an inordinate amount of double-talk, but (having lived in Boulder for years) I  am fairly certain that what ya got there is a hustler, whose talk about deconstruction is  primaarily meant to ensure that he's the last ikon standing.

As for Mr. Parker, well, I'll leave it at this: One of his intellectual contributions to the martial arts was to deconstruct the artificially imposed binary oppossition of block and strike.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 29, 2004)

*Sits between heretic and robertson, eating popcorn and watching them argue*

No no, carry on.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 29, 2004)

*I could continue to recommend doing the reading, preferably before further talk about post-modernism. However, I see no sign that you're willing to do that.*

I'll look into the works you cited. However, I see no reason to halt the discussion.

*Of course, "a degree of construction," takes place with all forms of knowledge, or, "interpretation," well, OK fine. I'm not sure I see the point in repeating the obvious, but again, OK, fine.*

I was trying to contrast the notion that there is an interpretive component to all "truth" with the notion that "truth" is nothing but interpretation (or construction). The former is simply another type of reductionism which, as all reductionisms are, is big on grandiosity and high on hypocrisy.

*I used, "pretty sure," because I don't consider it intellectual reputable to pretend to absolute certainty.*

Awwww... c'mon, Rob, you aren't gonna try and pull that one on me, are yah?? I've read all your remarks on both capitalism threads, after all. They sure struck me as having "absolute certainty" (although, in many instances, they were justified).

*I remarked upon the collapsed of different concepts such as "aestheticism," and, "post-modernity," because this is in fact what you're relying upon.*

If its a "fact", Mr. I Hate Absolute Certainty, then prove it.

*Further, because there is a very well-mapped line of discussion of these very issues that traces back to Oscar Wilde's discussions of the aesthetic and forward to Lionel trilling's, "Sincerity and Authenticity," as well as forward from "The Formalist Method in Literary Scholarship, and Lukacs' critiques of the aesthetic, and several other lines.*

Ummm.... ok.

*Assuredly certain forms of Buddhism teach reified notions of such things as, "the soul," or, "the Buddha."*

Some?? Okay, almost _all_ of the Mahayana schools teach this stuff --- most of it traces back to Nagarjuna (if not earlier). I suggest you do a little research on the various schools --- "levels of selfhood" are implicit throughout the Mahayana, from the vijnanas to the chakras of the Tantrayana/Vajrayana.

Besides, arguing whether Buddhism teaches the concept of A Big Self as opposed to A Big Non-self is rather moot --- since we're talking about Nondual realizations, as is.

*I direct you to D.T. Suzuki, "Zen and Japanese Culture," Princeton University Press, 1973, and to its many discussions of ego/ego-lessness. See among others the following quote from Takuaan:

"The uplifted sword has no will of its own, it is all of emptiness. It is like a flash of lightning. The man who is about to be struck down is also of emptiness, and so is the one who wields the sword. None of them are possessed of a mind which has any substantiality. As each of them is of emptiness and has no, 'mind...' the striking man is not a man, the sworrd in his hand is not a sword....This 'empty-mindedness' applies to all activities we may perform..."

I also recommend the whole of this section, titled, "Where to Locate the Mind," which begins on page 105. Or, you could just watch, "The Last Samurai." But to argue that some solid self, some grounded soul is fundamental to Buddhism, is extremely strange--even the Four Noble Truths say otherwise.*

All of which is nice --- but it avoids the fact that Buddhism, along with Vedanta, differentiates between relative knowledge and Absolute Knowledge. 

Relative knowledge is within the field of time and space and duality, and includes little things like the Theory of Evolution, microscopic slides, social networks, mythic archetypes, deconstruction ideology, and the self.

Absolute Knowledge is beyond time and space, and is the simple realization of Nonduality --- which, as is its Nature, cannot be put into words without paradox.

Seriously, man, do a little research into this stuff. The system you are putting forward sounds like Hinayana to the core. Mahayana, including Zen, does not hold that the self is a "lie" or a "fantasy", as opposed to an illusion.

And, unlike the deconstructionists, Buddhism does not hold that this illusion is "deconstructed" by analyzing linguistics and semiotics. That is a mental construct, and just further confounds the problem.

The Buddhist answer is bodhi, not Derrida.

*I--again--probably shouldn't have said anything about Wilber, but I have to say that the more you insist, and the more I get a look at his claims, the more suspicious I become. *

Which implies, of course, that you have actually looked at his claims (a false claim).

*Not only is he guilty of an inordinate amount of double-talk*

Prove it.

*but (having lived in Boulder for years)*

Which has absolutely no bearing on the validity of your claims.

*I am fairly certain that what ya got there is a hustler, whose talk about deconstruction is primaarily meant to ensure that he's the last ikon standing.*

*chuckles* You say funny things, especially since Wilber embraces deconstruction in his system.

Laterz.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 29, 2004)

Chuckle me no chuckles, Chuckles. 

1. If you're getting this division between the notion that all truth has interpretative composnents and the notion that all truths are interpetative from Wilber, you're both incorrect. There are several other philosophically-reputable approaches, including the ones I've already mentioned: a) essentialism, which tends to say that our perceptions and ideas may be flawed, but Truth is not; b) constructivism, which argues that there is a Real beyond the various qquite real categories--such as the economy--that we construct. neither leaves reality a simple matter of perception.

2. It is clearly quite possible to speak or write  authoritatively, without mistaking that authoritativeness for absolute and irrefutable and flawless fact.

3. On the collapse of different categories, I already have. Read the sources for the claim.

4. You specifically claimed that, "Buddhism, with the exception of the limited approach of the Theravada school, does not hold the self to be a "fantasy". To my knowledge (limited in this case), Zen does not belong to that school. As for Vajrayana, I recommend reading Trungpa Rinpoche (Tibetan school--they tend to be a bit reifying), "Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism." Or, apprpriate to martial arts, Herrigel, "Zen and the Art of Archery." Or this definition of, "EGO," taken from Philip Kapleau, "The Three Pillars of Zen," Boston: Beacon Press, 1977, page 330: "According to Buddhism, the notion of an ego, i.e. awareness of oneself as a discrete individuality, is a delusion. It arises because, ruled by our bifurcating intellect...into postulating the dualism of, 'myself,' and 'not-myself,' we are led to think and act as though we were a separated entity confronted by a world external to us." I dunno what else to tell ye, lad. 

Incidentally, please show me where I argued that Derrida was, "the answer." I argued that his work offered a useful critical methodology that taught me a lot....an approach I recommend taking to Ken Wilber's arguments. And "embracing," deconstruction in his system--not impressed, particularly since from what I read, Ken Wilber doesn't know jack about Derrida's arguments. (And while we're on the subject of intellectual arrogance...I recommend that one and all take a look at Mr. Wilber's essays.) 

Such a move is utterly antithetical to Derrida anyway--though funny, given one of my fave rave jacques lacan titles, "On the Inmixing of Otherness as a Prerequisite to Any Subject Whatsoever."


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 29, 2004)

*1. If you're getting this division between the notion that all truth has interpretative composnents and the notion that all truths are interpetative from Wilber, you're both incorrect.*

Hrmmm.... you worded that one pretty badly, in my opinion. Care to clarify??

*There are several other philosophically-reputable approaches, including the ones I've already mentioned: a) essentialism, which tends to say that our perceptions and ideas may be flawed, but Truth is not; b) constructivism, which argues that there is a Real beyond the various qquite real categories--such as the economy--that we construct. neither leaves reality a simple matter of perception.*

Never claimed reality was a "simple matter of perception".

*2. It is clearly quite possible to speak or write authoritatively, without mistaking that authoritativeness for absolute and irrefutable and flawless fact.*

Uh-huh.   

*3. On the collapse of different categories, I already have. Read the sources for the claim.*

No, you haven't. 

You claimed, in your own words, that "_I remarked upon the collapsed of different concepts such as 'aestheticism,' and, 'post-modernity,' because this is in fact what you're relying upon._" You have yet to "prove" that I am relying on any of that, and have nothing but baseless accusations to support this claim.

So, once again --- prove it.

*4. You specifically claimed that, "Buddhism, with the exception of the limited approach of the Theravada school, does not hold the self to be a "fantasy". To my knowledge (limited in this case), Zen does not belong to that school.*

Yes, Zen/Ch'an is a Mahayana school. You will also note that I differentiate between "fantasy" and "illusion" (although, perhaps this differentiation is more of a novelty on my part that anything else).

*As for Vajrayana, I recommend reading Trungpa Rinpoche (Tibetan school--they tend to be a bit reifying), "Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism." Or, apprpriate to martial arts, Herrigel, "Zen and the Art of Archery."*

I'll look into it.

*Or this definition of, "EGO," taken from Philip Kapleau, "The Three Pillars of Zen," Boston: Beacon Press, 1977, page 330: "According to Buddhism, the notion of an ego, i.e. awareness of oneself as a discrete individuality, is a delusion. It arises because, ruled by our bifurcating intellect...into postulating the dualism of, 'myself,' and 'not-myself,' we are led to think and act as though we were a separated entity confronted by a world external to us." I dunno what else to tell ye, lad.*

Well, I basically agree with everything stated above with only minor details differentiating my position. I don't think dualism arises because of "the intellect", as dogs and cats aren't generally viewed in Buddhist philosophy has having awakened to their Buddha Nature. In general, only humans are regarded as being capable of consciously realizing the Buddha Mind within --- not even the devas are given this opportunity. It is true, however, that the rational intellect is usually regarded as the "final barrier" to beginning realizations.

In any event, I am not really disagreeing with the above conceptualization at all. It is true, in my opinion, that the self-system has no absolute, final existence --- along with everything else in the finite, relative world. Please note my differentiation of relative (or phenomenal) truth and Absolute Truth, which is explicitly taught in Buddhism. This is why Buddhists still support things like human rights, fair treatment of others, and healthy lifestyles --- all of which only benefit the "illusory" self.

Or, what?? Did you think the Mahayanists just developed their schema of the vijnanas and the Tantrists their schema of the chakras because they had too much time on their hands?? Both seem to give a fair amount of importance to developing the "illusory" self...

*Incidentally, please show me where I argued that Derrida was, "the answer."*

Your wording seemed to imply that Derrida's deconstruction and what you called "Buddhist deconstruction of the self" were analogous. They are not.

*I argued that his work offered a useful critical methodology that taught 
me a lot....an approach I recommend taking to Ken Wilber's arguments.*

Ummm... ok.

*And "embracing," deconstruction in his system--not impressed, particularly since from what I read, Ken Wilber doesn't know jack about Derrida's arguments.*

Perhaps. But, then again, it would probably help if you actually read anything of his in the first place as opposed to just claiming you did.

*And while we're on the subject of intellectual arrogance...I recommend that one and all take a look at Mr. Wilber's essays.*

Talk about the kettle and pot.   

*Such a move is utterly antithetical to Derrida anyway*

Ummm... to which "move" are you referring??

Laterz.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 29, 2004)

Again, my point is that Buddhism--specifically, Zen--consistently treats "mind," and "Ego," as illusions, or delusions if you prefer, which have the very real effect of causing much of our suffering. A quick n'easy way to see this is to think of the Noble truths: 1. Life is suffering. 2 The cause of suffering is desire, to mention only the first of them--all of which are, incidentally, common to ALL divisions of Buddhism. What has this to do with mind, or ego, being illusory? 

It's pretty simple: mind, or ego, is the "thing," that's doing the desiring of what it sees itself as separate from, and the "thing," that sees itself as suffering because it doesn't have the, "exterior," thing it wants. Dump the notion that "I," need this other thing to be complete, dump the notion that "I," suffer when "I" don't get it, and hey presto, there goes suffering.

Of course, like the famous Brooklyn Post Office, ya can't get from here--at least, I can't. 

But to "get there," one carries out a project of decoding illusions that is very similar--though not exactly the same--as Derrida's deconstructions of some of the central categories of Western ways of knowing. Among the differences, of course, would be that a) Derrida's project is (at least on the surface) an intellectual one, b) Derrida's projects have political implications that most advanced Zen types would  sympthize with, but treat as part of the problem in the first place. 

There are, of course, some very obvious implications for martial arts--but even films like, "Last Samurai," show that very clearly, for example in the scene where ol' Tom is told, "Too much mind." 

Or, to quote friends of mine quoting Bruce Lee, "It's like a finger, pointing to the moon...focus on the finger, and you miss all of that heavenly glory."

Sorry, but much of this is just Buddhism 101. The problem for many Americans (and some martial artists) is that they want to get to the Glorious Heavenly Post Office without practice. Derrida's work, good meditation from somebody like Philip  Kapleau, good martial arts, share this: they all rely on some form of slow, careful practice to, "deconstruct," the illusions that cause suffering....whether we're talking about the dream of, "man," or the "ego," or, dead, frozen kata.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 30, 2004)

Hrmph. Maybe we should start a new thread discussing Buddhism?? 

Anyways....

*Again, my point is that Buddhism--specifically, Zen--consistently treats "mind," and "Ego," as illusions, or delusions if you prefer, which have the very real effect of causing much of our suffering. A quick n'easy way to see this is to think of the Noble truths: 1. Life is suffering. 2 The cause of suffering is desire, to mention only the first of them--all of which are, incidentally, common to ALL divisions of Buddhism.*

Okay, not gonna disagree with any of that.

Of course, as something of a caveatte, some of the "higher" schools of Buddhism (including Zen) tend to treat manifestation as less of an "illusion" or "delusion", and more along the lines of a radiant expression of Buddha Mind.

This is what largely sets apart the Mahayana schools from the Theravada/Hinayana. The Theravadins generally treated the manifest, relative world as an "illusion" or "delusion" --- with the attitude being that there is something inherently "wrong" with the world, and the only true path to Nirvanic salvation is to withdraw from the world (which is illusion, sin, suffering, and so on). This is why in Theravada, only monks and nuns are generally treated as those that can achieve Nirvana.

With Mahayana, beginning most notably with Nagarjuna, this all changed. There was an emphasis on _universal_ salvation (not just the salvation of a few monks), and the archetype of the Bodhisattva came into the picture. The Bodhisattva is essentially one who has achieved Nirvana but willingly remains within the world of manifestation out of compassion for those that are suffering --- the Bodhisattva vow being that one cannot partake in liberation unless ALL sentient beings, whom are presently suffering, can equally share this liberation. Thus, unlike the Theravadin Arhat, the Mahayanin Bodhisattva does not withdraw from the world --- he participates in it, partakes in, is part of it.

The metaphysical attitudes of these two strands are obvious: the Theravada holds that the world and the self are "suffering" or "illusion" or fundamentally wrong; the Mahayana holds that the world and self are a divine expression of the Nondualistic Buddha Mind. Theravada emphasizes the Formless over Form ("my Kingdom is not of this Earth", to use a Christian axiom); Mahayana emphasizes that the Form is not other than Emptiness, and Emptiness is not other than Form (Diamond Sutra, I believe).

There are, of course, parallel strands in Christianity --- such as with the passage of Jesus, being One with God, willingly incarnating as a human out of compassion for humanity's suffering.

*It's pretty simple: mind, or ego, is the "thing," that's doing the desiring of what it sees itself as separate from, and the "thing," that sees itself as suffering because it doesn't have the, "exterior," thing it wants. Dump the notion that "I," need this other thing to be complete, dump the notion that "I," suffer when "I" don't get it, and hey presto, there goes suffering.

Of course, like the famous Brooklyn Post Office, ya can't get from here--at least, I can't.*

Errr.... something like that.

*But to "get there," one carries out a project of decoding illusions that is very similar--though not exactly the same--as Derrida's deconstructions of some of the central categories of Western ways of knowing. Among the differences, of course, would be that a) Derrida's project is (at least on the surface) an intellectual one, b) Derrida's projects have political implications that most advanced Zen types would sympthize with, but treat as part of the problem in the first place.*

I would basically agree with that summarization, with the major caveatte being (as you pointed out) that the deconstructionist path is intellectual (i.e., it is essentially the ego at work). The Buddhist path is meditative, contemplative, and seeks to transcend/undermine the separate self-sense altogether.

If you're actually interested on what Wilber (a practitioner of both Zen and Vajrayana Buddhism) has to say on this:

Q: Do you think Foucault, Derrida, and company were getting at points that Asian absolutists had already articulated in some way? Or have their poststructuralist approaches been completely fresh?

A: The poststructuralist approaches are both more novel or fresh, and much less profound. The great Eastern traditions are, in essence, profound techniques of transformation, of liberation, of release in radical Emptiness. The poststructuralists have none of that; they simply offer new ways of translation, not transformation. They are interesting twists on relative truth, not a yoga of absolute truth.
But within the relative truth, the poststructuralists have a few similarities with the relative aspects of some of the Eastern traditions, such as "nonfoundationalism," the contextuality of truth, the sliding nature of signification, the relativity of meaning, and so on.

These are interesting and important similarities, and I try to take them into account, but they are all quite secondary to the real issue, which is moksha, kensho, satori, rigpa, yeshe, shikan-taza: None of that will you find in Foucault, Derrida, Lyotard and company.

And:

Q: Okay, we'll come back to that. But what's wrong with finding parallels between, say, a certain type of Derridaean deconstruction and Buddhist Emptiness or the Madhymaka school? 

A: There's nothing wrong with it, as long as you keep certain profound differences in mind. The basic aim of deconstruction is to work with language, and while in the waking state or gross realm, attempt to come to a certain type of understanding about the ambiguity, instability, and paradoxicality of signifiers. The aim of Buddhist meditation is to strengthen consciousness so that it can give bare attention to all the phenomena that arise in the waking state AND the dream state AND the deep sleepless state, so that one awakens to an all-pervading consciousness or Buddhamind that is present in all three states--waking, dreaming, sleeping--and thus gain a great liberation from all transient states of being, high or low, sacred or profane. 

Q: Once you put it that way, there seems little in common. 

A: There is very little in common. All they share is a certain number of similarities about the limitations of language in the waking state. I find those similarities suggestive and useful, and I have written about that (e.g., in endnotes for SES). But if one merely stays with deconstruction, then one will not take up the arduous practice of yoga, of zen, of meditation, which will transform consciousness beyond the verbal mind altogether--in fact, beyond waking, dreaming, and sleeping, which is something deconstruction not only cannot do, but does not even imagine is possible. But until you are pursuing a yoga in which you remain conscious through the waking state, the dream state, and the deep sleep state, then you are merely identified with the superficial, surface, waking state, and you manipulate linguistic signifiers in that state and imagine that this "deconstruction" is somehow deconstructing samsara, whereas it is merely manipulating a rather surface consciousness and not getting into the deep causes of suffering, such as the attachment to the waking state itself. Deconstruction is something the ego does in the waking state in order to hold onto the ego.

*Sorry, but much of this is just Buddhism 101.*

I know you may think you're "enlightening" me, Robert, but you're not telling me anything I don't already know. Well, at least not in an intellectual sense. 

In any event, the discussion is interesting nonetheless. Laterz.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 30, 2004)

Among the reasons I keep remarking that you're collapsing categories together is that Foucault and Lyotard are emphatically NOT deconstructionists in any strict sense.

Moreover, while it is correct to say that in Derrida's case a primary object of study is language, he's NOT arguing that everything simply dissolves into nothingness. Nor are Buddhists, for that matter: the world and our actions are quite real. If Wilber thinks that everything dissolves, in deconstruction or in Buddhism, he's quite mistaken: the point is to understand the world better, to be MORE human, not less. 

This relative vs. absolute truth stuff, too, is dangerous to one's (and never trust anybody under the age of seventy who uses "one," as a personal pronoun) enlightenment, whatever that would mean. The problem is that  Wilber's writing very clearly shows someone who's working to privilege himself and his view of the world...this, coupled with his collapsing Buddhism and deconstruction together (before ye get going, I wrote that there were similarities), allows him to claim that it's all just, "manipulating linguistic signifiers" (be wary of those who write, "manipulating linguistic signifiers," when all that they mean is something like, "playing with words").

I don't think Derrrida, or any of these guys, ever claimed to be Enlightened Ones. What they pretty much claim to be is scholarly and intellectual types, who work--sometimes quite annoyingly--on what's in front of them. That's their practice, not wandering around Tibet or sitting zazen in Japan. 

As for forms of deconstruction having no relation whatsoever to the deconstruction of the self in Buddhism--your claim, not mine; I indeed claimed that there were analogies--see, among many, many others, the section of Derrida's "Grammatology," titled, "Science and the Name of Man," as well as "Technologies of the Self: A Seminar With Michel Foucault," ed. Luther H. Martin, Amherst: University of Mass. Press, 1988, which follows up on some long-standing concerns perhaps first expressed in his, "Language, Counter-Memory, Practice."

It's possible that in the end, all this stuff simply illustrates how far intellectual discussion can--and can't--take you. But that's been clear since Marx at least, to anybody who wanted to look, and it's certainly not helped by Ken Wilber.


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 1, 2004)

*Among the reasons I keep remarking that you're collapsing categories together is that Foucault and Lyotard are emphatically NOT deconstructionists in any strict sense.*

Well, then it's a good thing I never said they were.   

*Moreover, while it is correct to say that in Derrida's case a primary object of study is language, he's NOT arguing that everything simply dissolves into nothingness.*

Yet again, I never said he was. I was merely commenting on the uses that some of his "followers" (most notably the American crowd) have made with his work.

*Nor are Buddhists, for that matter: the world and our actions are quite real. If Wilber thinks that everything dissolves, in deconstruction or in Buddhism, he's quite mistaken: the point is to understand the world better, to be MORE human, not less.*

Something tells me you are seriously distorting the concept of shunyata.

In Mahayana Buddhist philosophy (and Theravada, too, for that matter), the relative world of phenomena and manifestation is not given absolute status. Meaning, your self and the world it interacts in (including the "material" world) are not regarded as absolutely Real. Absolute Reality is held to be shunyata, void, emptiness --- which doesn't mean its a nihilistic black hole (as some rather silly Western interpeters have claimed), but that it is ultimately _void_ of any limiting, particular, or defining charactestics (as these are all expressed, and understood, in dualistic terms).

In the deeper Nondual understandings, it is realized that the relative world (the world of maya) is not in illusion, but a radiant emanation or manifestation of the formless Shunyata: "Form is not other than Emptiness, Emptiness is not other than Form." They are ultimately not-two, or nondual.

Seriously, man, this is basic Madhyamika philosophy, which forms the basis for ALL Mahayana sects (including Zen/Ch'an). Read some Nagarjuna.

As for Wilber, he's really just parroting what Nagarjuna said 1,800 years ago -- as any cursory study of the more "transpersonal" elements of his philosophy will make readily apparent.

*This relative vs. absolute truth stuff, too, is dangerous to one's (and never trust anybody under the age of seventy who uses "one," as a personal pronoun) enlightenment, whatever that would mean.*

*chuckle* Again, read some Nagarjuna. The relative truth vs Absolute Truth angle is basic in his philosophy. And all Mahayana sects, again.

*The problem is that Wilber's writing very clearly shows someone who's working to privilege himself and his view of the world...this, coupled with his collapsing Buddhism and deconstruction together (before ye get going, I wrote that there were similarities), allows him to claim that it's all just, "manipulating linguistic signifiers" (be wary of those who write, "manipulating linguistic signifiers," when all that they mean is something like, "playing with words").*

You have just demonstrated unequivocably, Robert, that you are speaking out of your rectum and my suspicions that you have not actually read anything by Wilber have just been confirmed. Hell, you didn't even read the excerpts of the interview that I copy-and-pasted!!

Wilber, in fact, said the exact _opposite_ of what you claimed above. The point in those excerpts was not him "collapsing" Buddhist and deconstructionist philosophy --- but drawing stark differences between the two:

"These are interesting and important similarities, and I try to take them into account, but they are all quite secondary to the real issue, which is moksha, kensho, satori, rigpa, yeshe, shikan-taza: None of that will you find in Foucault, Derrida, Lyotard and company."

and

"But if one merely stays with deconstruction, then one will not take up the arduous practice of yoga, of zen, of meditation, which will transform consciousness beyond the verbal mind altogether--in fact, beyond waking, dreaming, and sleeping, which is something deconstruction not only cannot do, but does not even imagine is possible. But until you are pursuing a yoga in which you remain conscious through the waking state, the dream state, and the deep sleep state, then you are merely identified with the superficial, surface, waking state, and you manipulate linguistic signifiers in that state and imagine that this "deconstruction" is somehow deconstructing samsara, whereas it is merely manipulating a rather surface consciousness and not getting into the deep causes of suffering, such as the attachment to the waking state itself. Deconstruction is something the ego does in the waking state in order to hold onto the ego."

Looks like I caught you in a lie. Again.

If I were to draw any conclusions from this, Robert, I'd say all your attempts at "deconstructing Wilber" seem to me to be attempts to, in fact, privilege _yourself_ and _your_ view of the world --- even in the face of direct counterevidence. Not that surprising, really, considering what many American "postmodernists" have used these methodologies for.

*I don't think Derrrida, or any of these guys, ever claimed to be Enlightened Ones. What they pretty much claim to be is scholarly and intellectual types, who work--sometimes quite annoyingly--on what's in front of them. That's their practice, not wandering around Tibet or sitting zazen in Japan.*

Nobody here ever claimed otherwise. 

*As for forms of deconstruction having no relation whatsoever to the deconstruction of the self in Buddhism--your claim, not mine; I indeed claimed that there were analogies--see, among many, many others, the section of Derrida's "Grammatology," titled, "Science and the Name of Man," as well as "Technologies of the Self: A Seminar With Michel Foucault," ed. Luther H. Martin, Amherst: University of Mass. Press, 1988, which follows up on some long-standing concerns perhaps first expressed in his, "Language, Counter-Memory, Practice."*

Analogies, eh?? I refer you to the post above:

"But within the relative truth, the poststructuralists have a few similarities with the relative aspects of some of the Eastern traditions, such as 'nonfoundationalism,' the contextuality of truth, the sliding nature of signification, the relativity of meaning, and so on.

These are interesting and important similarities, and I try to take them into account, but they are all quite secondary to the real issue, which is moksha, kensho, satori, rigpa, yeshe, shikan-taza: None of that will you find in Foucault, Derrida, Lyotard and company."

*It's possible that in the end, all this stuff simply illustrates how far intellectual discussion can--and can't--take you.*

Exactly.  :uhyeah: 

*But that's been clear since Marx at least, to anybody who wanted to look, and it's certainly not helped by Ken Wilber.*

Actually, that's been clear since 3,000 years at least, to anybody who wanted to look. 

And, regarding Wilber, this illusory straw-man you continually insist on creating isn't helping your arguments any --- nothing Wilber claims is at odds with Buddhist philosophy. In fact, his claims have their _basis_ in Buddhist philosophy. He, for example, is rather adamant on the point that things like the absolute/relative, fate/free will, or mind/body problems can only be "solved" (or, rather, dissolved) with satori. The "eye of flesh" and the "eye of mind", as he put it, are incapable of adequately handling these dilemmas; only the "eye of contemplation" can do this. I refer you to "The Marriage of Sense and Soul" and "The Eye of Spirit", which rather explicitly discusses these topics.

But, hey, keep on with your straw man if you want. And keep on with such lies that Wilber "collapses" Buddhism and deconstruction, even when I copy-and-paste excerpts in which he does the exact opposite. Keep on with claims that Wilber is trying to make his view "privileged", even when you have _no evidence whatsoever_ to back up this assertion. After all, gotta keep the faith, right??   

Pbft. Laterz.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 1, 2004)

Well, I see that manners clearly are one of the things that you, at least have successfully  deconstructed.

I would respond in kind, but I'm afraid I don't as a general rule tell people that they, "are talking out of their rectum," or announce gleefully that  I've caught them, "in a lie. Again."

I do attempt to suggest that perhaps some folks will wish to actually read more carefully. In the quote you posted, for example, Wilber responds to a question, "Do you think Foucault, Derrida, and company were getting at points that Asian absolutists had already articulated in some way? Or have their poststructuralist approaches been completely fresh?" Somehow, it seemed to me that the questioner, followed by Mr. Wilber, were putting all this stuff into the one bag. The questions, and answers, continue to do precisely that.

I'm also not sure where you're getting this stuff about my claiming that the philosophy and the Buddhism are the same from. It appears to be that you're so determined to attack that you've lost the ability to read properly.

I'd go back and track down where you've said exactly what I referred to, but what's the point? I object to Wilber's writings and approach because it's double-talk, as far as I'm concerned--to be even more specific, it's looking a lot like intellectual weenie-waggling, something with which I'm quite familiar.

Or to put this another way, Wilber seems willing to deconstruct everything but his own privileged discourse, his own ego--and what  I read in his writings is a big ego yearning to breathe free, something which is all too confirmed by the gushing, overblown rhetoric of those websites discussing his books and mastery.

Look at that truly silly color-coding of various levels of intellect--or are you not the fella who insisted that the idea that Derrida deconstructed everything but Derrida was a perfectly-valid and highly useful argument?

The problem is that I have a different view of the Buddhism than you, based largely on perfectly-valid readings of perfectly-vaild and informed authors who simply do not conform to your (and Wilber's) interpretations and booklist. The other problem is that I--sorry in advance--have a pretty good, professional understanding of the deconstruction stuff, within certain limits that I've several times remarked upon.

Disagreements and different booklists are not good reasons for remarks about liars and rectal discourse. You should apologize, but perhaps you've already pierced that particular veil.

Sorry, too old. I've seen this control of different levels of consciousness/dreaming/deep sleep before (Carlos Casteneda's  phony Don Juan), and I've seen this jumble of ideas driven by the desire to be King before (Trungpa Rinpoche)


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jul 1, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Well, I see that manners clearly are one of the things that you, at least have successfully deconstructed.
> 
> I would respond in kind, but I'm afraid I don't as a general rule tell people that they, "are talking out of their rectum," or announce gleefully that I've caught them, "in a lie. Again."


I don't know a damn thing about Buddhism, but I can certainly say that this claim is pure bull-****.  Are you not the one who related heretic's earlier (perfectly valid) point about social constructionism being a social construction to a bunch of sophomoric pot-heads sitting around toking up?  Or in the past called a claim of mine the intellectual equivalent of running around with a toy airplane making explosion noises?  

Don't try to pass yourself off as above resorting to insults, because you are, plain and simply, not.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 2, 2004)

Please read what I wrote.

I simply said that a) I didn't tell people they were talking out of their ***; b) I didn't tell people they were liars.

As for my claiming that I'm above this or that, well, I certainly can't think of any time on this forum during which I've given myself some name like, say, Fireball XL-5 and zipped about making vroom vroom boom boom noises. And no, I don't insult other writers deliberately, except when I screw up.

Could you perhaps explain what you saw as the relationship among, say, post-modernity, deconstruction, post-structuralist theory, and Buddhist ideas of the ego?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jul 2, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Please read what I wrote.
> 
> I simply said that a) I didn't tell people they were talking out of their ***; b) I didn't tell people they were liars.
> 
> As for my claiming that I'm above this or that, well, I certainly can't think of any time on this forum during which I've given myself some name like, say, Fireball XL-5 and zipped about making vroom vroom boom boom noises. And no, I don't insult other writers deliberately, except when I screw up.


Oh, please.  So repeatedly making fun of screen names, belittling or stereotyping those who disagree with you, or calling someone's argument little more than a pothead's trip are all forms of valid constructive criticism, whereas heretic's telling you that you don't know what you're talking about or that you're lying flat out are forms of insult.  I think the only real distinction is whether or not they're your claims.  Either that or you "screw up" ALOT.  



> Could you perhaps explain what you saw as the relationship among, say, post-modernity, deconstruction, post-structuralist theory, and Buddhist ideas of the ego?


I really couldn't say more about any of those than what I've read you and heretic going back and forth about.  But what he said about deconstruction sounds perfectly valid, and not something to be insultingly brushed off as pot-induced.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 2, 2004)

Well, Mr. Phantom--or was "Phantom," your middle name, and it would be better if I addressed you as, "Mr. 700?"--would it be possible for you to discuss the ideas and issues and facts in any way at all, rather than to get all involved in passing judgment, good or bad, on people you don't know? Among other things, that might be a better way of demonstrating moral superiority.

Of course, one of the things that happens in post-modernity, as far as I can see, is that subjectivity becomes a lot more free-floating. This can be mistaken for liberation; I think it's an aspect of commodification. Or, it's a manifestation of the, "cyborging," Donna haraway wrote about some time back.

Or, in the case of Internet communication, it becomes more and more easy to confuse electrons with real people, much as some folks think they, "know," Brittany Spears or Clark Gable because they've seen them on a screen.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jul 2, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Well, Mr. Phantom--or was "Phantom," your middle name, and it would be better if I addressed you as, "Mr. 700?"--would it be possible for you to discuss the ideas and issues and facts in any way at all, rather than to get all involved in passing judgment, good or bad, on people you don't know? Among other things, that might be a better way of demonstrating moral superiority.


Nope, like I said before, I really don't know much about Buddhism, or post-modernism, and only a rudimentary understanding of social/cultural constructionism.  I've read some books about them, Harraway included, but certainly not nearly enough, or probably not the right ones, for you to deign it worthy of discussion.  I just called you on your claim that you don't resort to insults, which is crap.  You and heretic can continue bashing each-other intellectual style about the subjects......

I must ask one question though.  How much of Wilber have you actually read?  Just a blurb, or a book, or what?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 2, 2004)

Ah. So you simply dropped by to launch an insult or two.

In answer to your question--and as I've several times remarked at this point--nope, haven't read a lot of Wilber's stuff. I looked at two websites, plus Amazon, of people selling his books and ideas; I checked--I think it was three other sites, all of which featured materials by the man himself. Then, to be sure, there are the many quotes.

No, I didn't do a lot of extensive reading. I did not see the point, given that if I did nothing else but read in my own field of expertise (literary studies) and interest (martial arts), I do nothing but read, and still not get to ten percent of the good stuff out there. 

Why?

In my opinion, it's double-talk, right up there with Deepak Chopra. (Though less hilarious than, say, Dianetics, and far less scary than Tony Robbins.) Clearly, there are other opinions. However, it's also double-talk, as far as I'm concerned, that a) grossly distorts some things I'm interested in; b) is mildly, "dangerous," in that what I see is a pattern of distortion that promotes the old admiration of the guru--him; c) follows a pattern I've seen before.
I may as well add that there's a fair amount of pseudo-intellectual stuff in the martial arts, and I suspect that there always has been--where it's a lot more dangerous.

If you've read the Harraway--which I find equally pompous, though more interesting--you have to have some ideas about it. Why not simply discuss them?

I don't claim to be perfect, and a good thing too. Like most other hu-mans, I get a little tired of being  insulted, and occasionaally I whack back. it's  childish, sure, but it's a lot less harmful than, say, military adventurism on the parts of incompetents.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jul 2, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Ah. So you simply dropped by to launch an insult or two.


If that's how you wish to see it, then sure.  

To note, I didn't really insult you there, just said hey, don't claim to be above making personal insults when you've done this, this, and this.  But, if you read critique as insult, then ok.  



> In answer to your question...nope, haven't read a lot of Wilber's stuff. I looked at two websites, plus Amazon, of people selling his books and ideas; I checked--I think it was three other sites, all of which featured materials by the man himself. Then, to be sure, there are the many quotes.
> 
> No, I didn't do a lot of extensive reading. I did not see the point, given that if I did nothing else but read in my own field of expertise (literary studies) and interest (martial arts), I do nothing but read, and still not get to ten percent of the good stuff out there.


Hmmm, I recall saying something similar to you, when you were chiding me for not having "read the materials".  Even if you've reviewed so many second-hand sources, isn't it kind of hypocritical of you to make judgements on a writer you haven't read after so often telling me and others to "read the materials" before giving an opinion?  



> If you've read the Harraway--which I find equally pompous, though more interesting--you have to have some ideas about it. Why not simply discuss them?


What's pompous here, Harraway's writings or me saying that I've read them?

I read what I read of Harraway as part of an assignment for some hippy course on Meanings of Nature course in undergrad--as such, I skimmed, skipped parts, and ultimately probably didn't get much out of it.  Oh well, got the grade, at least.  I'd have to review some of it to really discuss it, which would involve finding the damn books.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 2, 2004)

Ah. So, if I were to tell you that, "you're talking out of your rectum," and "caught you in a lie. Again," you would in no way be insulted. Interesting. 

Incidentally, speaking as a professional teacher, I just love it when students announce that they skipped, skimmed, got the grade, never got the material.

There's a difference between doing that, and making a reasoned decision not to go on reading something--a decision that, to be sure, can be wrong.

Among the joys  of post-modernism are: a) the fascination with surfaces; b) a certain kind of distributed cynicism; c) the insistence that only the commodified result matters.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 2, 2004)

From the Zen side of the house, if you sit around trying to rationally explain it, you arent really "getting it" right?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jul 2, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Ah. So, if I were to tell you that, "you're talking out of your rectum," and "caught you in a lie. Again," you would in no way be insulted. Interesting.


Depends on a lot of factors, but generally, if someone said that as a critique of some point I made, then no, I wouldn't be insulted.   



> Incidentally, speaking as a professional teacher, I just love it when students announce that they skipped, skimmed, got the grade, never got the material.
> 
> There's a difference between doing that, and making a reasoned decision not to go on reading something--a decision that, to be sure, can be wrong.


Well, when it's the 5th senseless book assigned to you that night for a class you' only took because you had to while having four other classes to study for, most of which are more interesting, your attention just tends to waver, you know?  Hey, I'm only human.  



> Among the joys of post-modernism are: a) the fascination with surfaces; b) a certain kind of distributed cynicism; c) the insistence that only the commodified result matters.


If I had to sum up what I understand about post-modernism, I'd say it's a discipline or understanding that concentrates on the interaction of all the different elements of causation, which opposes the "modern" theory that defines causation according to independent actors.  A crude definition, to be sure, and not reinforced by a number of different book citations, but there you go.  Criticize and scoff away.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 2, 2004)

"The fifth senseless book," huh. Sigh.

I'd compare this directly to all the talk I read on these forums about the uselessness of kata and of the extensions in kenpo.

One of the differences between you and I is that I always proceeded from the notion that my teachers knew more than I did, and that I should do my best to learn--which would include reading the material. At least, I felt guilty when I cheated on the material.

Of course, there are problems with such an approach.

One of the issues in post-modernity is what jean baudrillard, himself rather a poseur, called, "the simulacrum:" the endless generation of the endless imitations of the Real.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jul 2, 2004)

Well, I don't know a damn thing about kata or kenpo extensions, so your call there, buddy.  

And, FYI, I didn't cheat on anything.  With some of my grades in mind, that may have been a better choice, but I didn't.  Nor do I presume to know more than my professors, if that's what you meant.  But after reading on and on about whatever her point was about vampire cultures and cyborgs and Western culture being the sum of all evil, I decided I had more substantial and more relevent subjects to study for.  Judge however you wish.


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 4, 2004)

*Well, I see that manners clearly are one of the things that you, at least have successfully deconstructed.

I would respond in kind, but I'm afraid I don't as a general rule tell people that they, "are talking out of their rectum," or announce gleefully that I've caught them, "in a lie. Again."*

In retrospection, I probably should apologize for some of my remarks in my previous post. While I still doubt Robert has even a superficial understanding of Wilber's philosophy, and I still believe that he was outright lying in his defense of his position (i.e., "Wilber 'collapsing' Buddhism and deconstruction"), it was extremely rude of me to put my viewpoint across like that. I apologize. :asian: 

*I do attempt to suggest that perhaps some folks will wish to actually read more carefully.*

Okay, Robert, just listen to these requests you're making now: "read more carefully"?? You have read a total of _zero_ books by Wilber. I have read a total of _five_, as well as major parts of _two_ others (including his more recent works).

This isn't an attack here, but you may want to back off on claims of making informed decisions about Wilber by "reading more carefully". As far as I can tell (and I may be wrong), you have read next to nothing and --- honestly speaking --- have made claims that are diametrically opposed to Wilber's overall system (such as the notion of a "privileged view").

*In the quote you posted, for example, Wilber responds to a question, "Do you think Foucault, Derrida, and company were getting at points that Asian absolutists had already articulated in some way? Or have their poststructuralist approaches been completely fresh?" Somehow, it seemed to me that the questioner, followed by Mr. Wilber, were putting all this stuff into the one bag.*

Sorry to say, Mr. Robertson, but "impressions" aren't really a sturdy basis for launching critiques from --- especially if you can't back them up with examples. Or are you now claiming that the aforementioned individuals are, in fact, not "poststructuralists"??

*The questions, and answers, continue to do precisely that.*

This misunderstanding could partially be my fault. I copy-and-pasted excerpts from _two_ different interviews --- one in which the poststructuralists in general were discussed, the other when the deconstructionists in particular were discussed --- and that may have given the false illusion of an ongoing conversation. In any event, Wilber most definately does not "put all this stuff in one bag" in his actual writings (for example: at the end of his essay "Integral Art and Literary Theory", he draws a stark contrast between contextualism, constructivism, and relativism). 

*I'm also not sure where you're getting this stuff about my claiming that the philosophy and the Buddhism are the same from. It appears to be that you're so determined to attack that you've lost the ability to read properly.*

Kettle and pot, I'm afraid. I was criticizing your claim that Wilber collapses Buddhist and deconstructionist philosophy --- not any claim you are making for yourself. I refer you to your post:

"The problem is that Wilber's writing very clearly shows someone who's working to privilege himself and his view of the world...this, coupled with his collapsing Buddhism and deconstruction together".

To which I responded:

"Wilber, in fact, said the exact opposite of what you claimed above. The point in those excerpts was not him 'collapsing' Buddhist and deconstructionist philosophy --- but drawing stark differences between the two".

To which I then proceeded to give examples from the interviews in which he actually drew strong contrasts between Buddhism and deconstrutionism, culminating in, "They [Buddhism and deconstruction] have very little in common."

I was also criticizing that any "analogies" between deconstruction of formalism and Buddhist disidentifying of the self are, at best, superficial ones.

*I'd go back and track down where you've said exactly what I referred to, but what's the point?*

I am sorry, Robert, but this strikes me as nothing short of evasiveness and double-speak.

*I object to Wilber's writings and approach because it's double-talk, as far as I'm concerned--to be even more specific, it's looking a lot like intellectual weenie-waggling, something with which I'm quite familiar.*

Yet another assertion for which you've provided no proof, no citations, and no examples --- just vague, generic accusations that boil down to personal attacks on writers you disagree with.

*Or to put this another way, Wilber seems willing to deconstruct everything but his own privileged discourse, his own ego--and what I read in his writings is a big ego yearning to breathe free*

For someone that is actually _familiar_ with Wilber's writings, I must say that claim is very flawed (although not atypical, as there are many out there that often distort what Wilber actually writes) on two bases:

1) Deconstruct everything but myself: This claim is debunked when you understand what Wilber actually means by "integral". His stated goal is to provide a very broad, non-specific, bare-bones philosophical framework from which to integrate various disciplines and fields of knowledge. I personally have yet to see Wilber completely "deconstruct" or "reject" (as opposed to partially criticize) ANY major theorist, philosophy, or position.

If you have an example for which Wilber supposedly "deconstructs" the work of another to privilege his own, then please provide it. I have read, in part or total, 7 of his books and have yet to see any of this. Thus, I am very interested to see the "proof" here.

2) Big ego: This is an unusually curious position, considering one of the major themes of Wilber's work is of ego-transcension. In fact, absolutely nothing I have read by him actually contradicts Buddhist philosophy (he makes extensive use, for example, of the Trikaya doctrine as well as the Shunyata doctrine of Madhyamika's Nagarjuna).

In any event, Wilber is very articulate on the point that his philosophy is but a "starting point" or a "broad suggestion" for better, more specific theories.

Of course, you wouldn't actually _know_ any of that unless you took the time to read Wilber's stuff. Remember your points before about discipline and hard work??

*something which is all too confirmed by the gushing, overblown rhetoric of those websites discussing his books and mastery.*

Ok, now, arguments like these are just plain silly. That's like saying that if I wrote a book, and people who had nothing to do with me found it insightful and starting writing "gushy, overblown rhetoric" that that somehow had any impact on me as a writer. It doesn't.

*Look at that truly silly color-coding of various levels of intellect*

*sigh* This is what happens when people take things out of context. Two things:

1) Wilber is not the "color-coder" here --- he is citing works by Don Beck. That's like saying Wilber is the "id-specialist" because he cites works by Freud (which he also does).

2) I fail to see how "color-coding" levels of consciousness is "silly". I fail to see how it any less valid than any other labeling system, such as titles or numbers (which many other theorists use). Arguments like "oh, that's just stupid" without any reasoning as to why are simply non-arguments. They're dogmatic.

Come to think of it, that actually seems to be a common "refutation" of yours --- the intellectual equivalent of "oh, that's just stupid" or "you're just silly". C'mon, man, I argued that way when I was in elementary school.

*or are you not the fella who insisted that the idea that Derrida deconstructed everything but Derrida was a perfectly-valid and highly useful argument?*

Nope, 'fraid not.

I was arguing against the underlying contradiction of particular quotations you referenced in another thread. I did not apply these criticisms to any one thinker in particular, and especially not Derrida.

Of course, to understand all that you would actually have had to slow down and really _read_ what I wrote in its _proper context_ --- and not make oversimplified, distorted generalizations about my position.

*The problem is that I have a different view of the Buddhism than you, based largely on perfectly-valid readings of perfectly-vaild and informed authors who simply do not conform to your (and Wilber's) interpretations and booklist.*

Nope, sorry.

The problem, as far as I can see (and I may be wrong), is that you have an "Encyclopedia Britannica" understanding of Buddhist philosophy whereas I have actually perused an original source or two. Have you even _heard_ of Nagarjuna?? How about the vijnanas?? The doctrine of Trikaya?? Tibetan Vajrayana's use of "levels of being" (primarily chakras)?? Theravada Buddhism's levels of meditative awareness?? Hell, even the largely "formless" Zen has its famous Ox-Herding Pictures.....

The problem seems to be not that you are so much "wrong" or "incorrect", but that you have a very, very, very simplified understanding of these philosophies (probably due to an emphasis on certain aspects of Zen that are themselves not developmental/evolutionary). Many of the books you cited were extremely introductory texts designed for Westerners.

It does seem a little strange, though. Buddhism, in almost all its sects, explicitly teaches concepts you criticized before --- including "levels of consciousness", a priori principles, the notion of an absolute Real, and an explicit rejection of materialism.

Instead of reading modern, watered-down works for Westerners, I would suggest reading primary Buddhist sources like Nagarjuna, Hakuin, Dogen, Tibetan Book of the Dead, Heart Sutra, or one of the texts from the Yogachara school. You might learn something.


*The other problem is that I--sorry in advance--have a pretty good, professional understanding of the deconstruction stuff, within certain limits that I've several times remarked upon.*

Very dangerous thinking here, methinks. Literally, "I'm an expert, so you are automatically wrong". More dogma, as far as I can see.

*Disagreements and different booklists are not good reasons for remarks about liars and rectal discourse. You should apologize, but perhaps you've already pierced that particular veil.*

I have apologized in this very post, but the point remains that you distorted what I actually wrote to construct a straw man argument. Now, whether this was conscious or not is not something I can ascertain. In any event, my response was rude.

*I've seen this control of different levels of consciousness/dreaming/deep sleep before (Carlos Casteneda's phony Don Juan)*

This point right here is especially important, as it highlights how very little you actually know about Buddhist philosophy. The idea of being consciously aware through all three states is explicit not only in Vajrayana (and Mahayana as a whole), but Hindu Vedanta as well. We also find these ideas taught by many modern meditation teachers (you might want to give your local Zen roshi a call on the subject and see what you find out).

In fact, the idea is very, very, very common among many spiritual writers, ancient and modern.

*and I've seen this jumble of ideas driven by the desire to be King before (Trungpa Rinpoche)*

*laughs* Good grief, next thing you know we'll be hearing you call the Dalai Lama a jerk. By the way, wasn't Trungpa Rinpoche one of the sources you actually _recommended_ earlier??

*shrugs* My personal intuition is that most of this probably stems from a chronic misinterpretation of Buddhist concepts --- probably in an attempt to make them more appealable to modern Western philosophy. Then again, its just a hunch.

Laterz.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 4, 2004)

Dear Guys:

Good to see I've graduated to being merely misguided and a poor reader, invested in misleading others.

Only a few points, as I see no point in extensively trying to disentangle the threads of a discussion in which one of the parties repeatedly changes and re-contextualizes what they've pretty much just finished saying.

Actually, fella, what I wrote was that I had, "a pretty good, professional knowledge of this deconstruction stuff, within certain limits," not quite the same thing as claiming absolute Authority. 

I haven't claimed expert knowledge of Wilber at any point. If you haven't yet met a power-monger who works by some form of deconstructing power-mongers or the other, don't worry. You will. 

I guess citing D.T. Suzuki, Herrigel, Draeger, Watts, Kapleau and others don't count--but odd that you've never heard of them. You seriously might wanna look at Suzuki and Kapleau, especially, before going on about, "watered-down works for Westerners." Waddya want? Shunryu Suzuki? 

No doubt you're reading what you called, "the primary sources," in their original languages. Could you offer a bibliography?  

Then there's this: 

"I don't know a damn thing about kata or kenpo extensions, so your call there, buddy. 

And, FYI, I didn't cheat on anything. With some of my grades in mind, that may have been a better choice, but I didn't. Nor do I presume to know more than my professors, if that's what you meant. But after reading on and on about whatever her point was about vampire cultures and cyborgs and Western culture being the sum of all evil, I decided I had more substantial and more relevent subjects to study for." 

Whew.

Among the characteristics of post-modernity is the fascination with surfaces: as a scholarly type, I would  argue that scholarship is all about, "depth," but that's just me. Surfaces are easier, becasue they sustain that useful illusion of quick, efficient and fully-intentional education.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jul 4, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Whew.
> 
> Among the characteristics of post-modernity is the fascination with surfaces: as a scholarly type, I would argue that scholarship is all about, "depth," but that's just me. Surfaces are easier, becasue they sustain that useful illusion of quick, efficient and fully-intentional education.


It's amazing how you are now criticizing my entire scholarship based upon me saying that I didn't understand Harraway's writings in a class that I found pointless.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 4, 2004)

No, I'm criticizing the completely-cynical approach to education and its implications for a) martial arts study, b) understanding post-modernity. In both cases, you are far from being alone.

The Haraway, actually, isn't all that interesting or complex: all you really need, far as I can see, is the one essay. However, it is sometimes best to trry and look beyond what we think of as, "tree-hugger," mentality, or whatever other ideology we're projecting onto the material, and simply try to understand what's there.

I assume you do that in martial arts study, of course.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jul 4, 2004)

I never just accussed her of simple tree-hugger mentality, you assume that. You also assume that I study martial arts at all, which I don't. I haven't been cynical about my education in general, only a few classes where I found that the concentration wasn't so much on discussion and understanding as it was on a communal bashing of pre-conceived notions.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 4, 2004)

Dear Mr. 700:

If you will read what I wrote, you will see that I mentioned, "tree-hugger," as one example of projecting ideology onto the material you're studying. The word is pretty close to what you're thinking, however, given your use of words such as, "communal," and your claim about the class' assertion of "Western culture being the sum of all evil."

Again, ideas/images such as these circulate in constellations which are among the hallmarks of post-modernity. For example, it is common to see notions of socialism/communism, tree-hugging, male-bashing, lesbianism, etc. swimming around together in the minds of very different sorts of folks.

I'd also wonder why you're even on a martial arts forum, and I would recommend studying a good art with a good teacher. In addition to the other benefits, it would help illustrate what I am talking about.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jul 5, 2004)

To clarify, I said "communal" because it's the only word I could think of at the time to describe how almost everyone in the class was of the same mind-set of bashing on whatever group they decided to demonize--usually some combination of white, male, yuppie, and/or conservatives.  But of course, you obviously know so much more about what when on in that class then I do, right?

I'm on a martial arts forum because I feel like it; more specifically, I wanted to find a forum to discuss philosophy/politics, and a friend suggested the Study on here.  And aside from other more immediate concerns, the entire Be One with Your Foot and No Mind stuff behind martial arts doesn't exactly work well with me.  

Haha, that was a joke.


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 5, 2004)

That was kind of funny. Robert was right though. You should find a good teacher and get started. You'll love it.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 5, 2004)

1. Yep. 

2. Yep.

3. Not particularly.


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 5, 2004)

*Good to see I've graduated to being merely misguided and a poor reader, invested in misleading others.*

I dunno. It seemed, from my point-of-view, that you were, consciously or not, misreading what Wilber actually said to construct a straw man argument (i.e., "Wilber collapses Buddhism and deconstruction"). Draw your own conclusions.

*Only a few points, as I see no point in extensively trying to disentangle the threads of a discussion in which one of the parties repeatedly changes and re-contextualizes what they've pretty much just finished saying.*

*chuckle* Just one more note in Dr. Robertson's List of Polemical Generalizatons Bereft of Evidential Citation.

*Actually, fella, what I wrote was that I had, "a pretty good, professional knowledge of this deconstruction stuff, within certain limits," not quite the same thing as claiming absolute Authority.*

And, actually, fella what I wrote was "Literally, 'I'm an expert, so you are automatically wrong'. More dogma, as far as I can see." Not quite the same things as accusations of "absolute Authority" (whatever that's supposed to mean) --- just accusations of using one's "professional-ness" as a would-be refutation. 

*I haven't claimed expert knowledge of Wilber at any point.*

For someone who claims to lack "expert knowledge" of the man, you sure seem obliged to make antagonistic claims about a philosophy you know little about.

*If you haven't yet met a power-monger who works by some form of deconstructing power-mongers or the other, don't worry. You will.*

Been there, done that. The difference here is that these power-mongers reveal themselves via performative contradiction (i.e., hypocritical contradictions within their own philosophical systems). They do not do so through vague, non-specific hunches on the part of a supposed "knowing" observer. 

*I guess citing D.T. Suzuki, Herrigel, Draeger, Watts, Kapleau and others don't count--but odd that you've never heard of them.*

*sigh* Well, you're half-right. Haven't heard of Herrigel or Kapleau, but I am quite familiar with Suzuki, Watts, and Draeger. See where unfounded assumptions get you??   

In any event, is not so much that they "don't count" --- but, when we're discussing Buddhist philosophy and I cite the founder of Mahayana Buddhism, and you cite a modern Western Buddhist writing mostly introductory tests for beginners in the tradition, then they count a hell of a lot less.

Honestly, and perhaps I'm the one making the unfounded assumption here, I am MUCH more surprised that you seem to be unaware of Nagarjuna, but are found making definitive claims about what Buddhism entails.

*You seriously might wanna look at Suzuki and Kapleau, especially, before going on about, "watered-down works for Westerners." Waddya want? Shunryu Suzuki?*

I've read Shunryu Suzuki, too, actually. 

*No doubt you're reading what you called, "the primary sources," in their original languages.*

Nope. 

*Could you offer a bibliography?*

I believe I already did --- but I would suggest any of Nagarjuna's writings, as well as those of Hakuin and Dogen. The Tibetan Book of the Dead comes to mind, as does the Heart Sutra. Personally, I would suggest looking into Madhyamika philosophy as a whole to understand what the formulations about shunyata (void/emptiness) are really supposed to be about. It would probably help to study the general history of Buddhism as a whole, too --- there are a lot of interesting varieties, from Madhyamika to Yogachara to Zen to Vajrayana to Tantrayana (slightly different) to Pure Land.

Honestly, though, I think all of this stems from simple misunderstandings. I don't actually "disagree" with anything you've said about Buddhist philosophy, only assert that it is a very simplified presentation. To summarize my position:

1) Buddhism teaches a priori concepts (samsara, nirvana, shunyata, four noble truths, etc).
2) Buddhism teaches an Absolute Real (for example, the Clear Light Emptiness in Tibetan Buddhism).
3) Buddhism rejects materialism (the material world, including one's body, are ultimately held to be illusions).
4) Buddhism dilineates between relative truth (such as "the world is round"), and Absolute Truth (which is unexpressable in words).
5) As such, Buddhism acknowledges the _relative_ (not absolute) existence of the self --- a view that is commonly misinterpreted.
6) Buddhism teaches levels of consciousness and being (example: the vijananas).
7) Buddhism, particularly Vajrayana, emphasizes higher enlightenment leads to conscious awareness of all three natural states (waking/dream/deep sleep).
8) And this is one of the most confusing, in Buddhism a "Big Self" and a "Big Non-Self" are generally treated as the same thing (i.e., Buddha Mind and the Void are by and large interchangeable) --- provided we are talking about That which transcends the subject/object duality (and is thus beyond any "personal" self).

The above basically summarizes my position on Buddhism, which doesn't really contradict anything you have said (I don't believe). Laterz.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jul 5, 2004)

Flatlander: I doubt I would enjoy martial arts, but of course I'd have to try it to find out.  This, however, is not an option for me.  

Robertson: Gotta love them non-answers.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 5, 2004)

Well, I still don't see any genuine knowledge of the literature, criticism and theory revolving around those issues generally identified here as, "post-modernism." 

You're aware of the Book of the Dead and the Heart Sutra. I'll be damned. Gosh. Never heard of those. 

All's I can say is that those who are genuinely knowledgeable typically have the bibiliographical information pretty much at their fingertips. I don't deny that you know what you're talking about. I'm simply waiting to see the specific bibliography, which--again--should be easy to produce. Odd you don't seem to cite Drager or any of the others specifically.

This  is useful, to avoid erroneously dismissing people like Philip Kapleau, who began studying in Japan, in 1953, with Yasutani-Roshi, Master of Taihei temple, Harada-Roshi, Abbot of Hosshin Temple, and Nakagawa-Roshi, Abbott of Ruutaku Temple--he dedicates the simple-minded book for Western beginners I previously cited to them--and who was, at the time he wrote, Director of the Zen Center in...and oh, what's the use? I could tell you till the cows come home that he cites/quotes Dogen, pretty much understands what he's talking about, whatever. I could tell you, truthfully, that I've been reading this stuff since about 1974 or whatever, and there's no point. 

I could  ask exactly who the Guru Wilber studied with, but since he seems to have appeared to have sprung full-formed from the brow of the Buddha Amitabha, what's the use? 

Another characteristic of the post-modern is the promulgation of the fantasy of, "the Oriental," as the primary site of spiritual knowledge, which--if you'll recall from Drager--a notion that he debunks no less stringently than, say, Edward Said. There's a straight line from Kipling's "Kim," and the Insidious Dr. Fu Manchu to the dream of Eastern perfection. 

Of course, in the end the fantasy of superior Western rationalism and efficiency will emerge triumphant. One sign lies in the fantasy of lucid dreaming, the organization of the unconscious for useful work. Three slaps with a wet copy of Deleuze and Guattari's "Anti-Oedipus." 

Oh yeah--answers you don't like are not the same as non-answers. You have the option to study martial arts, no matter who you are and where you are and what you are, as you know--or you wouldn't be posting on a martial arts forum. Go study...otherwise, you won't ever understand what we're talking about.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jul 5, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Oh yeah--answers you don't like are not the same as non-answers.


Well, saying yep, yep, and not particularly doesn't really illustrate a response, especially when the only yes/no question I asked was rhetorical.  



> You have the option to study martial arts, no matter who you are and where you are and what you are, as you know--or you wouldn't be posting on a martial arts forum. Go study...otherwise, you won't ever understand what we're talking about.


First off, I highly doubt someone in my situation has the option of studying any type of physical defense/combat, unless you can point to a completely non-aerobic martial arts form.  It's been something I've been discussing as of late, but not with any urgency, what with further degree-seeking in my very near future.  But wait, where did these factors come from?  Could the Omniscient Eye of Robertson have missed details of the full situation of some stranger on the net who, in reality, he really doesn't know a damn thing about?

Second off, I've already explained why I'm on this forum, and it has nothing to do with martial arts.  I joined to discuss--get this--NON MARTIAL ARTS SUBJECTS OF A POLITICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL NATURE, and found that this site's "The Study" matches well with that.  I've pretty much, with the exception of maybe 2 posts, kept my discussions within The Study.  Did you miss this detail that I mentioned earlier or something?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 5, 2004)

Nope; couldn't have missed anything.

Kinda annoying to feel that you've been judged by someone you don't know, ain't it?

I repeat: it's always possible, though obviously, possibly extraordinarily difficult.

However, your hints have trumped, and I've obviously nothing further to add. I wish you the best of luck, unless of course you're making it up. Hmmm...then, I wish you the best of luck all the same.


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 5, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Second off, I've already explained why I'm on this forum, and it has nothing to do with martial arts. I joined to discuss--get this--NON MARTIAL ARTS SUBJECTS OF A POLITICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL NATURE, and found that this site's "The Study" matches well with that. I've pretty much, with the exception of maybe 2 posts, kept my discussions within The Study. Did you miss this detail that I mentioned earlier or something?


I bet you're finding, though, that in many threads in this forum, people use martial arts principles to allude to something in particular, or help define a point or common framework from which to gain understanding, as they assume on these boards that the poster with whom they are debating would get the reference.  

I hope you wouldn't find that to be offensive, or elitist, it's likely just an assumption.  Robert likely won't be using that technique in further debates with you, as now he understands that you don't get the references, but don't expect this is the last time you'll encounter it.  It happens alot here.

Nonetheless, I found this an to be an interesting debate, though most of it was quite over my head.

Thanks guys.


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 5, 2004)

*Well, I still don't see any genuine knowledge of the literature, criticism and theory revolving around those issues generally identified here as, "post-modernism."*

Probably because I haven't posted anything like that yet.

Most of my comments about "postmodernism" circle around critiques of certain _elements_ of some postmodern writers and thinkers --- such as radical relativism or constructivism. In actuality, however, I am in general agreement with most of postmodern thought. My position is simply that some writers overstate their case at points.

Personally, I thought your presentation of constructivism a few post backs was a little.... odd. 

You claimed that, "constructivism, which argues that there is a Real beyond the various quite real categories--such as the economy--that we construct." Now, most forms of constructivism that I've generally come across would say that things like "the economy" are also cultural constructions, and are not irreducibly "Real". For example: constructivist feminists, I have found, often claim that the supposed "biological differences" between the sexes are actually constructions. 

Now, maybe its just me, but it seems as if you are kind of "mishmashing" constructivism and Marxist-esque materialism here. Could you clarify your position??

Now, regarding my supposed "knowledge of deconstruction" (or lack thereof), my position is based on two major points (as found in Jon Culler's _On Deconstruction_):

1) All meaning is context-bound.
2) Contexts extend infinitely (because every context is situated within another context).

Do you hold there is anything inherently flawed with that understanding?? And, if so, why??

*All's I can say is that those who are genuinely knowledgeable typically have the bibiliographical information pretty much at their fingertips. I don't deny that you know what you're talking about. I'm simply waiting to see the specific bibliography, which--again--should be easy to produce.*

Sorry, man, I'm at a public computer (my home computer is being fixed as we speak). No sources at hand.

*Odd you don't seem to cite Drager or any of the others specifically.*

See above.

*This is useful, to avoid erroneously dismissing people like Philip Kapleau, who began studying in Japan, in 1953, with Yasutani-Roshi, Master of Taihei temple, Harada-Roshi, Abbot of Hosshin Temple, and Nakagawa-Roshi, Abbott of Ruutaku Temple--he dedicates the simple-minded book for Western beginners I previously cited to them--and who was, at the time he wrote, Director of the Zen Center in...and oh, what's the use? I could tell you till the cows come home that he cites/quotes Dogen, pretty much understands what he's talking about, whatever. I could tell you, truthfully, that I've been reading this stuff since about 1974 or whatever, and there's no point.*

Ummmm... ok. Not gonna disagree with any of that. 

*I could ask exactly who the Guru Wilber studied with, but since he seems to have appeared to have sprung full-formed from the brow of the Buddha Amitabha, what's the use?*

Don't know. I'm not particularly interested in the details of Wilber's personal life. He seems to draw mostly from Zen and Vajrayana practice, though. 

*Another characteristic of the post-modern is the promulgation of the fantasy of, "the Oriental," as the primary site of spiritual knowledge, which--if you'll recall from Drager--a notion that he debunks no less stringently than, say, Edward Said. There's a straight line from Kipling's "Kim," and the Insidious Dr. Fu Manchu to the dream of Eastern perfection.*

Oh, most definately. I agree entirely. 

*Of course, in the end the fantasy of superior Western rationalism and efficiency will emerge triumphant. One sign lies in the fantasy of lucid dreaming, the organization of the unconscious for useful work. Three slaps with a wet copy of Deleuze and Guattari's "Anti-Oedipus."*

Ummm.... ok. Not really sure what your point there was but.... ok.

Laterz.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 5, 2004)

I don't quite understand the abrupt suggestion that you're disinterested in post-modernism, since you started the thread.

I don't simply mean contexts. Nor do I recall the term, "contextualism."

The marx/constructivism is easy: "Men make history, but they do not make it from materials of their own choosing."

Contained in the Buddhist discussions I've already mentioned is pretty much everything you repeatedly insist upon. 

Contained within that Wilber material, contained within the "lucid dreaming," and castedneda jazz, are fantasies of power and efficiency: the harnessing of the unconscious to do useful work, as I mentioned, its oedipalization.


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 5, 2004)

*I don't quite understand the abrupt suggestion that you're disinterested in post-modernism, since you started the thread.*

Not once did I say I was disinterested in postmodernism --- or else why would I started this thread??

I merely cited my position on deconstructionism per se, and requested you elaborate on yours. Which you have yet to do so.

*I don't simply mean contexts. Nor do I recall the term, "contextualism."*

Please elaborate.

*The marx/constructivism is easy: "Men make history, but they do not make it from materials of their own choosing."*

A good deal of constructivists would argue against that correlation, since Marx proceeded from the opposite direction than constructivism does (i.e., he makes interobjective systems paradigmatic, as opposed to intersubjective background contexts). Many constructivists, for example, would argue that things like "socioeconomic forces of production", "class wars", and simple biology itself are by and large cultural constructions.

*Contained in the Buddhist discussions I've already mentioned is pretty much everything you repeatedly insist upon.*

Ummmm.... so, is that an agreement?? 

*Contained within that Wilber material, contained within the "lucid dreaming," and castedneda jazz, are fantasies of power and efficiency: the harnessing of the unconscious to do useful work, as I mentioned, its oedipalization.*

Again, please elaborate by providing specific points and issues. Dogmatics statements like the one above are probably what I have the most issue with here.

The above quotation is very interesting though, since everything I "repeatedly insist upon" that is "contained in the Buddhist discussions (you) mentioned" is also contained in Wilber's discussions, as well.

I am personally very interested to see elaborations on how lucid dreaming is oedipal in nature. As for Castenada --- haven't read 'im, can't comment.

Laterz.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 5, 2004)

Jiun, a Shingon master, was a well-known Sanskrit scholar of the Tokugawa era. When he was young he used to deliver lectures to his brother students.
His mother heard about this and wrote him a letter:
"Son, I do not think you became a devotee of the Buddha because you desired to turn into a walking dictionary for others. There is no end to information and commentation, glory and honor. I wish you would stop this lecture business. Shut yourself up in a little temple in a remote part of the mountain. Devote your time to meditation and in this way attain true realization."

-Zen Flesh, Zen Bones


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 5, 2004)

I don't suppose you'd care to explain which, "constructivists," you're talking about--the ones who claim that "class," and other such Marxist terms are merely social constructions?

The references to Trungpa is easily understood. It is another specirfic response to your faint echo of my bibiliographical suggestions, in which you reel off a set of names/terms and somehow--mirabile dictu!--never seem to mention specific texts. 

The Wilber/Castenda reference is easily understood, "Tales of Don Juan,"  and its sequels being one of the great power-mongering frauds of the 60s and 70s. Though funnily  enough, Castenda did claim to be a grad student, doing structuralist anthropology, when his met the old brujo. 

Claiming that I haven't elaborated on deconstruction is beyond odd. It's willful avoidance--couldn't be you're simply parroting this or that website, this or  that bit of some author, merely to bait other posters along, perchance? Again, looks to me as though you're simply using some crib sheet or another.

Easily refuted though stop. Simply supply specifics stop. Avoid mere truisms stop. Post-modernity defined in part by hollow bricolage stop. Aforementioned logic of the simulacrum also at stake stop. Refer again to Trilling Sincerity and Authenticity slim volume stop. 

Lecture business fair criticism stop. All subjects of dharma till own fields stop. Theory no less no more valid than horseshit shovelling as profession stop. Indeed similarities between two abound stop.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 5, 2004)

:asian:


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jul 6, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> I hope you wouldn't find that to be offensive, or elitist, it's likely just an assumption. Robert likely won't be using that technique in further debates with you, as now he understands that you don't get the references, but don't expect this is the last time you'll encounter it. It happens alot here.


Elitist?  Not at all; it is a martial arts forum, so I would be foolish not to expect it as a theme in conversation.  Berty may or may not quit using martial arts as a reference, though I really don't care; one less presumption wouldn't help much.  



> Thanks guys.


Glad I could amuse.  :asian:


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 6, 2004)

*Jiun, a Shingon master, was a well-known Sanskrit scholar of the Tokugawa era. When he was young he used to deliver lectures to his brother students.
His mother heard about this and wrote him a letter:
"Son, I do not think you became a devotee of the Buddha because you desired to turn into a walking dictionary for others. There is no end to information and commentation, glory and honor. I wish you would stop this lecture business. Shut yourself up in a little temple in a remote part of the mountain. Devote your time to meditation and in this way attain true realization."

-Zen Flesh, Zen Bones*

Well said.  :asian:


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 6, 2004)

In response to Rob:

*1) Extreme constructivists:* I was thinking of the constructivists more along the lines of Kenneth Gergen and John Shotter, who claim that knowledge, scientific or otherwise, is not obtained by objective means but is constructed through social discourse. Hence, the study of dialogue, discourse, and text become extremely important --- in some cases, paradigmatic. With such a conception, no single viewpoint is any more valid or "correct" than another, because all viewpoints are inevitably embedded within some social context which give them meaning. "Such a view does not obliterate empirical science; it simply removes its privilege of claiming truth beyond community." (Kenneth J. Gergen, "The place of the psyche in a constructed world." _Theory & Psychology, 7/6_) In other words, the scientific method is apparently no more "truthful" or "objective" than any other form of cultural discourse.

Of course, Gergen himself seems to be critical of this conception also: "While constructionist critiques may often appear nihilistic, there is no means by which they themselves can be grounded or legitimated. They too fall victim to their own modes of critique; their accounts are inevitably freighted with ethical and ideological implications, forged within the conventions of writing, designed for rhetorical advantage, and their 'objects of criticism' constructed in and for a particular community. The objects of their criticism are no less constructed than the traditional objects of research, nor do their moral claims rest on transcendental foundations."

Nietzsche also comes to mind: "That the value of the world lies in our interpretation [...] that every elevation of man brings with it the overcoming of narrower interpretations; that every strengthening and increase of power opens up new perspectives and means believing in new horizons - this idea permeates my writings. The world with which we are concerned is false, i.e., is not fact but fable and approximation on the basis of a meagre sum of observations; it is 'in flux', as something in a state of becoming, as a falsehood always changing but never getting near the truth: for - there is no 'truth'." (Friedrich Nietzsche,_The will to power_)

I could also mention Cor Baerveldt and Paul Voestermans, who seem to think biology itself takes a back seat to constructivism: "From this perspective, the states and functions of the body become a cluster of cultural instead of natural, that is, biological constructions." ("The body as a selfing device." _Theory & Psychology, 6/4_)

Sorry if I'm drawing mostly from psychology here, but it _is_ my field of study. In any event, pretty much all of the above conceptualizations would see any supposed "objective reality" like "classes", "the economy", or even "the sexes" (cue in constructivist feminism) to be little more than social constructions. 

*2. Chogyam Trungpa:* The only major book by Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche that I have read is "Shambhala: Sacred Path of the Warrior". While themes such as "divine kingship" and "the enlightened society" are mentioned, I fail to see how such conceptualizations could be construed as fantasies of power and control --- unless they are horridly distorted out of their proper contexts. 

Yet again, I suggest you elaborate on your position here.

*3. Carlos Castenada reference:* No, it is not "easily understood" when all you provide are vague, nonspecific, generic assertions that eerily hint of dogmatisms. I myself have not read anything by Castenada, so could you please provide specific points on how it is "one of the great power-mongering frauds of the 60's and 70's", and how this has anything to do with Ken Wilber (who does not once mention Castenada in any of his books and articles that I have read)??

*4. Deconstructionist elaborations:* Sorry, Rob, I did mean to claim you have not "elaborated on deconstruction" (as your first post on the thread, citing Encarta, was actually fairly informative). My specific requests for elaboration were in response to the points I raised two posts back --- namely, Jonathan Culler's summary in _On Deconstruction_ (particularly in regards to "contextualism"), the "power fantasies" of lucid dreaming, Carlos Castenada, and the elements that I "repeatedly insist upon" in Buddhism  --- as well as to your continued attacks of Ken Wilber (who you yourself claimed that you did not have an "expert knowledge" of). You have yet to provide anything resembling detailed elaborations of any of these points --- mostly just vague generalizations bereft of examples.

*5. Borrowing crib sheets:* You can believe that if you truly desire to. There would be no point in arguing otherwise, since you have no proof for your assertion and I have no means of proving that I am not doing so. 

*6. Stop, stop, stop:* Come now, Rob, was all this really necessary?? To an outside observer, it would resemble little more than incoherent (and very narcissistic) babbling...

*7. And, about Ken Wilber:* I did find some information in regards to some of the queries you had about Wilber earlier. From his _One Taste_:

"I became extremely serious about meditation practice when I read the following line from the illustrious Sri Ramana Maharshi: 'That which is not present in deep dreamless sleep is not real.'

That is a shocking statement, because basically there is nothing -- literally nothing -- in the deep dreamless state. That was his point. Ultimate reality (or Spirit), Ramana said, cannot be something that pops into consciousness and then pops out. It must be something that is constant, permanent, or, more technically, something that, being timeless, is fully present at every point in time. Therefore, ultimate reality must also be fully present in deep dreamless sleep, and anything that is not present in deep dreamless sleep is not ultimate reality.

[...]

I had been meditating fairly intensely for around twenty years when I came across that line from Ramana. I had studied Zen with Katigiri and Maezumi; Vajrayana with Kalu and Trungpa; Dzogchen with Pema Norbu and Chagdud; plus Vedanta, TM, Kashmir Shaivism, Christian mysticism, Kabbalah, Daoism, Sufism... well, it's a long list. When I ran across Ramana's statement, I was on an intensive Dzogchen retreat with my primary Dzogchen teacher, Chagdud Tulku Rinpoche. Rinpoche also stressed the importance of carrying the mirror-mind into the dream and deep sleep states."

Hope that clears some things up. Laterz.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 6, 2004)

The, "Theory and Psychology," articles seem pretty legit, and they were easy to check, since they came up first on a googol search, and from the most recent two issues of the journal. However, your translation/summary of Gergen's remark is incorrect, in ways that are consistent with your previous misunderstandings: he isn't saying that "empirical science," sinks to the level of one more opinion or voice in social discourse, he's saying that a) any claim to unchallengeable authority doesn't work, b) science takes place in a community. 

But that's an argument dating back at least to the Foucault, "What is An Author?" piece I mentioned ("First question: who is speaking...?") and to Kuhn's 1960s work.

Trungpa wrote beautifully about meditation, appears to have at times been a good teacher, founded Naropa--all good things. He also was a drunk, who actively screwed his students, as well as generally grabbing every material thing he could  get his little hands on, and died from liver failure/and (so it was rumored at the time) AIDS.

Castenda's books were extremely well known, and there still are those who want to turn themselves into crows, fly away to Mexico, and be warriors. Oddly, Casteneda himself died a few years back, relatively young. Hm.

Piffle, I gave no examples. Gave lots of examples. You didn't like them. It's this sort of thing that makes one suspect bait, rather than discussion--as is citing the first source on Googol searches, the very first issues of a journal that come up on the website, the "shotgunning," with as many general references as possible. But again, such bricolage is characteristic of the post-modern.

I trust Ken Wilber's storefront shopping list of spiritual disciplines every bit as much as I trust the storefront signs on dojos that feature karate, kickboxing, gojo-ryu, kung fu, shaolin boxing, kenpo, kempo, tae kwon do, BJJ, tae bo, aerobic conditioning, aikido, and wu shu. And, the Zen response to the fetishization of mystical techniques to govern dreaming would be something like the old horselaugh, followed by a suggestion that a good day's work would allow for a good night's sleep, followed by which you should get up and have breakfast.

Maybe he's a genius. I'm doubtin' it, and the shotgunning of names and terms coupled with the well-armored discourse is not convincing me otherwise.

One of your problems, here, is you don't like what I'm saying, not that you don't understand it.


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 7, 2004)

*However, your translation/summary of Gergen's remark is incorrect, in ways that are consistent with your previous misunderstandings: he isn't saying that 'empirical science,' sinks to the level of one more opinion or voice in social discourse, he's saying that a) any claim to unchallengeable authority doesn't work, b) science takes place in a community.*

Perhaps, but I note you studiously ignored the other sources I cited (as well as the second quotation from Gergen himself). Interesting.

Also, "misunderstanding" implies I don't actually understand the concepts here, which is an error. I am merely suggesting that much of "postmodernism" is infected with bizarre aberrations of the concepts --- such as cultural relativity, nihilistic epistemology, self-absorbed "culture of narcissism", interpretation-only, and so on. 

You, however, seem to have a problem with the notion that these other currents even exist --- and, furthermore, that they have such a sweeping influence (particularly in America). I'm merely saying we have a lot of bad, along with the good.

This is actually somewhat annoying, because I don't feel as if I have actually articulated my position all that clearly. Hrmmm....

*Trungpa wrote beautifully about meditation, appears to have at times been a good teacher, founded Naropa--all good things.*

I see.

*He also was a drunk, who actively screwed his students, as well as generally grabbing every material thing he could get his little hands on, and died from liver failure/and (so it was rumored at the time) AIDS.*

I don't suppose there is any substantiation for all of this beyond hearsay and rumor??

*Castenda's books were extremely well known, and there still are those who want to turn themselves into crows, fly away to Mexico, and be warriors. Oddly, Casteneda himself died a few years back, relatively young. Hm.*

Okay. That's nice and all, but it still doesn't tell me much about Castenada himself (never read his stuff), nor how it has anything at all to do with Wilber (who is usually very critical of crackpots, cult leaders, and 'New Age gurus').

*Piffle, I gave no examples. Gave lots of examples. You didn't like them.*

Look back, and take my request for examples in context, Rob.

You have not given any elaborations or examples of how lucid dreaming, Castenada, or Wilber are guilty of anything you accuse them all of. Sure, you've given LOTS of dogmatic, "I is right" statements and assertions --- but you never try and back them up with proof, citation, or evidence.

I'm not talking about your position on deconstruction here (although I did note you ignored my reference to Jon Culler's book), as we all know you explained your position on that in the first post. I am talking about the other things (lucid dreaming, Trungpa, Castenada, Wilber, and a few Buddhist specifics).

Again, please re-read these requests in context.

*It's this sort of thing that makes one suspect bait, rather than discussion--as is citing the first source on Googol searches, the very first issues of a journal that come up on the website, the "shotgunning," with as many general references as possible.*

Never been to the wesbite, but I do have the magazines at home.  

I do note however, Rob, that you have an increasingly recurrent tendency to attack and accuse others of indiscretions when they continually disagree with you. And not just on this thread either. Interesting. 

*I trust Ken Wilber's storefront shopping list of spiritual disciplines every bit as much as I trust the storefront signs on dojos that feature karate, kickboxing, gojo-ryu, kung fu, shaolin boxing, kenpo, kempo, tae kwon do, BJJ, tae bo, aerobic conditioning, aikido, and wu shu.*

A few things:

1) The particular journal entry that blurb came from was not intended as a "storefront shopping list", implying its supposed to "prove credentials" or the like (which is generally how such lists are used). I, in fact, know of no other instance where Wilber has explicitly cited any of his training experiences --- he was simply jotting down a note in a journal entry (which was later edited for book form).

2) I note you ignored the list of _teachers_ that came along with the disciplines. Interesting. 

*And, the Zen response to the fetishization of mystical techniques to govern dreaming would be something like the old horselaugh, followed by a suggestion that a good day's work would allow for a good night's sleep, followed by which you should get up and have breakfast.*

You're probably right there (and I'm assuming this is in response to lucid and pellucid dreaming). There seems to be a general distrust of the siddhis in most contemplative traditions (and lucid dreaming would certainly qualify).

Unfortunately, however, that was _not_ what Wilber, Sri Ramana Maharishi, Sri Aurobindo, Chagdud Tulku Rinpoche, Vajrayana, or Vedanta mean when they reference maintaining awareness through all three states. It is nothing more than the maintaining of constant awareness --- not "manipulating" one's dreams to arouse certain impulses or feelings. 


*Maybe he's a genius. I'm doubtin' it, and the shotgunning of names and terms coupled with the well-armored discourse is not convincing me otherwise.*

*shrugs* Not like you'd have a basis to judge unless you'd actually read the material. And, at no point did I call Wilber a "genius". He himself acknowledges that very little of his material is "original" or "novel" --- he's just attempting to integrate all the information that's already out there (he commonly cites more reputable researchers in experts in various fields).

*One of your problems, here, is you don't like what I'm saying, not that you don't understand it.*

No. The problem is: I understand what you're saying, I don't like it, and I don't like it because I know its distorted and misinformed (your curious ignorance of Vedanta and Vajrayana references to maintaining awareness through all three states is testament to this).

Laterz.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 7, 2004)

The reason I mentioned the storefront list of martial arts disciplines is this: like that list, your lists seldom tie to specific explanations. And like some who run such schools, requests for explanations are met with more lists, or jargon, or pseudo-intellectual language, or insults. 

If the lists are examined, they disintegrate. For example: in this sort of discussion, it isn't called, "cultural relativity," but  "cultural relativism:" you're probably  mooshing together Einstein and somebody like Margaret Mead. "Nihilistic epistemology," is more or less redundant; yes, one could say that this or that account of origins has a nihilistic character, but it would be easier simply to say that someone, or their ideas, were nihilistic. "Self-absorbed culture of  narcissism?" Again, redundant: "self-absorbed," means "narcissistic." And "culture of narcissism," comes from Christopher Lasch's book, which is why I previously cited him. "Interpretation-only," appears to be a technical term (though I'm doubtin' it)--but again, this appears to refer more to a common accusation against "post-modern," theory than to what that theory actually does. 

And what is the grand sweeping conclusion? "We have a lot of bad, along with the good." Why bother with the theory, to get to that? You might want to review my previous posts, which offered rather more useful conclusions.

In other words, there's no clear thread of argument. Instead, there's this shotgunning of references, assumptions about my character, assumptions about what I do or don't know (why you're so worried about my knowledge of Vajrayana...), distortions and pooh-poohings of the citations, all papered over with self-aggrandizing remarks about, "you never try to back them up with proof, citation, or evidence." Which is absurd.

The comments on Trungpa, etc., are very easily checked. But I guess I was relying on a couple of his books, personal experience and direct commentary from people I knew in that particular Buddhist community.

Oh, incidentally, I didn't take up the bit on Jonathan Culler's book--and it is, "Jonathan," not, "Jon"--because I've haven't looked at it in twenty years. It was one of the first, general discussions of deconstruction to come out, and it's a perfectly-solid intro text.

No, I suppose Wilber doesn't call himself a genius. Neither did Siegfried and Roy: they have publicists for that, which is why I cited them. And my point was that I've run into that species of arrogance before, as well as that kind of phony.

You understand what I'm saying perfectly well. The citations are solid. You just don't like the arguments, which is fine. So argue back, and skip all this other crap.

Note to anyone else insane enough to read this stuff: it's actually a pretty-interesting set of ideas to discuss, though you'd never tell from this thread.


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 8, 2004)

Well, at this point, its fairly obvious nothing else productive is going to come from this thread. It's been nice to talking to you, and I hope to discuss some of these topics again some time --- hopefully, without postmodern theory, Wilber, lucid dreaming, Castenada, Buddhism, and Chogyam Trungpa all getting mushed together.

Have a good one.


----------

