[Buddha-l] Hindu Fundamentalism

[StormyTet at aol.com]

In a message dated 8/6/2005 10:38:54 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
richard.p.hayes at comcast.net writes:

As soon  as one begins to speak of any mode of consciousness as being
higher than  any other, one has left the domain of science and entered
the domain of  value judgement. 
ST: This is one of Wilber's arguments, actually. Values is not in the  realm 
of material science (and this is a problem in our age --  powerful  empirical 
science discounting or overshadowing the value of other realms  that deal with 
cultural and ethical issues). He argues that there is a science  to values 
and it can be seen most readily by those who have practiced the  injunction to 
meditate and then their results are judged by those in the  community -- in 
similar ways that materialist scientists judge each others work  (not to mention 
the peer review in academia in general).  Of course the  problem with this is 
knowing that you have wise peers. A problem in this  specific work that he 
does not address, though I think he has addressed this  issue directly in other 
writings.  

RH: It  would be completely impossible for a
scientist to speak of "higher states  of consciousness" without ceasing
to be a scientist. Why not just accept  that reason is one way of several
ways that the mind works? On what basis  would one say that any way of
using the mind is higher than  reason.
ST: Are you suggesting in this first sentence that scientists do accept  
higher states of consciousness than reason, in general? The problem with 'one  way 
of many' is that it denies hierarchy. Reason is higher than mythic thought,  
just as mythic thought is higher than the undifferntiated thought of a baby.  
What Wilber suggests is that material scientists are not equipped with the 
right  tools to judge this issue in terms of higher states of consciousness 
beyond  reason. In this, I think he is right. They are not using the tools to study 
 consciousness except in a materialist way (studying brain waves). Wilber  
suggests that the conceptual ideas of mathematics and most of the 'in' theories  
of today -- like chaos theory and systems theory -- were born out of a higher 
 mode of consciousness (conceptual ideas that cannot be reduced to  matter) 
and then relegated into purely materialistic form (not bad in  itself -- the 
totality of the reductionism is the problem). Wilber would argue  that the 
mythic religious person needs to accept, based upon the scientific  method, that 
reason is a higher mode of consciousness than mythic thought  (because myths 
cannot be proved). Likewise, it is equally possible that  there is a mode of 
consciousness higher than reason that can be proved  by experience and peer review 
-- one has to follow the injunction and  meditate and verify or deny the 
validity of the data received. Its a fair  argument, I think. You don't try to 
prove it with words -- reason .. you  say, "use the tool (meditation)" and see 
for yourself. 
 

RH: I have never read anything by Wilber that struck me as worthwhile  for
either the scientific life or the contemplative life.
 
ST: This leaves me wondering what you have read? Also, at least in  this 
book, the issue is not for the good of the scientific life or the  contemplative 
life, as is. It is about his evolutionary vision of a unity in  diversity that 
would serve this world where change is fast and furious  and meaning for many 
is difficult to  locate. For Wilber the 'within'  part of meaning has been 
colonized by materialistic science --reduced to surface  'its."
 
RH: He strikes me as pathetic hyper-narcissistic man enamored of his  own 
brilliance.
 
ST: One of the things that I respect about Wilber is his  acknowledgement 
that in these higher realms one can indeed think they have  become 'enlightened' 
when in fact they have become super  narcissistic. He also has admitted, quite 
openly, that he  struck his wife at one point and believes that meditation 
cannot deal  effectively with repressions -- he recommends psychotherapy to deal 
 with such issues and has used it himself. To me, this admission is a sign he 
is  trying to deal wisely with his narcissism. As for his brilliance, I have  
read an overview of his writings that said that he has an IQ of 170  and 
reads seven books (i think) a day. He worked as a waiter to  "ground himself" for 
many years after he was a best selling author. Perhaps  having an IQ of 170 
and narcissism and the need to deal with it go hand in  hand? 
 
RH: Still,his books are so thick that they do make good footsteps when  one 
needs
to fetch a can of pinto beans off a high shelf.
 
ST: This made me laugh. I am grateful, if for nothing else, for the way  that 
he has distilled and explained so much of the philosophical/historical  
progress of humankind. 

RH: Popper and Kuhn were both anticipated in this  by Peirce, Vaihinger and
Kant, and they were anticipated in important ways by  Descartes, and he
by Aristotle. I think we can safely say that there is a  long history of
a way of thinking, and of an opposition to that way of  thinking, and
Wilber simply chooses sides in a very long debate that will  probably
still be going on as long as there are human beings discussing  such
things.
 
ST: And this is where I think Wilbers integral vision is worthy of at least  
some recognition. He does not just choose sides. He calls for a realization of 
 myths on both sides of the debate and a reconciliation. Pipe dream? Perhaps. 
But  there are people who are working with this idea in a manner that is 
having a  local impact at the very least -- a cultural phenomena of sorts.

>  think that Wilber would call for a type of practice of meditation in
>  schools as a valid tool toward understanding. He suggests that truly
>  'spiritual' people need to stand up to dogmatic myth believers and
> tell  them that they need to get to the core of what it is all about
> and stand  up for that -- which for wilber comes down to the validity
> of meditation  that is to some degree universal in all the world
> religions.

RH:  Gee, that sounds pretty dogmatic to me. 
 
ST: I agree. It is a dogma, but it is not against the prevailing dogma of  
the age, in its essence. 
 
RH:What he really advocates, it has always seemed to me, is not  transcending 
dogma but accepting HIS dogma.
 
ST: He has said in an interview, with a man that found him "too confident"  
that he stayed away from teaching and has stuck primarily to writing because of 
 his fear of messing up individuals. To me, this suggests an awareness of  
limitations and a humility.  I think he is dogmatic and uses rhetoric and  logic 
in a brilliant way. Can anyone use words and make an argument without  dogma? 
 I cannot logically find fault in his writings. He comes across as  very 
well-read and reasonable to me -- brilliant. Perhaps he does have a vision  worth 
considering. Philosophers have always impacted society/understanding as  they 
attempted to articulate what and who we are. 

I wrote earlier:> Wilber considers the materialistic science that we  are fed 
in school,
> scientism -- in otherwords, as sectarian and full of  myths as any
> fundamentalist religion in its insistence in that science  has the
> corner on truth.

RH: This is a very fashionable dogma  these days. The problem with it, as
with most dogmas, is that there is very  little evidence to support it.
 
ST: His issue is that the scientific method is only applied to materialism.  
Flatland is the word that he uses. He is basically giving support for the  
validity of the social sciences in his argument. When you get right down to it,  
what is not dogma? The idea that science is a way to truth is a dogma. It just 
 happens to work to create 'real' progress. Wilber simply says that  
meditation is a way to truth and that it has real results that can be verified  or not 
within a community. No more or less dogmatic than the materialist  scientist.

RH:Very few scientists that I know about believe that they have  cornered
the market on truth. The people who say that about scientists  are
usually anti-science bigots, just as those who say that Christians  (or
Muslims) are predominantly intolerant fundamentalists or that  liberals
are predominantly unpatriotic socialists are anti-Christian, or  anti-
Muslim or anti-liberal, bigots. Wilber sometimes sounds refreshing,  but
when one scratches beneath the surface, one finds the same  old
prejudices hard at work.
 
ST: I am not sure about your last sentence. I think he would agree with  
everything you said prior to the last. In terms of lived experience of everyday  
people? I think Wilber is speaking something very important -- dogmatic or not. 
 I think the masses (which wilber would say do not have as high as 
consciousness  as someone who has accepted reason) are threatened and overwhelmed by the 
grand  status of "It - science," and that this needs to be addressed  wisely. 

Stormy



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20050807/e208c5b2/attachment.html