[Buddha-l] Hindu Fundamentalism

[Richard P. Hayes]

On Mon, 2005-08-08 at 02:37 -0400, StormyTet at aol.com wrote:

> 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.

Those are all empirical and quantifiable. This is entirely different
from a hierarchy of values. When you say that meditative experience is a
higher kind of consciousness, that is not quantifiable. It is a value
judgement. You cannot SEE that meditation is higher than reason. Rather,
you stipulate it in accordance with your own preferences. That is not at
all the same as noticing that a human brain has more mass than a cat's
brain or that a dolphin's central nervous system has more specialized
components than a jelly fish's.

> ST: Cognitive scientists would see these stages in development as a
> natural hierarchy in human development.

Please cite some references to cognitive psychologists who recognize
rational thought as higher than mythic thinking and who regard
meditative states as higher than rational thought.

> 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.

No, that value judgement is not at all implicit in the questions that
social scientists ask. They might notice (as they have) that people who
vote Democrat have, on average, higher IQ than people who vote
Republican. That is just a statistical fact. It is not a value
judgement. It becomes a value judgement only when you say that voting
Democrat is better than voting Republican. Similarly, when a study shows
that children who get plenty to eat and get enough sleep are more
violent than kids who are starving to death, that is simply an
observation. It becomes a value judgement only when on says that being
violent is BAD (and therefore starving children to death is GOOD).

> It may not be stated directly, but it is implicit.

Sorry, but the value judgement it is not even implicit in the scientific
investigation.

>  And that value is quite reasonable.

Not necessarily. It is simply something you agree with. But more is
required to make something reasonable than the fact that one happens to
agree with it.

> ST: I was interpreting him, so perhaps the fault lies within me more
> than him. 

No, the fault lies with Wilber. The only fault attached to you is that
you are not reading him more critically.

> 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. 

You have not answered my question. I hope you are not suggesting that
academic peer review is something besides the exercise of prejudice
based on dogma.

> 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? 

None of this follows from my observation about what standard IQ tests
measure.

> 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 was exaggerating for rhetorical effect. I doubt that I could come up
with half that many books that are worth reading.

> ST: I fail to see the difference between you, me or Wilber in terms of
> throwing out opinions.

I can't speak for you. I can only speak for myself. I know that nearly
all my opinions are mostly ungrounded prejudices. I know that I am full
of hot air and that I would be dangerous if anyone took me seriously. It
is not at all obvious to me that Ken Wilber knows what a fatuous and
pompous windbag he is.

> How can you tell who is and who is not full of opinion?

If you are alive, you are full of opinion. If no one has assassinated
you or tried to get you fired from your job yet, then your opinions are
in safe conformity with your surrounding society.

> If we cannot tell, then Wilber's argument that a community can judge
> correctly is voided.

The fact that America elected George W. Bush is all the evidence one
needs that communities are very poor at judging correctly.

> ST: And perhaps why I fail to see the difference is that you seem to
> have a very strong opinion (about Wilber) yourself.

Not really. I am perfectly neutral toward him. There are people I really
respect who admire Wilber and find him quite helpful. I rejoice in the
merits of anyone whom others find helpful. I myself do not find him at
all helpful, perhaps because everything I have ever needed in life is
available in abundance in various forms of Buddhism. If it seemed to me
that Buddhism was broken and that Wilber had fixed it, I would probably
go around spewing admiration for him (if I were the sort of person who
could openly express admiration without gagging).

-- 
Richard Hayes
***
"Books are useless to us until our inner book opens; then all other
books are good so far as they confirm our book."
        (Swami Vivekananda)