[lbo-talk] Re: Disagreement, Buddhism, Self-Realization

andie nachgeborenen andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com
Mon Dec 8 13:00:33 PST 2003


You don't have to read Rawls to get the political point of the insight I attributedto him, which is that we cannot base our politics on the idea that Buddhism or self-realization theory or Christianity or Islam or utilitarianianm, or any othe deep philosophical theory is true, You may have the correcttheory of the self or the lack of it. You may be right that reduction of suiffering is the true point of life. But others will dusagree, Therefore, we have to come up with ways of talking that will appeal to people who disagree with each other about deep and important matters. Our politics cannot depend on theories of the self, metaphysics, the nature of the good life, etc. Otherwise theyw ill be marginal or totalitarian.

jks

--- BklynMagus <magcomm at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Dear List:
>
> Ted writes:
>
> > As I've pointed out before, the concept of the
> "good" embodied in Marx's idea of the "universally
> developed individual" is inconsistent with imposing
> it on anyone. Its essence is the ethical idea of
> "mutual
> recognition," a relation completely free from
> domination and coercion. It can only be realized if
> individuals self-consciously desire it and are able
> to arrange their conditions of life, including their
> developmental conditions, in accordance with its
> requirements.
>
> To me the problem lies in the creation of self and
> other. In understanding that other is self and self
> is other and that both are in a constant state of
> interconnectedness, questions of dominance and
> coercion disappear. Since people are already
> involved in a relationship of dependent origination,
> the revolution that is needed is the recognition of
> this reality. To me Marx can be corrected by
> changing "mutual recognition" to "mutual
> interdependence/interbeing."
>
> > Its claims about "rational self-interest" are very
> different from Rawls's. It claims a rational person
> would wish to live creating and appropriating beauty
> and truth within relations of mutual recognition.
> Marx's ideal distribution rule, for instance, is
> designed to realize this end. It enables
> individuals to live lives of this kind.
>
> I am unfamiliar with Rawls (he is on my list), but
> where I see a problem is in the positing of the
> notion of a "rational person." It is true that
> every person has the capacity to be rational, but
> any decision made by a person is usually informed by
> rationality as well as affective/emotive
> needs/desires. I do not see how they can be
> separated.
>
> While I agree that creation is vital, trying to
> "appropriate" causes the problem of attachment. Why
> can't beauty and other goods be appreciated rather
> than appropriated? Again, I would maintain that
> when a person tries to appropriate it is an attempt
> on her part to reinforce a shaky sense of
> self-identity that she feels can be remedied through
> acquisition/consumption.
>
> As for mutual recognition, I view this as just a
> step away from Vietnamese thinker Thich Naht Hanh's
> notion of interbeing. Whereas mutual recognition is
> acknowledgement of a separate self equal to one's
> own, interbeing acknowledges that the divide between
> self and other is illusionary: other is self.
>
>
> > Even if all irrationality is the outcome of
> inadequate conditions of development, however, it
> isn't obvious how conditions can be changed in the
> way required.
>
> Well, I am not sure that irrationality is the
> outcome of inadequate conditions of development.
> For me such a belief goes back to Plato and his
> elevation of thinking over emotion and reinforced by
> Descartes and his misthinking. To me it is dubious
> to think that the elimination of inadequate
> conditions will eliminate irrationality.
>
> Irrationality is not the problem; neither is
> rationality. Both will take part in the shaping of
> desires, needs and actions. To me what is necessary
> is a framework through which the products of these
> processes are judged and implemented. The appeal to
> me of Buddhism is that it does not try to create
> good, but instead seeks to end suffering.
>
> Brian Dauth
> Queer Buddhist Resister
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk

__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now http://companion.yahoo.com/



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list