[Buddha-l] Hindu Fundamentalism

[StormyTet at aol.com]

Richard Hayes,

 
Your story of the Wilber student is duly noted.
 
I had written: The problem with 'one way of many' is that it denies  
hierarchy.

RH 
What is the problem in denying hierarchy?


ST: Well, it would be unscientific. We have levels in biology, in ecology,  
etc. Hierarchy is a reality. We can see it. I am more complex than the cells in 
 my currently typing fingers. I have less education than you. You have 
meditated  longer than I have.  

>I said:  Reason is higher than mythic thought, just as mythic  thought is 
higher
> than the undifferntiated thought of a  baby.

RH:That is an assertion of values. Value claims are neither true  nor false.
They are simply fancy ways of saying "Hurray!" and "Booo!" You  can
hurray whatever you like, but you should be aware that you re  doing
nothing more than making noise.
 
ST: Cognitive scientists would see these stages in development as a natural  
hierarchy in human development. As for values. In terms of the social sciences 
 -- those data sets that tell us things about education and mental health etc 
are  based upon qualitative values. A quantitative assesment might arise -- 
ie. kids  who play violent video games are more likely to be violent, but 
implicit within  the question asked is a value. A value that peace is 
hierarchically higher in  value than violence. It may not be stated directly, but it is 
implicit. And that  value is quite reasonable.


I had written:> 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.

RH:The way he states the issue shows that he knows very little  about
science. Scientists qua scientists have no interest in judging that  some
ways of using the mind are higher than others. Scientists are content  to
leave such value judgements to preachers and used politicians.


ST: I was interpreting him, so perhaps the fault lies within me more than  
him. I would suggest that scientists have no interest in this because they have  
accepted that reason is the sine qua non of human consciousness evolution.  
This may be true for their practice but not necessarily for human consciousness 
 evolution.

I wrote:> They are not using the tools to study consciousness except  in a
> materialist way (studying brain waves).

RH: This is simply  false. Many cognitive psychologists speak of the mind in
terms of information  processing. Information is not regarded as material
at all, although it must  have some material medium or another for
storage and transmission.
 
ST: I have tried to be careful to speak of only material scientists in my  
writing here. Of course you are right.

I wrote:> Likewise, it is  equally possible that there is a mode of 
consciousness
> higher than  reason that can be proved by experience and peer review

RH: Experience  and peer review? What are they, aside from forms of prejudice
and  dogma?
 
ST: They are the forms of checks and balances that are common in  scientific 
circles and academic circles. 


> I wrote:Its a fair argument, I think.

RH: Wilber  wouldn't recognize an argument if it slapped him in the face. He
is a man of  assertions, not a man of arguments.
 
ST: Aren't arguments born out of assertions? Perhaps what you are saying is  
that he asserts things and then refuses to stay in the debate? Perhaps leaving 
 the academic world was because he wouldn't subject himself to academic peer  
review? 

> I wrote: You don't try to prove it with words -- reason ..  you say, "use 
the
> tool (meditation)" and see for yourself.

RH:And  what does this prove? Some people try the tool and find it
completely  useless. Others fine it useful.
 
ST: I wouldn't know what I was looking at if someone put a microscope under  
my eye. Some find microscopes helpful. Others do not. 
 
>I wrote: 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.

RH: IQ scores mean next to nothing, except how good one is  at taking a very
particular kind of test. 
 
ST: So lets ban the GRE and college entrance tests all together?  Lets  not 
admire or judge good writing vs. bad writing? Lets have no standards that  are 
hierarchically based? 

RH:As for reading, I am more inclined to admire a person who has  the
patience to take a year or so to read a book. Reading seven books a  day
is just silly. 
 
ST: Now this idea gave me pause. I spend days doing little but reading.  
Perhaps that is silly too. 
 
RH:Hell, after three days one would have read every
book worth reading.  What would one do then?
 
ST: Is the list of the top 21 forthcoming?

I wrote: > I cannot  logically find fault in his writings.

RH:This may say as much about you  as it says about his writings. What it
suggests to me is that you have fallen  in love and lack the will to look
beneath the surface. 
 
ST: Oh, I am definitely a lover of provocative ideas. As for my will to  look 
beneath the surface, I am not sure that the issue of will is the problem,  if 
there is a problem. It is comprehension. 
 
RHSo where does having an infatuation rank in your
hierarchy of modes of  consciousness?


ST: This is actually a very good question. Wilber would call it premodern  
and unreasonable -- a stage in my evolution toward (hopefully) a more nuanced  
and sophisticated understanding. Reasonableness being the next step on my path. 
 

I said:> The idea that science is a way to truth is a  dogma.

RH:Yes, it is. It is not, however, what scientists usually say  about their
hypotheses. They rarely say they have arrived at truth. Rather,  they say
they are testing hypotheses. So the dogma you are stating is one  that
non-scientists say about science, which is no more accurate than  what
non-Buddhists say about Buddhism.
 
ST: fair enough.
 
I wrote: 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: For a guy with a high IQ, he sure has a hard time  liberating
himself from his own prapanca. This tends to support what the  Buddha
said, namely, that becoming liberation from prapanca has nothing to  do
with learning the truth. It has everything to do with throwing  out
opinions. 
 
ST: I fail to see the difference between you, me or Wilber in terms of  
throwing out opinions.  How can you tell who is and who is not full  of opinion?  
If we cannot tell, then Wilber's argument that  a community can judge correctly 
is voided. Perhaps you just cured me of my  Wilber fixation inadvertantly.  I 
am pretty sure you meant in the last  sentence that liberation is found in 
moving beyond opinions and not in 'throwing  out opinions' in terms of 'speaking 
out',. which all three of us seem to be  doing.If only that was the path to 
liberation the world would be liberated.  

RH: This is something Wilber has not yet managed to do. Opinions
seems  to stick to him like the tar baby stuck to Br'er Rabbit. 
 
ST: And perhaps why I fail to see the difference is that you seem  to have a 
very strong opinion (about Wilber) yourself.   
 
RH:This
often happens to smart people. IQ is a very sticky  substance.

ST: Yes it is. 


RH: 
"The spiritual path is never one of achievement; it is always one  of
letting go. The more we let go, the more there is empty and open  space
for us to see reality." 
--Sister Ayya Khema
 
Stormy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20050808/5c19a997/attachment.htm