The Joy of Postmodernism

[rmcrobertson]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[RandomPhantom700]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. Yep.

2. Yep.

3. Not particularly.