[lbo-talk] Re: Bush and His God

BklynMagus magcomm at ix.netcom.com
Tue Jun 15 10:57:45 PDT 2004


Dear List:

Chris wrote:


> But anyway what I think he is denying is that, for a given set
of experiences, there is a single subject, the "I", underlying them. (I think he is wrong, but let's not go there.)

Here are three links I found this morning.

This one I find intriguing. It concentrates on no-self being an approach to the issue of suffering:

http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/awakening101/noself.html

This one is no-self from another angle:

http://www.serve.com/cmtan/buddhism/Misc/noself.html

This is a general explanation:

http://buddhism.about.com/library/weekly/aa070702a.htm

Now for a concrete example.

I have written before about Cuba and its persecution of queers. A Buddhist analysis might run this way:

A concept of self was posited in that heterosexual selves could be revolutionary and homosexual selves could not. With this template in place, those who did not match the preferred template of self were persecuted, while those who did were not.

To me it would have been better to question what empirically measurable harm does homosexual behavior cause? In fact, harm comes only to those who cling to templates of selves that condemn homosexual behavior as a wrong type of self.

I do make two assumptions here: 1) human beings seek to avoid suffering; and 2) a prime purpose of left activism is to reduce suffering.

As Christian pointed out, we operate in a world that does (by and large) believe in self. I think that while leftists must work within this framework to achieve their goals, they should also seek to change it since many of the problems are generated by this very framework. Identity politics was an example of the left using concepts of self as weapons again elites who used oppressive concepts of self. While it helped highlight the role concepts of self played in social/community life, in the long run I do not believe it to be an effective means of change. People are still caught in a web of selves, albeit "positive" selves.

Take sexuality again: queer rights begat alternative sexuality rights begat bisexual rights begat . . . (whatever is next).

In each case, an identity had to be formed, advertised, acquire adherents and then press for recoginition and rights (simplified I know, but I hope you get my point).

To me a more useful analysis is: which sexual behaviors cause suffering? I also see Ted's concept of rational consciousness playing a part here in that it is through the exercise of rational consciousness that questions of what does and does not cause suffering can be addressed and answered.

When I write about no-self, I am not saying that anyone either on or off the list does not exist. I am trying to suggest that we may exist in another way, and that utilizing this insight may be helpful to leftist causes.

Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list