[Buddha-l] sam harris at the aspen institute

[Joy Vriens]

Hi Curt,

>Just this morning on Democracy Now, a speech by Canadian author and 
>activist Naomi Klein was played. The speech had been delivered to a 
>meeting of sociologists in California. One of the main points of her 
>speech was just exactly what Joy is saying above. In particular she 
>pointed out how the fall of Soviet style "communism" is now touted as 
>"proof" that unrestrained capitalism is the only system that "works". 
>This has been taken to mean that all forms of socialistic and/or 
>"welfare state" style systems have "failed". 

Yes, that was exactly what I had in mind and I hesitated to bring in the exemple of the fall of communism. Marxism can't be reduced to Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Paul Pot. And if marxism doesn't work, that doesn't entail that all of its objectives are wrong and ought to be given up. Having grown up in a family with brothers and sisters, sharing, helping and solidarity morally feel like the most natural things to do. Of course, reality doesn't always reflect that ideal. But that is not a reason to simply discard it. 
 
>This reasoning is actually very similar to that employed by Sam Harris 
>and others who insists that "all religions" have been shown to be forms 
>of mental illness and/or mental deficiency. Harris believes that the Mel 
>Gibsons, Bin Ladens and Sai Babas of the world "prove" something about 
>religion in general - just as people like George Bush believe that the 
>evils of Soviet style "communism" prove that guarneteeing universal 
>basic medical care for children is a bad idea. The conclusions do not 
>follow from the evidence presented - except for those who are already 
>convinced (or very very very easily convinced). 

I don't see "religion" (identity and motivation building) as a phenomenon that is merely limited to religions. The "mental illness and mental deficiency" that Harris seems to detect in religions are much more widespread and they often even share the same "religious" caracteristics without seeming to recognise them. I have a problem with militants like Sam Harris, Michel Onfray, Richard Dawkins and other - as I see them - Rationalistic fundamentalists. I know that modern communication requires to take a clear point of view and to say it loudly, clearly and repeatedly, but I think it has its negative side effects. Part of me thinks like them but I find their style counterproductive. Being heard, really heard, is not about quantity but quality. Moreover, it is difficult to imagine a rationality junkie locking himself up into expressing a specific point of view or being a figurehead, without losing some of their credibility. 

I saw an interesting exhibition on witchcraft and healing in a small town in Auvergne (Chateaugay) today. One of their conclusions was that science took over from witchcraft, not only the objectives but also its less rational aspects. If science takes over irrational objectives like destruction and mass destruction, how rational can it be?

Joy