Tusar N. Mohapatra Says: May 12th, 2007 at 9:06 pm The challenge Edward, is how to integrate all these propensities of our be-ing into a coherent ontology. I don’t know why you have called yourself “a secular humanist” on the other thread and what exactly does it denote. But this sort of playing around is certainly not in accordance with the urgency for individuation that is incumbent upon us.Just like we express hundreds of logical fallacies without being aware of them, uttering ontological incongruities impudently is also so common. Basically it is a question of good academics and intellectual rigor, like what Husserl insisted upon. Only then we stop being a hypocrite to ourselves and refrain from telling one thing here and another there. Edward Berge Says: May 13th, 2007 at 8:21 am I appreciate that you’re explaining yourself a bit now Tusar instead of just making overly general, blanket, devotional statements on the superiority of Aurobindo. But if you'’re saying that my academics or intellectual rigor is lacking… well thems fighting words! See you in the ring bud, gloves off, no holds barred. Anand Rangarajan Says: May 12th, 2007 at 3:30 pm My only qualification to comment on this thread is that I’ve taken one Integral WET experience weekend in Miami last October.
I’m not sure that there is anything wrong with I-I being a cult. There would be a problem if it’s a bad cult. Didn’t someone say that all truth is initially cultic?
My main problem with I-I and the crowd that I met in Miami is that it isn’t very academically inclined. Since I’m an academic, I find the lack of high-quality discussions regarding AQAL, 1st tier/2nd tier etc. very frustrating. I think Wilber gets away with too much junk because there are no academics interested in challenging him.
Still the workshops are a helluva lot of fun and a great way to meet like-minded (spiritually inclined) people. So, I’m not too bothered by the cult-like atmosphere surrounding I-I. I’ll continue to enjoy the workshops, meet some great people and keep a safe distance. ebuddha Says: May 12th, 2007 at 8:39 pm edward, the purpose of Open Integral is still served, if there is theory discussed outside of I-I proper. For example, a place where the mystical is taken more seriously, or a place where the sources are followed to what they really say, rather than quite possibly incorrect generalizations. Which Ken has a habit of doing. I just thought it would be worthwhilee revisiting. Thanks for referencing it! Edward Berge Says: May 13th, 2007 at 10:03 am Yes ebuddha, the purpose of OI has gone far beyond just a reaction to Ken’s Earp. And it’s doing a damned good job of it, if I am permitted some praise for myself and my colleagues here. And yes, like MD I’m also not interested in re-hashing why I think I-I is a cult, and I do much more than you do. There’s too much other work to be done here and like Anand says (I paraphrase, as usual): unless I-I starts killing people, stealing their money or brainwashing them (well ok, they do that) then they are relatively harmless as cults go. But unlike Anand I’m also not going to buy their products and support them financially. And if Al thinks I’m skirting a reasoned debate on the issue I can live with that. I just don’t care.
I’m not sure that there is anything wrong with I-I being a cult. There would be a problem if it’s a bad cult. Didn’t someone say that all truth is initially cultic?
My main problem with I-I and the crowd that I met in Miami is that it isn’t very academically inclined. Since I’m an academic, I find the lack of high-quality discussions regarding AQAL, 1st tier/2nd tier etc. very frustrating. I think Wilber gets away with too much junk because there are no academics interested in challenging him.
Still the workshops are a helluva lot of fun and a great way to meet like-minded (spiritually inclined) people. So, I’m not too bothered by the cult-like atmosphere surrounding I-I. I’ll continue to enjoy the workshops, meet some great people and keep a safe distance. ebuddha Says: May 12th, 2007 at 8:39 pm edward, the purpose of Open Integral is still served, if there is theory discussed outside of I-I proper. For example, a place where the mystical is taken more seriously, or a place where the sources are followed to what they really say, rather than quite possibly incorrect generalizations. Which Ken has a habit of doing. I just thought it would be worthwhilee revisiting. Thanks for referencing it! Edward Berge Says: May 13th, 2007 at 10:03 am Yes ebuddha, the purpose of OI has gone far beyond just a reaction to Ken’s Earp. And it’s doing a damned good job of it, if I am permitted some praise for myself and my colleagues here. And yes, like MD I’m also not interested in re-hashing why I think I-I is a cult, and I do much more than you do. There’s too much other work to be done here and like Anand says (I paraphrase, as usual): unless I-I starts killing people, stealing their money or brainwashing them (well ok, they do that) then they are relatively harmless as cults go. But unlike Anand I’m also not going to buy their products and support them financially. And if Al thinks I’m skirting a reasoned debate on the issue I can live with that. I just don’t care.
No comments:
Post a Comment