The Joy of Postmodernism

[heretic888]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

:asian:

 

[RandomPhantom700]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.