The Joy of Postmodernism

[heretic888]

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]

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]

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]

So heretic, studying for that final? lol

 

[heretic888]

Off and on.

 

[rmcrobertson]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

No no, carry on.

 

[heretic888]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.