I was off from work today and had a chance to catch up on some reading. I was cutting through a book about the relationship between Buddhist thought and cognitive science (The Embodied Mind by Francesco Varela, Evan Thompson and Eleanor Rosch). You really have to plow your way through this book; it’s very dense with complex thought, although you can usually stay up with the authors if you go slow. However, it becomes incomprehensible whenever Buddhist doctrines are discussed. The two key Buddhist doctrines being flouted here are 1.) the falsity of “self”, and 2.) the ultimate emptiness and groundlessness of everything.
Well, that certainly covers a lot of ground (except that ‘ground’ ultimately doesn’t exist). We believe that we have stable, if slowly changing, self-identities; and that we live in a world that is “really there”. But certain Buddhists seem to think it’s all an illusion. Or mostly an illusion. Or an illusion in one sense, but not in another. Somehow, this confusion is supposed to break our egos (not unlike what a Zen koan sets out to do), and turn us into wiser, kinder and gentler beings. Once we stop grasping for fixed identities, we can then just experience things “straight up”, open-heartedly, without self-delusions.
Yea right.
The biggest problem with Buddhist thought, in my opinion, is its lack of respect for words. They don’t give much regard to the notion that “words have meaning” (which is consistent with their focus on meditative experience). So they can be sloppy with even the most important words like “truth”. Varela and company talk about “relative truths” and “ultimate truths”, but warn that neither are part of a “theory of truth”. The ultimate of ultimate truths is the emptiness of the world. And that would also include the concept of truth. If so, then truth is an empty concept; it can be whatever anyone wants (thus all truth becomes “relative truth”). That’s not what this book affirms, but its flip-flopping notions of what “truth” means would do nothing to prevent this. I suspect that criminal defense lawyers would love to convince judges and juries to adopt this book’s way of thinking.
As to throwing away our notion of “self” and the overly-inflated ego that often goes with it: I’ll be the first to acknowledge that many, if not most, people could use a good dose of humility. Ego causes a lot of trouble. But to nuke the ego and turn everyone into compassionate, compliant zombies – that scheme would work only if you absolutely guarantee 100% effectiveness. If just one person kept their ego, he or she would then become the ruler of the planet. In the real world, egos are a pretty good defense against power mongering and sales pitches and political speeches. Admittedly, the “self” and its ego are not permanent, and are not always good. In extreme instances (e.g., severe head injuries or traumas), the “self” can be terminated and replaced by a new personality. But self and ego are rough working concepts that make sense in the world such as it is.
Another rough working concept that makes sense, at least here in the West, is that “words have meaning”. Philosophers and scientists can prove that words and language could not and do not perfectly “represent” the world. Reality is always a bit more complex than our concepts. But we do need these concepts to maintain law and order, along with industry and commerce and science and education. We have to respect our words, not devalue them in favor of “enlightenment through sitting”. Hell, even in the Far East, most Buddhists these days seem more interested in making a buck than in folding their legs and slowing their breathing until the inner light of wisdom shines. And to make a buck, you have to assume that words have meaning. When China sells a batch of big-screen TV’s and then buys some US Treasury Bonds, it is not willing to accept “relative truths” about payment schedules.
I will be the first to admit that old-fashioned “objectivism” is on the ropes these days; there’s not much you can be sure of anymore. Nihilism is certainly a problem; radical jihad may well be a nihilist reaction to the failings of the Enlightenment. The USA can show the world how to to get rich (albeit with the side effect of unfair wealth distribution). But it doesn’t offer much else to believe in, other than “free elections” (which are good, but aren’t the stuff that one builds their life around). Nonetheless, I don’t think that Buddhist approaches such as “empty-minded open-heartedness” are the answer. I think that we need to press on in order to find compelling ideas and ideals that everyone can grasp and believe in.
Descartes gave us half an answer – we all know that even if nothing else exists, one thing does – we ourSELVES exist! And we know something else almost as fundamental: i.e., that we crave relationship with something else. Preferably something else having an existence much like our own, with thinking and self-consciousness. I.e., relationship with OTHER PEOPLE. Without such relationship we know that we malfunction and ultimately shut down, even if all of our physiological needs for nutrition and air and heat are met.
If our species, in its search for meaning, could lock-on to the necessity of relationship, to the sacredness of having other self-egos that our own self-ego can relate to (without dominance or force, which ultimately corrodes all relationships) — well, that would surely go a long way towards realizing a better world.
Jim,
The last paragraph of your blog expressed something I have held for 45+ years: the necessity of RELATIONSHIPS and the SACREDNESS of having other selves to whom we can relate. And I should stress RELATIONSHIPS IN GENERAL–not just relationships in marriage in particular. I only know one more person who has thought this concept. And then here it appears in your blog.
There is a crying need for just such sacredness in relationships–all kinds of them. Too many people today think of relationships as “throw away”, replaceable, or easily disposed of. What a tragedy. This concept is one an individual can live by and the expression of it in one’s life has many permutations.
What an important concept–and here it is–in a sense “buried” at the bottom of one of your blogs. Yet not “buried” but the conclusion of some very good thinking expressed in the first part of your blog.
On your other topics: I went thru my “Buddhist phase” some years ago–and my “Transcendental” phase some years before that. I have to say that I still “use” some of the techniques I learned from both of these “phases.” For instance, I find them very, very useful ways of quieting my body and mind when I get really upset at life’s problems. They have good techniques for these kinds of situations.
But I must say that I eventually decided against Buddhism for a couple of reasons: One was that I began to realize that they had as long a history of various sects and beliefs as the RCs do–perhaps longer! (Good grief!) The second, and “piece de resistance” was discovering that the Buddhists (or perhaps SOME of them) hold that a male monk of one day is far holier than a female monk of 40 years–simply because he is male and she is female. I don’t think so!
But as I said, I still use the techniques for “stillness” that I learned. They are very helpful in a stressful world.
Another problem with Buddhism is that if this world doesn’t matter, then who cares if one is rich or poor and/or exploits one or the other? Usually the rich exploiting the poor. Justice seems to fly out the window.
As I read your blog, I tho’t of Clinton and his: “Depends on how you define ‘is'” comment. Which also fits right in with Pontius Pilate and his “What is truth?” And come to think of it, Clinton was denying a relationship in his “is comment.”
Granted, one can make a case for truth being relative–but in the world we live in, I do think that some things are true, e.g., whether something happened or did not happen in this reality. There are people in this world who will say something and know it is not true; then say the same thing again and begin to wonder if it is true; and then say it a third time and know, without a doubt, that it is true. Such relativity about truth disturbs me. There may be a place for “tripping” over into other dimensions–but in the end one has to LIVE in THIS reality; and thus the rules of THIS reality should/must prevail.
I definitely liked your idea about the ego and it’s being a “good defense against power mongering and sales pitches and political speeches.” But then again, I’m constantly amazed at what people will believe. If it’s on TV or written down, it has to be true, according to some people.
And I liked your comments about democracy. In fact, today I found myself thinking about your concept that all the U.S. has to offer others is “how to get rich” and “free elections.” Unfortunately, you have hit the nail on the head–“unfortunately” because it is only too true.
Well, my comments do not come close to your very well expressed blog. I must say that you certainly have a gem of a blog here.
MCS
Comment by Anonymous — December 31, 2007 @ 10:08 am
Jim,
The last paragraph of your blog expressed something I have held for 45+ years: the necessity of RELATIONSHIPS and the SACREDNESS of having other selves to whom we can relate. And I should stress RELATIONSHIPS IN GENERAL–not just relationships in marriage in particular. I only know one more person who has thought this concept. And then here it appears in your blog.
There is a crying need for just such sacredness in relationships–all kinds of them. Too many people today think of relationships as “throw away”, replaceable, or easily disposed of. What a tragedy. This concept is one an individual can live by and the expression of it in one’s life has many permutations.
What an important concept–and here it is–in a sense “buried” at the bottom of one of your blogs. Yet not “buried” but the conclusion of some very good thinking expressed in the first part of your blog.
On your other topics: I went thru my “Buddhist phase” some years ago–and my “Transcendental” phase some years before that. I have to say that I still “use” some of the techniques I learned from both of these “phases.” For instance, I find them very, very useful ways of quieting my body and mind when I get really upset at life’s problems. They have good techniques for these kinds of situations.
But I must say that I eventually decided against Buddhism for a couple of reasons: One was that I began to realize that they had as long a history of various sects and beliefs as the RCs do–perhaps longer! (Good grief!) The second, and “piece de resistance” was discovering that the Buddhists (or perhaps SOME of them) hold that a male monk of one day is far holier than a female monk of 40 years–simply because he is male and she is female. I don’t think so!
But as I said, I still use the techniques for “stillness” that I learned. They are very helpful in a stressful world.
Another problem with Buddhism is that if this world doesn’t matter, then who cares if one is rich or poor and/or exploits one or the other? Usually the rich exploiting the poor. Justice seems to fly out the window.
As I read your blog, I tho’t of Clinton and his: “Depends on how you define ‘is'” comment. Which also fits right in with Pontius Pilate and his “What is truth?” And come to think of it, Clinton was denying a relationship in his “is comment.”
Granted, one can make a case for truth being relative–but in the world we live in, I do think that some things are true, e.g., whether something happened or did not happen in this reality. There are people in this world who will say something and know it is not true; then say the same thing again and begin to wonder if it is true; and then say it a third time and know, without a doubt, that it is true. Such relativity about truth disturbs me. There may be a place for “tripping” over into other dimensions–but in the end one has to LIVE in THIS reality; and thus the rules of THIS reality should/must prevail.
I definitely liked your idea about the ego and it’s being a “good defense against power mongering and sales pitches and political speeches.” But then again, I’m constantly amazed at what people will believe. If it’s on TV or written down, it has to be true, according to some people.
And I liked your comments about democracy. In fact, today I found myself thinking about your concept that all the U.S. has to offer others is “how to get rich” and “free elections.” Unfortunately, you have hit the nail on the head–“unfortunately” because it is only too true.
Well, my comments do not come close to your very well expressed blog. I must say that you certainly have a gem of a blog here.
MCS
Comment by Anonymous — December 31, 2007 @ 10:08 am