How Nonsectarian is 'Nonsectarian'?

[Balder]

Sean recently shared with me an essay titled, "How Nonsectarian is 'Nonsectarian'?: Jorge Ferrer's Pluralist Alternative to Tibetan Buddhist Inclusivism." 

Here is the abstract, and the essay is attached below.

"This paper queries the logic of the structure of hierarchical philosophical
systems. Following the Indian tradition of siddhānta, Tibetan Buddhist
traditions articulate a hierarchy of philosophical views. The ‘Middle Way’
philosophy or Madhyamaka—the view that holds that the ultimate truth is
emptiness—is, in general, held to be the highest view in the systematic
depictions of philosophies in Tibet, and is contrasted with realist schools of
thought, Buddhist and non-Buddhist. But why should an antirealist or nominalist
position be said to be ‘better’ than a realist position? What is the criterion
for this claim and is it, or can it, be more than a criterion that is traditionspecific
for only Tibetan Buddhists? In this paper, I will look at the criteria to
evaluate Buddhist philosophical traditions, particularly as articulated in what
came to be referred as the ‘nonsectarian’ (ris med) tradition. I draw from the
recent work of Jorge Ferrer to query the assumptions of the hierarchical
structures of ‘nonsectarian’ traditions and attempt to articulate an evaluative
criteria for a nonsectarian stance that are not based solely on metaphysical or
tradition-specific claims."

[13w6cecaz7s7h]

thanks for the dissing remarks

we meet again when you are a little more mature , maybe.

in any case i am forever young and fresh .....what about you?

you sound pretty old and hard and frustrated to me.

in any case ,

i stick to those teachings that actual manage to produce something usefull

like joy and happyness...........

rather then the hot air your popo mo talk produce

plus the depression that comes with it.

life is not an argument nor will you be able to argue with death when he arrives,....

but i am sure you have a good argument for me again : ))

be well and enjoy

mm

[13w6cecaz7s7h]

hi theurji

since i live sometimes in italy like right now for example, it was hard not to hear the story

http://www.11alive.com/video/3455708845001/1/Floribeth-Mora-Diaz-Jo...

so , as you can see IF you care to take note , even in the old catholic church strange things happen ,miracles , and this one is  well documented , with brain scans and neurosurgeons being totally baffled....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/vaticancityandholy...

explain that away ....

i am sure you will manage : ))

MM

[13w6cecaz7s7h]

anyway this confirmed sanctification of pope john paul 2nd  due his 2 necessary miracle workings

both scientifically impossible but scientifically verified, loops this discussion back nicely to ferrer´s point.

it is quite unscientific to just ignore evidence because it doesn´t fit in my nice little postmetaphysical

concepts box. rather i suggest with my poor argumentative skills that we (the popomo west, of course i am exempted here since i am premo, anyway, stuck there) should maybe start to question the very foundation modernity is standing on. just like for example elias capriles has done , but hey i forgot, you guys dont like him, because he is a little awkward and i admit has terrible writing skills , but he does know how to lay out an argument though.and admitted he might not be right in all of his ideas

but at least he is not completely brainwashed by the modern and its necessary consequential pomo & popomo ideology prevailing ....here.

open mind means really something else than what you guys here are celebrating as far as i can see.oh i forgot ,i dont see because i am premod....: )

and btw : the so called "human caused climate change"  is scientifically not yet ...proven !

far from it.its just a lie ,perpetrated by blind fanatics and others who use them to make huge amounts of cash, independant science is something else altogether , then that circus

so thats another of those indications that some people here (this site) think that they see more then the rest of us , when they are in effect almost blind themselves.

if you want to really know how advanced popomo is : just look to europe and especially germany : there you can see how popomo is in the process of creating the first post post modern dictaturship : as usually all in the name of a great idea and for the benefit of all humankind like the other 2 before.

if you have still one eye  to see ,you might learn a thing or to about what your half cooked ideas are able to do

when applied in political reality.

habermas , adorno ,horchheimer, marcuse,fromm ,heidegger ,gramsci and not to forget good ole marx etc

send them

greetings !

mm

[Layman Pascal]

Hey Max,

You have such a way with people!

It is certainly unscientific to be unscientific. Hard to argue with that.  The conservations going on in the world do not tell us what people are doing -- only what they claim to be doing.  And often there is very good reason to doubt what they claim.  Some miracles are possible but we also have good reason to doubt them.  "Scientific verification" of miracles has historically often not been very "scientific".

In a similar way the popomo and pomo societies are not actually very pomo. They just use new words.  There is nothing pomo about political correctness, for example. It is just another form of conformity.

In Europe and a few other places there has been some more pomo development that in large parts of America. So Europe sees more of the good and bad things which emerge.  Other countries still have to attain pomo.  The question is -- how do we make pomo healthy enough, natural enough and strong enough that it can protect itself and transform into real popomo?  

Not very many people on this site defend the common idea of human-caused global warming. We should be skeptical of that idea... but even more skeptical of skeptics!  Really it is not very important whether human-caused climate change is true or not.  What we need is for people to take more robust and intelligent control over the ecosystem so that we can ensure that it does more of what is good for us. If we have to encourage foolishness and lies to make that happen it is a small price to pay. 

The creation of ecological religion and popomo dictatorships (strong, healthy ones) are very good things... if they are handled correctly. Old-fashioned, well-established, pre-modern methods of mind-strength, energetic empowerment and spiritual transformation will provide us with very important tools in accomplish the necessary changes. We might change the phrasing a little. It is not important to "believe the old ideas" in order to use the ancient methods.

So what could you tell us that would be helpful?

How about:

Where are the Europeans currently having their greatest success?

(using your standard of success, of course)

PS - Rock on.

[Edward theurj Berge]

"Not very many people on this site defend the common idea of human-caused global warming."

I'm going to trust the IPCC on this one. See this detailed wiki entry.

"According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it is 'extremely likely' that human influence was the dominant cause of global warming between 1951 and 2010.^[2] The IPCC defines 'extremely likely' as indicating a probability of 95 to 100%, based on an expert assessment of all the available evidence." ^[3]

[andrew]

Lp said: 

What we need is for people to take more robust and intelligent control over the ecosystem so that we can ensure that it does more of what is good for us.

But this is very true, nevertheless. As long as we can come to a common sense consensus.

[Edward theurj Berge]

When 97% of climate scientists say we are the "very likely" cause of global warming, that's about a good a consensus as you can get. And if we are to reverse the process, we need to do so from addressing the cause. If we just say "well maybe it's part of the problem but not so much" then our action to reduce human emissions is also not so much. And if the IPCC, using hundreds of scientific orgs and thousands of scientists from dozens of countries, not only determines the cause but give us serious recommendations for addressing this dire problem, we'd better get really busy now. And yes, those cures will be hard and bitter and require significant sacrifice. But the alternative?

And again, if we don't accept the overwhelming science about the seriousness of the problem, that the alternative is ultimately catastrophic climate change,* then we are not so motivated to do nearly enough in time. It might already be too late no matter what we do, but I'd rather die trying than give up. And/or deny that it's happening and sink back into my cozy integral, or not so integral, worldview.

* Of which there are ample current examples.

[Layman Pascal]

So what does it mean to say "Not very many people on this site defend the common idea of human-caused global warming"? 

It necessarily means that some people will defend it.

On the other hand, we can see that the words "common" and "human-caused" and "global warming" were used for their flexibility.

This is a site where, I suspect, there is not the kind of simplistic liberal TV-consensus that Max is reacting against. Rather this site attracts participants who often have intelligent but slightly idiosyncratic holdings of this situation. Although, as I somewhat playfully tried to suggest above, despite the variation one probably finds here a lot of people who support global ecological transformation -- even at the risk of a certain zeal and dogma -- and despite their capacity for skepticism about any given piece of the emergent story.

For example, the whole issue about how integral methodological pluralism treats "climate change" as a plural entity is decidedly NOT the "common human-caused global warming". However that is not in any sense a denial or rejection of the current consensus on the subject. 

So my statement had the significance of distinguishing between:

(a) reactionary populist acceptance of a half-informed concept of simplistically human-caused and specifically "warming" global effects

(b) the factual and culturally demanding problem of mass climatological, ecological and oceanographic crises -- which have a little or a lot of human causality (depending on which aspect we inspect) and depending upon the viability of our current official climate science -- but which nonetheless requires mass actions in order to improve for human well-being.

What is the purpose of such nuancing? Not only to maintain a veneer of tolerance for anti-rationalist outbursters but to create a staging point from which to export climate action to pre-Green stages of development. The general political and cultural isolation of ecological concern to Post-Moderns and Post-Post-Moderns is a tremendous danger which must be combated, in part, by a "messaging" that can become more acceptable to Modern and Pre-Modern blocs.

Although we have to draw on our best understandings, both personally and collectively, the ethical heart of the message cannot remain confined to "realistic and progressively sensitive people".

[Edward theurj Berge]

Is there really a way to message climate change to people who completely deny it? Per the research in another thread such 'facts' only piss them off further. And the likes of the humongous regressive spin machine like Fax and Rush make it all the harder. I don't see that anyone, including Lakoff or IT, has yet to figure it out. I'm guessing though that this % of Americans is only around 20%, so there might be ways to reach the other 20% or so of those who vote Republican and 10% or so that vote independent. We only really need a couple % to win elections.

Proper framing, including scientific fact, will reach the "realistic and progressively sensitive people," whose ranks appear to be growing daily. As I pointed out with some of the new Amazon bestsellers, as well as numerous opinion polls, it appears general public opinion is shifting due to the rigged system. As it has for marriage equality and marijuana legalization. Given that the average working folk's lifestyle has been drastically reduced from such a system they are mad and more open to the facts of how this was created. And by the polls they appear ready to vote on issues and for candidates that redress the inequality. It seems the shift is close to enough  to elect the needed representatives to make RE law.*

That RE tech will create jobs is one framing that will reach the average folk of any political persuasion (except the 20% fanatics), given the paucity of decent paying jobs (or any jobs). And Rifkin provides data that the RE tech sector job growth rate is exceeding other sectors like manufacturing and even service, which jobs have been shipped overseas. Get them to vote progressive, elect progressive reps, create laws enacting RE, create training programs in RE tech, create good-paying jobs.

I know it's not that simple, but I think that the majority (based on issue polling) want candidates who speak truth to power and who will redress inequality and create jobs. The popularity of such progressive reps like Warren and Sanders seems to lend credence to this. Warren's book is #2 on Amazon and Sanders has an exploratory committee to possibly run for President in 2016. There is a big shift happening per previous examples. Just as there is on climate change and RE. And if more "realistic and progressively sensitive people" grow big enough balls and fight like Warren, Sanders, Grayson and others I'm thinking the time has come for change in America. Electing Obama was a big first sign. Now it's time for real progressives in office.**

* Except for gerrymandering, voter suppression and giant money promoting disinformation, another story.

** One of these candidates really show hire me as a speech writer and policy adviser.

[Layman Pascal]

The first thing I personally keep in mind is that, despite the vastness of the persuasive challenge, these very serious issues are unlikely to get addressed except in the degree to which they win converts from among other cultural operating systems. Thus my optimism is a matter of pragmatic necessity.

Secondly, yes, there are all kinds of studies which show that people usually become more deeply entrenched by attempts to persuade them. However that has to be weighed against the well-known utility of advertising. An unknown zone of possible impact exists. And (as per the thinkers who critique the metaphors and phrasing of progressive politicians) there are some obvious errors in messaging which are guaranteed to provoke increased rather than decreased resistance.

The common wisdom about "gays" is that their concerted progressive social efforts would not have been nearly so successful if they were not complemented by normalizing characterizations in dramas, sitcoms and reality television. Normalization should be considered a key facet of messaging for "amber" conformists. There are all sorts of diverse mechanisms of communication which seldom take center stage in the thinking of those who are strongly identified with the progressive consensus. Barbarian ("red") sensibilities do not care about the issues but they do vote for people who are strong or entertaining. This is an area in which many progressives, who could do a great deal for the collective, fail -- since their over-identification with seriousness, facts and concern diminishes their willingness to be the kind of shamanically-astonishing carnival barker who can has sway in an ultra-electronic civilization.

Tipping points, changes in the regulatory mechanisms to better reflect the actual progressive sensibility of the existing masses, etc. are very important. But whether they can enact this or that piece of change does not alter the general necessity of establishing inter-memetic cooperation -- both for addressing known and unknown social challenges AND for living in a functional society. So this question cannot be considered a lost cause or a triviality.

Even those figures like Warren or Obama who manage to enter the rigged system and stand for some degree of intelligent progressive change are dependent upon their ability to provide a mixture of messaging which exceeds or challenges the sensibility of the people who most strongly identify with these candidates.

I do not want to live a world where the best and most sensible change-agents loose elections to people who "don't care" because they do not understand the degree to which many people, and many parts of people, are not interested.  A real politician is of interested to people who are not interested in politics. A real climate message is compelling to people who otherwise are not sympathetic to the values and style of the people they habitually associate with such causes. Some are totally resistant, some are sealed in electronic feedback loops of toxically fear-based faux-news, but a lot of people are more flexible and more willing than most people give them credit for. People are willing to do all kinds of things which they swear they would never consider doing.

The mere fact that is a running joke that Republicans change their tune on particular social issues when it effects someone in their own family is evidence that their positions are not as fixed as their strident assertions would lead us to believe. There are communications that get through the blockade.

And there is a very great need for people to at least try to expand progressive communication into an inter- or poly- epistemic sense.

At any rate, this is the kind of spiel a person would need in order to get hired as a speechwriter...

[Edward theurj Berge]

Nah, I'm more for this kind of rhetoric.

and Warren reaming Ryan and Cruz. This is how it's done. You don't negotiate with terrorists, you defeat them.

And then there's Bernie. I'm sticking with these folks who are actually getting things done and winning the heart and minds of the people. And not by being nice to the regressives, to the contrary. And all without integral theory, imagine that.

[Layman Pascal]

I see no contrast between these two speech styles. In order to get into these positions where (ostensibly, hopefully) they are "actually getting things done" they need to be able to deploy variable mixtures of critical and inspirationally explanatory rhetoric which in some cases strikes a strident tone to edify and mobilize the sensitive/sensibles and in other cases adapts stylistically to modes of thought and speech and which are annoying and unnatural to the speakers themselves. No progressive holds significant political office without being better than average at both tasks.