Date: 15 Feb 2002 11:52:57 +0200
Subject: AUT: response to tahir Re: Re: Re: Star Wars and Archetypes




>>> commie00-AT-yahoo.com 02/14/02 10:59PM >>>
> Tahir: Oh but they do! They do exactly that; they form these loving caring
communities which attract people precisely because it seems a way out of
their alienation. Islam in particular makes a very big deal out of the
community of believers.

you are seriously confusing the notions of destroying alienation and
creating community in a sense familiar to revolutionaries (and which appears
in taoist and zen buddhist literature) with this weird cultish thing.

Tahir: So the other religions I mentioned are mere cults in relation to Buddhism. Interesting. And completely separate and non-commensurable in terms of their history, content, social function too, no doubt. But if what you say above is true then by the literal content of what you have said, Buddhism is a (an almost?) revolutionary way of destroying alienation. Yes you do know much more here than I do, very much more.

that is: basically, you're kinda just showing that you don't know what
you're talking about, and trying to make generalized pot-shots at ideas
because in some instances they appear as religions. its kinda silly.

> Tahir: What I am saying is that there is nothing unique in Buddhism on any
of the criteria that you've come up with.

the absence of any possibility of transcendence into an after-life certainly
does change things a bit, methinks.

Tahir: I simply don't believe you on this one, but i'm not about to rush off to the library so I must defer to your superior bookish knowledge of arcane doctrines.

> the kind of 'conservation of energy' views that you associate with
Buddhism.

i've not said anything about "conservation of energy", and its certainly not
what i meant in my discussion of chi / ki.

Tahir: OK this is what you said (and I'll let the members of this public list decide for themselves whether this is a 'conservation of energy' view or not, I don't think that you can help me further with this one). You said:
"the closest would be the
dispersal of physical energies [which can not be created or destroyed,
remember] into everything else when we die)."
Remember now?


i'm not terribly interested in purity, and i could prolly point out more
problems in buddhism than you have so far... 

Tahir: If you're not into purity then why do you make such a big rhetorical issue out of the issue of "perversions" of Buddhism?

in some senses there isn't too much that different from neitzche, which is
one of the reasons that buddhism has a striking resemblance to
existentialism. (and this would be where some of my criticisms come in.)

Tahir: Yes there are striking resemblances between Buddhism, Nietzsche and Heidigger; you are right.

> There is nothing in what you said that points us in the direction of
dialectics as you claimed earlier.

we'll, we've not gotten around to talking about this aspect... i just
suggest checking out the tao te ching and the chaung tzu (toaist texts,
which are also important texts in zen buddhism)... there is a striking
similarity with marx in the dialectics you'll find there (esp. in the chaung
tzu).

Tahir: Yes this is what you said, and what I was responding to. There are a couple of people on this list who in responding to me made out that I had introduced this language into the debate. You said:
"philosophical taoism and zen buddhism form the backbone of materialist
and dialectical thought in asia"
Right?

and this is precisely opposite of my experience. nearly everyone i've ever
met that has more than a passing interest in buddhism and taoism are
revolutionaries.

Tahir: I accept that you have had a different experience to me. I wonder how many have had quite the experience that you describe above.

who said anything about "romantic escapism"? 

Tahir: Me. That was definitely me.

all i was saying is that people
get into this stuff (sci-fi, fantasy, etc.) as an aspect of their desire to
be dealienated. that's also why people tend to go to bars, which is rather
ironic i think.

Tahir: Not quite the same thing. Going to bars is UNromantic escapism. And as such I find it a little more ... how shall I put it .... down to earth?!

is this necessarily revolutionary? no. can it have revolutionary
implications? yes, in the sense that it can help us to understand some of
what is going on, etc.

Tahir: Well I'm also into like understanding what's going on, you know, kind of like yeah.

> And if what you claimed for Buddhism were true (dialectical, materialist,
etc.), Buddhists would be leading the anti-capitalist revolution.

i know tons of marxists who purport to be materialists and dialectians who
also openly state that they are not revolutionaries, than revolution is
impossible at this point, etc. etc. this kind of thinking is possible
anywhere, and is not indicative of any school of thought.

Tahir: Well then any school of thought is more or less as good as another, if what you say above is true. Why didn't you say that in the first place? I wouldn't have bothered with this debate.

as to the rest of what i'd say... see thomas' post. he made the rest of my
points, and also starts discussing some of the things that i agree are
problems in taoism and zen buddhism.


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free -AT-yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com 



     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---