Letters to the Editor
-
Directly Addressed
This correspondence has become peculiar to me. I'm starting to detect some teleological projections on Mr. Wallace's part. It sounds like he wants to "prove" something about "consciousness" or a Buddhist version of it using modern science, and its proceedures.
That may or may not be a worthy endeavor, but if it is not seen as a projection in some way or other I doubt it's merit, and validity. Galileo didn't set out to prove we weren't the center of the universe, he intuited it after his observations as a way to understand them. Darwin didn't "see" evolution. He saw animals primarily in relationshlip to our environment in ways that hadn't been seen before, and came up with the simplist explanation.
Implying what one day may be found to be true is highly subjective, and may act more to "hinder" the investigation than facilitate it. (Zenists may recoginize the word "hinder" from the Heart Sutra.)
From the Buddhist perspective, Mr. Wallace did not respond directly to my inquiry about whether Tibetan Buddhism requires an understanding of the "texts" in order to obtain something loosely called "enlightentment." He is the third Tibetan Buddhist author I've suggested it to, and no one has made it clear they think otherwise: that the texts ultimately don't matter. (The others being Robert Thurman, and Sogyal Rinpoche.)
In Ch'an or Zen, it doesn't matter whether there is a correllation between the "latest" mathematical, or scientific discovery or collective belief as to the nature of the universe, seen or unseen. It may be extraordinarily interesting and inspiring, but what difference does it make? Sure, it certainly appeals to the especially scientific minded, the thinkers, the scholars, the Westerners (of which I am one) and the clerics.
I think a certain vigilance is in order, especially given what has been witnessed about the problems with clerically run religions in recent years. The Dalai Lama may be the epitome of the "enlightened" theocratic leader, worthy of our deepest respect, but that can change quickly and decisively as demonstrated again and again. A Tibetan Buddhist may say that is impossible given their tradition, but doubt is a healthy tenant of any organized religion in my view.
Belief itself, as it is generally understood, is "optional" in the Zen tradition, as is the belief in specific dogmas like reincanation or heaven and hell. Am I right in assuming at this point that Tibetan Buddhism is tied to its texts in a way that may be a more literal and fundamentalist approach?
I've simply never seen the issue directly addressed, and forgive me if I am wrong, (which I won 't mind.) If Mr. Wallace wishes to respond again, or there is an Letter Writer who knows better, and where to look, please let me know.
In the end, even our most expansive and exact metaphors aren't enough, which is my belief.
-
Double-Standards Anyone? So You Let Mr. Wallace Speak His Mind...
...And yet if a Christian dared to challenge the dogma of materialistic reductionism by attributing the Creation event to a Creator you would call him an ignorant-science-hating-wee-brained Bible-thumper. If we dare assert that there is something beyond the purely physical, we are ridiculed. FACE IT EDITORS: you would never, ever let a Bible-believing Christian post an article on this website concerning the failure of science to explain our existence. You would never let a Bible-believing Christian publish an article concerning the very real problems that plague evolutionary paradigm. You would never dare let a Christian expose the impossibility of a self-creating Universe.
You do not hesitate to let a Buddhist openly challenge naturalistic philosophy on your website. Mr. Wallace, please understand that this is not directed towards you, but you must admit that there is an obvious double-standard being commited by the editors of this site.
-
If a Big Hairy God
...is a silly thing to worship, so is a jolly-bellied man who spent his life under a tree.
Science is even sillier to worship.
Any of these things are perfectly fine to yearn after or dedicate your life to.
Just do them. Science can prove itself. So can loving behavior, which is all that matters about any of it.
Say...was the science behind the atom bomb a pure good? Evidence-based, and all.
If you want to pick some beliefs to subscribe to, take your doubts along. And don't worry so much about getting everybody to agree with you.
If you "get it", whether you're doing mitzvahs, paying the poor tax, riding your missionary bicycle, or building anti-cancers vaccines...
Just do good. Be guided by compassion.
That'll do, pig. That'll do.
-
Dear Richard,
Stop being such a richardhead and try the search function. In fact, Salon has provided many points of view over the years. Likewise, they're provided this open forum of letters for quite some time for all manner of perople, even richardheads, to respond.
Unfortunately for you, whether Buddhist or Christian or even Richard Dawkins, opinions are like assholes: everyone has one and most of them just fart.
So, Dick, you have this free letters column. Howzabowt you prove to us all about Jesus and God and whatever the fuck it is you're whining about? If it's that simple, have at it. Unless you wish to cry "persecution" because someone at Wal-Mart didn't wish you a Merry Christmas because Jesus is the reason for the season.
Well, Dick?
-
Prudent thoughts should not be dismissed
This is equivalent to claiming we should look for the cause of global warming outside the solar system merely because every temperature spike hasn't yet been attributed to a terrestrial activity.
Michael J. Murphy
Probably a 50% chance this is exactly the problem...
Excellent brainstormin
-
Re: Center for Consciousness Studies
Borinquena says: "The University of Arizona has a Center for Consciousness Studies, and their website has links to abstracts, publications and online courses. More info here: http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu"
I used to live near the UA campus in a row of houses that were mostly being used to shelter various labs. The house to the east of mine hosted a study into communicating with the afterlife, for instance. The occupants of the house to the west attempted to "cure" sexual predators with electroshock. (A neighbor helped them move and glimpsed "the world's largest polygraph" in a closet.) The house catty-corner behind the alley hosted regular pow-wows with drum circles.
Every campus has such extrapolative and multi-disciplinary research.
An earlier writer pointed out that gauging consciousness using PET and MRI was like discerning the processes of a computer by monitoring its power consumption. This, of course, is a familiar technique that has been used to break the encryption of smart cards, for instance.
The question isn't whether such research is desirable or even possible - the question is how one constructs a protocol rooted not just in scientific enquiry, but in empiricism and logic. One can certainly posit hypotheses relating to inward experiences and arrange "challenges" (if the word "experiment" makes you nervous) that test these hypotheses. Statistical techniques abound to allow even purely anecdotal results to be characterized.
If voicing the intended research as some set of null hypotheses to test is indeed acceptable, this line of research is as scientific (although perhaps not as productive) as any other. If, on the other hand, the very notion of empirical inquiry is deemed unacceptable, then it isn't just science that is being rejected, it is research and reason. What remains is not empiricism, but perhaps the "empathicalism" doted on by Audrey Hepburn's character in "Funny Face".
Eventually the labs (and my house) were flattened for a new parking garage. Presumably the research continues.
Science and religion aren't opponents, they jointly motivate the seeking of enlightenment in a world governed by Mammon.