Round and round we go …

LaRondePosterSeeing another blogger comment on the highly self-reflective, meta-trans-post-ironic sub-page called The triple edged sword of irony, or All You Can Do I Can Do Meta is really weird. But I guess we can entertain ourselves with this new discussion until the real thing comes along.

UPDATE: Actually, we can’t. Justin Whitaker decided to ban Kenneth Folk, Glenn Wallis, Tom Pepper, Matthias Steingass, and myself from the discussion. More about this (and the general problem with Buddhist scholars and their more or less hidden allegiances to x-buddhism), to follow.


4 thoughts on “Round and round we go …

  1. Hi Boris..sorry Tutteji,
    I posted a comment myself at Justin’s and then was disappointed to see he had ruled you guys out of participating. Bummer. I thought it might be neutral ground for some interesting exchanges.
    I confess to being confused in the past about what the SNB posse ultimately wanted to achieve and said as much at Justin’s blog, but then I followed another commentator’s link to his Zen blog and perhaps your comment there, Tutteji, actually sums it up in lay man’s terms:

    “…But it’s important to remember than neither I, nor the SNB crew, try to convert the faithful x-buddhists. Our target audience is intelligent and critical readers who are getting fed up with spiritual crap.”

    I do still think Glenn’s heuristic has much to offer even the Buddhist faithful though. Perhaps someone needs to produce a more user friendly version?

    • Hi Matthew,

      Would you mind re-posting your original comment here? I think it could be a good starting-point for a discussion.

      You bring up something that probably needs some clarification: I agree that Glenn’s heuristic has much to offer the x-buddhist faithful. However, once they apply it, they’re hardly “faithful” anymore, are they? Perhaps they come closer to the position of the “faithful subject“, as described by Tom Pepper/Alain Badiou. And that is something quite different.

      Re: Justin, I am curious about his agenda here. I actually asked him how he would respond to his own questions: “Are the Speculative Non-Buddhists and other critical groups worthy of more attention or less?”, and so on. That comment was swiftly deleted, just like Gleen’s pointing out that Justin’s cut & paste version of the original discussion doesn’t do justice to what was actually said.

      Anyway, he‘s more than welcome to come over here and present his ideas.

      • I’ve posted it under Glenn’s comment on the other page and I agree that Justin’s post was unrepresentative and, dare I say, a little opportunistic.

        As for applying the heuristic, yes, I guess so. I find the definition of the faithful subject a little grandiose for my liking, but it seems to resonate. I personally came to Buddhism interested in the idea of freedom, subsequently found myself imprisoned a new and then busted out. Glenn’s heuristic provided some final touches to that process and was invaluable. I haven’t left certain Buddhist practices behind however and feel quite Buddhist to be honest, but not as a church going member of a club, but as someone who finds many of the observations in Buddhism to be thoroughly useful and applicable.
        What I like about the heuristic is that it allows you to free yourself from the linguistic biases that maintain Buddhism as something apart from our humanity, as special somehow, which is a perspective I loathe. It also allows you to challenge those soft safe corners where Buddhism acts as an ointment rather than a potentially radical means for breaking open self-obsession.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s