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.
