Translation and Transformation

[earl]

Snoopy & Thomas-just found a great essay by a former working colleague of Wilber's which not only has insight into the man's enormous ego but also good critiques of the guy's thought and "integralism," Tend to agree with him but, also like him, see some occasional good insights coming from Wilber:

. : MatthewDallman.com : . The Official Site for Matthew Dallman's Music, Art, & Writing

have a good one, earl

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Thomas

How can ersatz Buddhism better Buddhism?
Thomas

Just an observation. I can see that if the West cherry picks what it wants from an Eastern tradition (maybe only meditation for utilitarian purposes, in the extreme) this may be seen as a negative. But Buddhism has only come to the West relatively recently, compared with its movement to other parts of the globe, so from that point of view I think it’s rather early days yet.

Also, as you may be aware, as Buddhism has moved around the globe it has changed quite considerably wherever it has gone, always adapting to local cultures (as with any global religion I imagine). So maybe now it is adapting to the ways of the West in order to mean something to the people of the West.

Buddhism has changed so much as it spread to other countries, I wonder what Siddhartha Guatama would make of his teachings if he could look around the world today. It may only be “ersatz” in the West, but is that worse or better than being virtually extinct (as it is in the land in which it was born?)

s.

[dauer]

For more criticism, see:

Ken Wilber's Philosophy, and some critical appraisals

He's quite thorough. But there's a very short overview on the right.

[earl]

I should probably clarify myself: as to title of this thread-the topic of "translative" effects of spiritual practice and/or religion vs. "transformative" effects-I do believe his thoughts on that subject are very good. earl

[earl]

As follow-up to my follow-up on that whole "translation vs. transformation" thing, might it be fair to say that, if a religion does not facilitate one's "transformation" into...well not an "enlightened, perfected" person cause gosh darn it all I think any form of "perfectionism" is a bane on humanity...a "better" person, then it and/or the one following it aren't doing their jobs? If we use any belief system to enable us to remain safely ensconced in a self-protective shell preventing us from stretching (translative strategies which keep us comfortably the same in comfortable story lines), then we are not really plumbing the depths of ourselves to transform. I tend to think nearly any religious belief system if approached with the ptoper attitude may enable its practitioners to a bit of that stretching, but, of course, many religious leaders do not approach their own religions in a transformative manner, but rather a "translative" one. earl

[Paladin]

Yup, and thats the real point of the article. Too bad that Wilber is such a character, it is hard to see a message when it's all wrapped up in personality.
Probably why "Principles before personalities" is such a strong tradition in AA

Because I never really had a lot of formal education after high school I got in the habit of reading things that might have been beyond my grasp, and then try to see if it stood up to the test of actual living. When I'm alone in my own head I can test the mettle of religious and philosophic thought to see of what worth it may be.
As far as its translative worth, nearly all the religion I have learned has been of help, and for all I know the wake really does move the boat. But to move any farther it is now up to me. Now is the time of surrender, not so much to anything as surrendering up of something.
It is at this point perhaps that the universe, the sages and saints hold their collective breath to see if there has been enough absorbtion of their words and deeds to give us the courage to step forward into the unknown.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Paladin

When I'm alone in my own head

I should keep that to yourself (/selves)

s.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

I should keep that to yourself (/selves)

s.

All the points we bring up and this is what you focus on?
(hmm didn't realize I had said that out loud )

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Paladin

All the points we bring up and this is what you focus on?
(hmm didn't realize I had said that out loud )

All the others I agreed with.

s.

[earl]

Paladin-have always loved the many wise aphorisms of AA. earl

[China Cat Sunflower]

Post-modernism isn't really a thing, it's kinda like "New Age"- more of a label for a group of activities. "Post-modernism" is concerned with surfaces. Post-modernism posits that underneath a surface is a self-referential matrix of creatively anachronistic, stylized, neo-modern mythological motifs. It therefor suggests an appraisal of the surface to see the bent structuralism underneath. Post-modern philosophy is more a critical expose of the warped structure of structuralism than an advertisement for the aesthetics of the post-modern approach to art.

Chris

[Paladin]

Thanks Chris, very informative. Does this relate to deconstructionism? I always wondered about this

[Thomas]

Hi Paladin —

I really wanted to contribute more to this debate, but every time I run out of time, and then the thing's moved on ...

I think there's a lot of mileage in Translation and Transformation, but if you want me to come at it from a Catholic perspective, then two things straight off.

The first is there's a T missing — Transcendance.
I cannot discuss this meaningfully and leave God out of the equation, after all, and I don't think Wilbur allows for the operation of grace? One of my Perennialist philosophy authors is a Tibetan Buddhist who has written on this very topic, in a positive manner, albeit different to how i would present it, but profoundly.

Wilbur does seem to be a 'self-power' type, and it is axiomatic in the Christian philosophic understanding of the term that a thing cannot transcend itself, cannot act other than of its nature, so there's a discussion right there.

The second is the tension between justice and mercy.
In the Christian tradition, Jesus continually highlights the last person you'd think of as being 'justified' (ie saved/redeemed/delivered) by God — the poor widow, the publican in the temple ... and are these not just the types Wilbur might write off as translation but not transformed?

Thomas

[Paladin]

I see what you mean Thomas, it seems problematic from a Catholic standpoint. I wonder how Br. Steindel-Rast, and Father Keating resolve this as they both seem part of the "integral" entourage so to speak.
I do think however, that Wilber's idea of transformation would include a definition of transcendance, though probably not from a God centered view.
Even though many of us have followed a religion or path, and have had some success in translating from older, dysfunctional behavior to becoming a better human being there is still a hunger for more. Now, some may claim we are merely looking for another construct to provide some relief from an inherrent existential angst, and would happily embrace another construct, more complex than the last to ease the pain.
Still, the other function of religion goes beyond this aspect for the self begins to dissolve into the Beloved as it did for St. John of the Cross and others. Regardless how we frame it, the next step beyond becoming a better human, must be to leave what we think is ourselves behind, to surrender even a healthy sense of self for what lies beyond the bend in the undergrowth, for at this point we cannot travel both paths and remain one traveler can we?

[China Cat Sunflower]

Hi Mark,

I haven't read this Wilbur guy. I read the link from the OP. It seems to me that Wilbur is equating the annihilation of the separate self with transformation. Couple of quotes:

But with transformation, the very process of translation itself is challenged, witnessed, undermined and eventually dismantled.

This is what deconstruction is after.

With typical translation, the self (or subject) is given a new way to think about the world (or objects); but with radical transformation, the self itself is inquired into, looked into, grabbed by its throat and literally throttled to death.

This is where East doesn't meet West. My question is, if the self is given a new way to think doesn't that add to self? And how is this added-to self going to start annihilating itself? How does superimposing programming over programming subtract self? The point of self deconstruction is to strip away the patina of accepted meaning and see things as they are on the very surface. The annihilation of the self is never the goal. This is an essential difference in philosophy between the East and West.

I don't know why it seems so defacto attractive to folks to give up the self. I like my self.

Chris