11.24.08
New Age confusions
James replies to Hucklebird comment on Is deep evolution beyond the limits of knowledge:
Stephen P. Smith said,
November 23, 2008 at 10:14 pm ·
It is only science that must face not having an answer.
Religion does not need to explain what becomes self evident, as religion is not about explaining. Science is about explaining. Spirituality has to do with feeling and self evdence, and religion grew out of spirituality.
Evolution cannot be explained independent of substance for the simple reason that explanation is abstract and substance is concrete. Substance can only be caricature, and when pressed the caricature fails. Darwin’s theory running on a computer will find itself disconnected from substance, and hence it won’t do what people say it can do.
I don’t think you are giving people like Wilber and Cohen enough credit in providing a workable aternative to what will take us beyond fundamentalism on both sides. The “New Age†caricature won’t work anymore.
Last night, the liberal PBS had a special program with Deepak Copra. And this is most remarkable for a secular media outlet to give air time to a spiritualist. It was not the first time I seen an example like this on PBS. A few months about there was a PBS special on Taoism and Wayne W. Dyer. This is the same contradicted PBS that pushes Darwinism. But what is not appreciated is that secularism is found being a breeding ground for spiritualists that hunger for meaning and spiritual significance.
The secularist first fool themselves into believing that Darwin’s evolution is consistent with Copra’s vitalism. But having accepted Copra’s vitalism the seeds that will deconstruct Darwin have been planted.
——————–
James said,
November 24, 2008 at 3:50 pm ·
“I don’t think you are giving people like Wilber and Cohen enough credit in providing a workable aternative to what will take us beyond fundamentalism on both sides. The “New Age†caricature won’t work anymore.â€
The problem is that Wilber, Cohen, and Chopra don’t exhibit any competence in either science or religion. In order to create a “workable alternative,†first, you have to know what you are talking about. Actually, they have some value as unintentional comedians as they lack the self-awareness to realize their own status as dilettantes.
In the final analysis you have to find out the hard way about who’s who and what’s what with spiritual teachers, so Hucklebird’s view is perfectly OK. And yet I tend to agree with James about the way in which shallow so-called spiritual teachings lead to very little. I should however say that there is a kind of sadness in the question. So many gurus since the seventies, Da Free John a fuckup, Cohen a kind of instant replacement, now a fuckup, books on spiritual psychology, one and another a bust, Mr. supersmart Wilbur enters to settle the question, his integral yoga another fuckup. All the ‘New Age’ activity is encountering a peculiar obstacle, one I have tried to point out.
There are many things to say here, but the obvious problem on one level is that people are too confused by 1. Christian theology 2. reductionist scientism 3. ‘New Age’ exploitations and deceptions 4. emnity from social conformist culture
to embark on a spiritual path. It didn’t use to be that way. After the field clears a bit, we will see.
As to Wilbur, whether New Age or not, I think I could write a better spiritual psychology that what he has produced.
Stephen P. Smith said,
November 25, 2008 at 2:34 pm
The only confusion I see is the tendency to make caricatures of those we have disagreements with: e.g., claiming they lack competence in science when we are talking about philosophy, or pretending that they are comedians, and all this without providing any evidence.
James said,
November 25, 2008 at 6:49 pm
“The only confusion I see is the tendency to make caricatures of those we have disagreements with…”
Give me a break. These characters caricature themselves. Cohen’s magazine is called “EnlightenNext” for crying out loud. Actually, I have my suspicions that Cohen is actually a comedian who created this elaborate hoax in order to parody the New Age movement. If so, then he would top Sokal and I might actually have some respect for him.
Stephen P. Smith said,
November 26, 2008 at 1:07 am
James, I am sure that Cohen would respond: that only you can give yourself a break. In as much as Cohen is not overwhelmed with the pressure of disagreement, and in as much that Cohen is willing to show yourself some level of compassion and helpfulness, then that would speak well for his particular level of enlightenment. Yet none of this says anything about Cohen being a “New Age guru”!
James said,
November 26, 2008 at 5:15 pm
I don’t know what the problem is. Why do you give a sh*t what I think? Rest assured, I’m too insignificant for Cohen or anyone else to care about. It is none of my business if people want to follow Cohen in his unwitting destruction of any progress that humanity has made in science, religion, philosophy, etc. We’re already getting f*cked over by government, scientists, business, religionists, etc. so I doubt it will really matter if Cohen joins the orgy. It remains to be seen whether humanity has contracted an incurable STD.
nemo said,
November 26, 2008 at 9:38 pm
…and this is a very practical issue of a person’s autonomy. You can’t do anything around these gurus, because you have given up the means to do so. It is only when you are alone that you can do anything (and being alone I admit has its problems).
Stephen P. Smith said,
November 27, 2008 at 10:01 am
Understand that there is revealed an issue with autonomy when it is found conflicting with freedom. When autonomy is found identified with the ego then it is seen falling for a type of reductionism: e.g., reality is about survival of the fittest, and I am the fittest among you because I can type the loudest and use four letter words when I am pressed. Nevertheless, such an ego is found fighting its own bad karma, such an ego never gives itself a break, it has lost its freedom.
True freedom is discovered when the spirit is able to identify with something beyond the ego. Such a spirt escapes the ego with its narrow reductionism. It finds freedom and is able to transcend. Transcendence is enlightenment. It is Cohen’s evolution as much as I can tell.
I contend that there is much value it talking about Cohen. There is value because there is much virtual in learning how to agree to disagree with grace. The rightness of Cohen claims as said guru is less of an issue here. What is important is that we can debate Cohen positions with the highest level of grace.
Likewise, the rightness of Darwinism is also less of an issue. The issue returns to the grace of debate that no longer sees the spoils going to the fittest victor. Ironically, with this enlightened debate the wrongness of Darwin’s theory is revealed. In as much that Cohen is willing to sacrifice his claims for a greater vision beyond his ego then that would demonstrate his enlightenment independent of what he says.
nemo said,
November 27, 2008 at 6:33 pm
The problem for me is that I don’t trust these people. Every guru I have followed since the seventies turned out to be unworthy of trust. There is something awry in the whole game.
James said,
November 27, 2008 at 8:01 pm
“True freedom is discovered when the spirit is able to identify with something beyond the ego. Such a spirt escapes the ego with its narrow reductionism. It finds freedom and is able to transcend. Transcendence is enlightenment. It is Cohen’s evolution as much as I can tell.”
This exemplifies my problem (among many others) with the Cohen/New Age types. Notice how their language is too vague and excessively metaphysical/mystical to mean anything. You never get a sense of what they’re talking about when they refer to “ego,” “enlightenment,” “ground of being,” “transcendence,” etc. This usually indicates to me that either they’re snake oil salesmen who are taking advantage of people’s fantasies about “spirituality” or that they’re delusional.
The Gurdjieff Con » Andrew Cohen debate said,
November 28, 2008 at 3:44 pm
[...] Debate at Darwiniana in the comments, over Andrew Cohen. The question of Cohen isn’t hard to answer: it is not a set of abstractions about gurus. He is not a helpful individual, and has a very definite agenda of his own. If you aren’t hep to the authoritarian anti-democracy of these people I’d say stay well well away and don’t be suckered into anything on the basis of someone claiming to be enlightened. [...]
Stephen P. Smith said,
November 30, 2008 at 4:47 pm
There are three levels to trust: trust yourself; trust others; and trust the transcendent. If there is anything less we grow ticklish of the other, but we are never ticklish of ourselves, and we rarely take flight from ourselves. Likewise, there are three levels to love: love yourself; love others; and love God.
When mistakes are discovered and trust is broken we return to these three levels. The self-evident tension is then able to resolves its self, and we purify our intentions. Ironically, if there is no harm intended to self, others, and God, then the pregiven spirit is able to find itself even as it falls into slumber and makes mistakes. We correct our mistakes, and trust is won again. We are no longer ticklish of the other when the trust returns, but even a ticklish flight indicates an innate vitality that has to do with the lesson of threes that must be brought into focus again.
Likewise, we remember Kant’s third antinomy and avoid heated arguments, and note the strangeness of the heat generated that has to do with feelings. The heat strangely pulls ourselves into the antinomy, the heat lets us navigate the transcendent, but we must remember the above three-point principle that permits error recognition in heated conflicts.