human nature, sociobiology,

nemonemini at cosmiverse.com nemonemini at cosmiverse.com
Fri Dec 21 21:03:39 MST 2001


> The problem with all the ancient wisdom, not just Indian, is that it
> really is not all that wise. They never seem to address the
question of,
> "Once you've found yourself, what do you do with it?" It is in this
sense
> that I say science, specifically Marxist dialectics, takes up where
> religion leaves off. Both Buddha and Christians propose a kind of
> non-reactive presence in the world "in the world, but not of the
world"
> that pretty much guarantees a new spiritual death over time. Life is
> action.
Arriving at some sense on these issues is chronically difficult. I am
not a missionary for Oriental wisdom, but was merely trying to find
some avenue of escape for leftist views on evolution, and these in
relation to the sociobiological question of 'human nature'. Marxists
react against Hegel, but Marxism is pervaded by an Hegelian
strain, 'absolute knowledge', but disguised as implied assumptions
about the 'self'. These questions will play tricks on narrow belief
systems.
You are right about one thing, Oriental wisdom is rarely wise or
spiritual. Between Gautama Buddha and Deepak Chopra there is a gulf
so vast one may as well forget Indian wisdom.
Spirituality is not the issue. Buddha was not a peddler of New Age
spirituality nor a philosopher in the conventional sense. The issues
can be rewritten as questions of consciousness.As to being radical,
he did the most radical thing, insisted on the total withdrawal of
society, and a wholly new society resulted in short order from that
gesture. Buddhism is about to become preempted now (have you ever
noticed how often Buddhist monks appear in silly ads these days
making them look like consumerist idiots?)
Whatever the case, the issue is a consistent picture of 'evolutionary
psychology'. You see Kant-Hegel-Schopenhauer-Marx gyrating wildly
around the basic questions, and then everything goes flat, and stops.
Modernism has lost all its assets in this grubbing Darwin syndrome.

 Noone has ever matched the non-theistic material evolutionary
psychologies of the time of the early Jains and Buddhists, although
as noted you see the German philosophers briefly touching on that
domain.
But the question is not philosophy. Divinity, spiritual
metaphysics,mysticism, they had no time for any of that, nor for the
idealist Vedanta and Buddhism that arose just at the time the
Brahmins ran these radicals out of India and made the whole question
a caste priveledge, to destroy egalitarian Buddhism. Then the Brahmin
gurus arose. There is an irony in the idealist-materialist collision
of modern Hegelianism and Marxism, so distantly a cousin of this
ancient conflict. The point is not philosophical materialism, but
the 'material phenomenology' or 'pure existential psychology' of the
orginals. It is a far more effective materialism, for it does not end
up reductionist.
What has this to do with anything? I am merely reflecting on the
danger of the left getting sidelined by excessively narrow version of
Darwinian science methodology that has allowed the genetic
fundamentalists to outflank them.




------------------------------------
This message was sent by Cosmiverse.
http://www.cosmiverse.com
Get Your Free Email Account Today!
Join us Today as a Digital Passenger aboard
Cosmic Voyage 2000 ( http://www.cosmicvoyage2000.com )!



~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.



More information about the Marxism mailing list