Speculative Non-Buddhism

ruins of the buddhist real

Organizational Notes #34

Posted by Glenn Wallis on November 24, 2014

fatigueWho can still doubt that the logic of contemporary western x-buddhism is a redoubling of the logic of western neoliberal capitalism? On one hand, this should not be surprising. For, everywhere it goes, x-buddhism conforms to the dominant ideology of its host. On the other hand, it should be outright revolting. For, everywhere it goes, x-buddhism carries with it seeds for the destruction of that dominant ideology. Which way it pivots depends on the organizations that are built to house it. These organizations conceive of the subject and fashion the person who then replicates their values. The organizations of western x-buddhism, so far, have opted for the conservative status quo role. In doing so, they function as enablers of the social-economic turmoil, the effects of which their conformist practices are, so they tell us, designed to cancel out.

To claim that the current x-buddhist situation is simply “what it is,” and that nothing can be done about it, would, of course, just be adopting a cynical neoliberal position. Repudiating this stance, we can ask questions like: under what conditions might a militant thought-practice develop? Asked another way: given the intimate group nature of x-buddhist practice–people gathered in snug settings, even private living rooms–for practice and edification; given concepts such as radical interdependency,  social-symbolic selfhood, and void; given the roots of the teachings in an urgent and outspoken disavowal of a repressive social formation, why are western x-buddhists such politically harmless creatures? Maybe it’s the organic food.

I recently received an email soliciting ads for Mindful Magazine. To encourage participation, the magazine included “our readers” statistics. I think these numbers are a fair indicator of the American x-buddhist scene in general. As I read them, these numbers are ambiguous. They certainly point to people with some disposable income (77% earn more than $75,000/year). But is that because of or in spite of our inequitable economic environment? In other words, do these readers have reasons to perpetuate the economic system or to alter it? Maybe how they feel about society depends on which books they are reading (30% have purchased 20+ books within the last year). Are they reading Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century or Thich Nhat Hanh’s A Handful of Quiet: Happiness in Four Pebbles? Maybe what they’re reading depends, in turn, on what kind of education they receive (87% have college degrees; 55% have graduate or professional degrees). Is it along the lines of Paulo Freire’s critical pedagogy? Or is it more along the lines of the farce that Noam Chomsky criticizes in “Education is Ignorance”?* Nearly half of the readers are at an age (45% are 35-54 years of age) when their powers are at their height. Or is this the age of hardening conformity and impotent resignation? Like I said, maybe it’s the organic food:

93% value organic or natural foods and products.

The only thing that is clear to me from these numbers is that such people are in a position to effect social change, if they wanted to. It seems they don’t want to. Even given their revolutionary-cabal-like quality, x-buddhists just endeavor to rest at ease with things as they are. At best, x-buddhists can point with pride to their engaged-buddhist brethren. But engaged-buddhism rarely rises above ineffectual (patronizing?) charity work.

I think the real issue here is subjectivity. Regardless of what kind of person might go into an x-buddhist community, the question is what kind comes out.

Below, I offer some rough notes toward fashioning a contemporary thought-practice subject. First, I’d like to make a couple of points to those readers who answered “I can!” to my opening query. In the process, we get a glimpse of an increasingly common x-buddhist subject-formation environment.

Stylish neoliberalism

In the “Fashion and Style” section of The New York Times recently was an article titled “How to Find a Job with Meditation and Mindfulness.”** Did I mention that this was in the “Fashion and Style” section? Anyway, this article inadvertently offers an instructive image of the neoliberal thought suffusing all varieties of American x-buddhism. (Note that we now have to include under this term allegedly secular and atheist forms of x-buddhism as well as hypothetically de-buddhacized modes of meditation and mindfulness.) What do I mean by neoliberal thought? In short, I mean:

[Certain] responses to the contemporary political situation [that] share a common premise: that global capitalism is now a permanent condition of historical, social, cultural and political existence. Hence whatever political responses one may envisage must operate within the prevailing ideological consensus, which is defined by the disavowal of the economic and hence social antagonisms underlying our social, cultural, and political institutions (Robert Sinnerbrink, “Goodbye Lenin? Žižek on Neoliberal Ideology and Post-Marxist Politics,” Žižek Studies, Volume Four, Number Two, pp. 7-8).

The Times article does not, of course, make explicit this bond between meditation/mindfulness and the neoliberal spirit of cynical surrender cum profit maximization pervading it. Some excerpts should make the point. I want to add that I think this cynical neoliberal pervasion extends throughout American x-buddhism, regardless of the (very thin) lines separating the different varieties.

The article gets right to the point:

 Meditation has been good for Olivia Chow’s career.

This paragraph comes later in the article, but it fits well here.

What makes meditation palatable to entrepreneurs and executives these days is that it is perceived as a tool to help increase productivity. A quiet mind more easily recognizes unexpected business opportunities and is poised to react more astutely. “If you are looking solely for an investor, you might be guided to, or looking for, the guy in the business suit,” Mr. Gordhamer said. “Instead, you may need to be talking to the guy in jeans.”

Back to Ms. Chow.

Meditation is more than peace of mind for Ms. Chow; it fuels work. Recently she said she was hired by three fellow meditators to make custom-fit clothes. “I network wherever I go,” Ms. Chow said.

(From the article:) Few meditation studios have capitalized on mindful networking more than the Path, which has emerged as a downtown hub for technology and fashion entrepreneurs. The Monday sessions tend to be jammed, and attendees are encouraged to drink tea and mingle after class. Credit

(From the article:) Few meditation studios have capitalized on mindful networking more than the Path, which has emerged as a downtown hub for technology and fashion entrepreneurs. The Monday sessions tend to be jammed, and attendees are encouraged to drink tea and mingle after class.

Meet Ben Bechar, who attends an invitation-only meditation class…:

“Ben Bechar, a technology entrepreneur,said he had attended as many as four networking events a week with little to show for it. However, at the Path, a new invitation-only meditation class that officially opened last month, he said he had met not only a potential investor, but also five beta testers for his new app. The investor introduced Mr. Bechar to other financiers, too, and he said he hoped to find out in a few weeks whether he will get the funding he seeks. ‘I’ve had more success at meditation than I’ve had at any networking event I’ve attended,’ Mr. Bechar said.”

…and finally zenny, savvy, risk-taking Ms. Rothschild:

Mr. Keledjian presents himself as a model of successful meditation, sitting cross-legged for photographers in his homes in New York City and the Hamptons. Impressed by her Zen and savvy, Mr. Keledjian wooed Ms. Rothschild, convincing her to move to New York to help him research health and wellness investments. She agreed and arrived this fall. “I thought I should put my ego aside and just take a risk,” Ms. Rothschild said. “That’s what it means to be part of this movement.”

The article even anticipates a pretty obvious criticism (need I mention it?) with this all-too common cynical argument:

Some meditation instructors welcome students intent on networking because they recognize that people are driven by different motivations. Among them is Emily Fletcher, who founded Ziva Meditation in 2012, a membership-based studio that caters to a wide-reaching clientele, including Broadway actors and investment bankers. “If you come to meet an investor and you meditate, that is great,” she said. “I don’t care why you come. I’m just glad you did.” If you want to meditate at Ziva, finding an investor may not be a bad idea. Ms. Fletcher charges $1,100 for a four-day introduction, as well as unlimited access to follow-up classes and support. Her online meditation course costs $250.

(From the article:) Emily Fletcher leading a session at Ziva Meditation, the membership-based studio she founded in Manhattan. “If you come to meet an investor and you meditate, that is great,” she said. “I don’t care why you come. I’m just glad you did.”

(From the article:) Emily Fletcher leading a session at Ziva Meditation, the membership-based studio she founded in Manhattan. “If you come to meet an investor and you meditate, that is great,” she said. “I don’t care why you come. I’m just glad you did.”

And, of course we should be compassionate. After all:

It is hard to quiet the mind in a city where competitive cab-hailing is a blood sport. So why not look for a little stress relief, or start-up financing, among empathic meditating friends?

The non-buddhist facilitator

It is a matter of minute degrees between the most traditional and most secular x-buddhist communities. By contrast, I offer here some rough notes on the non-buddhist group facilitator. This facilitator is a subjective figure. S/he is inscribed in the text itself, and is in need of organization to come into flesh and blood personhood. It is a subject who stalks x-buddhist thought and practice, cauterizes it with the non, militarizes the material, and acts with courage in the world.

What does such a person, such an identity, look like? In a recent introductory talk on the thought of Alain Badiou,*** Australian scholar of psychoanalysis, Justin Clemens, enumerated what he consider to be crucial characteristics of a “key thinker.” Since I envision a person who is, in the first instance, a thinker, I will paraphrase or quote verbatim (in italics) some of his points to make my own.

First, on this matter of “a thinker,” one of Heidegger’s notoriously bad didactic poems proves, as they so often do, insightful:

Discourse cheers us to
companionable reflection.
Such reflection neither
parades polemical opinions nor
does it tolerate complaisant
agreement. The sail of
thinking keeps trimmed hard
to the wind of the matter.

From such companionship a few perhaps
may rise to be journeymen in the
craft of thinking that one of them,
unforeseen, may become a master.

As this becoming a master via companionship indicates, the facilitator is also the image of the participant.This means, too, that whatever goes for the facilitator goes for the participant.

The facilitator should be a polemicist (but not concerning mere “opinion,” as we will see). S/he takes any comfortable agreement that you think you have, and drives it to the point where you will have to assent to something you don’t want to and now have to if you indeed want to remain rational. Or s/he will force you into contradiction where you will scurry back to your prejudices. Or, best of all responses, s/he will force you to try to think against him. It should be clear that the facilitator sees repressive prescriptions of decorum such as “right-speech” for what they are.

The facilitator should reveal to you your own ignorance and stupidity. He should do so to the degree that you either have to accept your ignorance or fall back into your pathological embrace of self-satisfaction. The point here is, of course, not denigration or humiliation. The point is to force each other up against the limits, gaps, and dark spaces of our knowledge. This principle is founded not on an intellectual idealism, but on an ideal of anti-anti-intellectualism. Realization of stupidity is an assault on narcissism and complacency. Realization of stupidity, if followed through with new study, thought, and dialogue, is a form of liberation.

The facilitator doesn’t help us with our work, provide handy rules of thumb, give you lessons for life, tell you established truths, entertain, or make you the slightest bit happier.

The facilitator assaults our beliefs, opinions, knowledges. S/he forces you to make some kind of acknowledgement to the weakness of your own ideas. Forces you to change your thinking under the pressure of something that goes beyond the both of you. This is done not through violence but through reason. Badiou: Thought-practice is something like a logical revolt. It pits thought against injustice, against the defective state of the world and of life. Yet it does so in a manner that conserves and defends argument and reason, which ultimately proposes a new logic.

Group encounters should always have something outrageous about them, something inhuman, like science fiction. Group encounters should produce derangement in the participants. The setting should be not just a furnace room for combusting delusions, but a greenhouse growing anxiety and bewilderment. Contrary to sacrificing the impossible dreams of the imagination to the current state of things, group encounters raise the prospect of realizing them, heightening, at the same time, the tension that comes with the necessary commitment.

<><><><><><><><><><><>

** “How to Find a Job with Meditation and Mindfulness.”

*** Justin Clemens lecture

Advertisements

10 Responses to “Organizational Notes #34”

  1. Glenn, you don’t need me to tell you this post is up to your usual extraordinary high standard. But it raises very sharply the issue of orientation.

    You write: “The only thing that is clear to me from these numbers is that such people are in a position to effect social change, if they wanted to. It seems they don’t want to. Even given their revolutionary-cabal-like quality, x-buddhists just endeavor to rest at ease with things as they are.”

    Well, yes. People with incomes of $75,000 and up who are obsessing over what they eat in a starving world are not, as a class, agents of social change. As a class. So why might we wish to become facilitators who can reveal to such persons their own ignorance and stupidity? Most of them, necessarily, won’t see it.

    The answer is of course: Because some of them will.

    Which might be useful how?

    Two possibilities. First, we convert some and they convert others and gradually we build a movement. Of the privileged, to end privilege. I’m sorry, but that is nonsense. Only a few of this group will ever be converted. Were it otherwise, capitalist ideology would be impotent. Which it clearly is not.

    Second possibility. We convert some and train them to carry a message, a thought-practice, not into groups of organically fed x-buddhists, but to the international working class. To those who, because contemporary capitalism depends on them as mass producers and consumers, and because it provides them with such inadequate rewards for their essential role that they have little (or at least less) to lose, have both the power and the motivation to end privilege. Because privilege does not benefit, but rather oppresses, them. This involves taking on the “cynical neo-liberal position” not among those who are attracted to it because it provides them with a convenient rationalization for their unearned privilege, but among those who have been brutally beaten into believing they actually have no choice.

    Why should the organically fed pigs of x-buddhism abandon the Reagan-Thatcher TINA ideology? It works for them. It is their true salvation. There is no rational reason for them to question it.

    But the international working class (pardon my retrograde terminology) is actually, objectively mistaken in believing this crap. They have the power to make change, and change, not the status quo, is their true, their only possible, salvation. Marx may have overstated it when he said the working class has nothing to lose but its chains; the instability and unpredictability of revolution places even the most oppressed at risk of falling further, losing what little they have. But it would be rational for them to choose change. Therefore, there is some hope they could be persuaded to it.

    Ah, but can we take on this second task? There’s the rub. Probably we cannot. This is party building, and a weirder kind of party building than is being attempted with no success by a multitude of ostensibly Marxist organizations. And who are we? I, for example, am not we. I am not up for this project. If I cannot be recruited, if Tom Pepper and Matthias Steingass and Patrick Jennings and Gabe Syme (I spent the last three days reading The Man Who Was Thursday — who, Tom Pepper least of all, adopts the identity of a Chestertonian police spy to sow havoc in a minuscule group of wannabe left-wing disaffected Buddhists?) cannot be recruited to this project, then who can? Glenn, you are on your own.

    Of course, as Mr Syme tells me, I am merely misrepresenting what Glenn says, and then proving my cleverness by finding the flaw in my flawed interpretation. No doubt, though just how this differs from making a point of my own remains obscure to me. I am not bound to Glenn’s view of what Glenn says. I, perhaps, see it differently.

    But then, Mr Syme (whoever he may be, and however amusing he may find his provocateur persona) avers, I am merely rationalizing my own inaction. A sign, he tells me, of my “secret attachment to the illusion of an other worldly bliss.”

    Pepperish indeed. And, like so much of Pepper, true. But my inaction is a given and needs no rationalization. I do not intend to act, but that does not mean have lost interest in the question how I ought to act. I hope to leave this world, not having done what I ought, but at least having understood what I ought to have done.

    And what, then, ought I to have done? My best guess is the “second possibility” identified above. It does not match what Glenn suggests (though Glenn does at least suggest something). It is the path that seems most plausible to me, implausible though it is. I challenge the critics, Matthias, Patrick, Tom (in whatever guise he might wish to appear), Police Detective Syme: propose a better.

  2. Gabe Syme said

    Sad but true. Buddhism is a strategy for remaining deluded while getting rich—or, if the getting rich part is impossible (many of those 75k incomes are people who were 100+k incomes a few years ago, and will be 50k incomes next year) then at least it can promise some purely bodily pleasures on a tighter budget.

    I will offer one more comment before I abandon the internet.

    I have been a reader of this blog, and yes of Tom Pepper’s blog, for quite some time. My impression is that this “non-buddhism” produces only characters like Mr. Watson, those who “do not intend to act.” And they will not act because they are just a mirror image of the “x-buddhists” they criticize. While the typical Western Buddhist seeks some narcissistic bliss in the body freed of all thought, the oh-so-clever “non-buddhist” seeks his (isn’t it always a he?) bliss in his feeling of intellectual superiority: I am no longer deluded, but all of my enjoyment is in the pure feeling of superiority over those who are! I revel in their suffering, it proves that I am special! Yes, inactivity is the goal, as it is with the meditators seeking “stress-relief” in Ms. Fletcher’s high-price seminars. And an inactivity that derives its pleasurable frisson from the sense of superiority, whether a moral and ascetic superiority or an intellectual superiority, there is little difference, right? Well, a bit of one, eh? Because at least the fools in the mindful meditation class are, well, fooled, while the “non-buddhist” knows full well his pleasure in intellectual superiority and inactivity depends on the suffering of others, and chooses, without being fooled, to take his pleasure in watching them suffer, because to act would be beneath him. Yes, the “non-buddhist” is no doubt the more morally reprehensible.

    Non-buddhism is, as my pseudonym is meant to indicate, nothing at all but a kind of European Anarchist Council, pretending to radicalism exactly to prevent in advance any real radical action. Mr. Watson, no doubt, feels even more clever and superior for having noticed the reference; if only he had gotten its point!

    So, Mr. Wallis, your “facillitator” might point out to Mr. Watson the attachment to his intellectual superiority as his own kind of atman, right? An atman produced in abundance in certain kinds of social practices, and rarely recognized as one.

    But then what?

    You suggest including “something outrageous.” I would suggest beginning from that outrage, and then proceeding to dismantle every objection, but while doing the outrageous thing. Let me offer an example. I live in State College, PA. You are familiar with this town, no doubt, Mr. Wallis? Are you familiar with the poverty, the destitution, that is growing from the fringes and creeping into the center? Mr. Watson will insist that party building is always futile, always will be futile, and this will excuse his not attempting to do any of it. Just as he will insist that the difference between his pathetic sophistry and real intellectual engagement “remains obscure” to him. No doubt any real thought will, no must, remain obscure to those who wish to refuse to act. And what must also remain obscure is that there exist an enormous number of people who have nothing left to lose. No healthcare, no jobs, no education for their children, no heat or electricity, and their only food the food they must beg for.

    In State College, we have begun the act of “party building.” We are out every day recruiting members for the Share the Earth party, which has only one aim: either the poor must be given jobs, or they must be given a living wage to remain idle. Those who claim the Earth as their private property and want to charge others rent for existing on it can keep their property only if they provide a fair share of the produce of human society to those excluded from ownership. If they don’t, then their property should be taken from them with the same brutal violence with which their ancestors initially claimed it. There were four of us in the party at first, now there are nine. Yes, it is an idealistic exercise. We protest on street corners, pass out fliers and to the poor and unemployed. Perhaps start from so outrageous an activity? Then, the practice of anatman at least has some action to enable: why can’t you do this? Why are you unable to feel as enjoyable any actual political action? What are you assuming as an essential truth? What hope are you secretly holding out for transcendent bliss?

    Simply begin from some impossible project “doomed to failure,” and do it anyway; couple that with your “companionable reflection,” but without producing a master, only an action.

    This will be my last engagement here. The insane obsession with Mr. Pepper makes it unlikely I can ever make a point here. His position is, to my mind, no different—his goal is to clear away the cloud of ideological reification, as if that will somehow make real action possible, a goal that contradicts his persistent assertions that we must have an ideology, and an ideology is always in a practice. Practice first. It seems the standard response to any threat to the “non-buddhist” goal of inactivity and gleeful reveling in superiority over the deluded is to simply assert: that sounds like (or is, incognito?) the dreaded Pepper! Once this is proclaimed, the threat can be ignored, dismissed, and never responded to. You have little chance of success then, Mr. Wallis, unless you can cut yourself free of these “non-buddhists,” these pathetic and reprehensible mirror reflections of the “x-buddhists” they so revel in reviling. Now, I have some fliers to print up, and a Thanksgiving day protest to organize.

  3. David (#1).

    So why might we wish to become facilitators who can reveal to such persons their own ignorance and stupidity? Most of them, necessarily, won’t see it.

    The answer is of course: Because some of them will.

    Which might be useful how?

    I know of only one way for you to honestly answer these two questions for yourself. But it will require you to do something that, I am beginning to assume, is distasteful to many of the commenters on this blog: direct action. I get the impression that most of you guys are sitting alone somewhere in your cozy living rooms, just responding at an intellectual level to the SNB material. I’m actually doing the stuff I’m talking about here–teaching, learning, forming groups, writing, discussing, debating. I’m also doing a lot that I do not ever discuss here. The latter has to do with direct activism with a political party–the impossible, quixotic kind of activities that Gabe Syme refers to in his latest comment.

    The Laruellean critique is just half of the non-buddhism equation. The second half is inspired more by Badiou and Žižek. That is, it has to do with organization and action.

  4. […] like they have been zombified. One playing silly games as a sockpuppet again, while the other in his latest installment tries to reincarnate yet another round of Word Blood, declaring it this time the non-buddhist […]

  5. Craig said

    David writes:
    “But the international working class (pardon my retrograde terminology) is actually, objectively mistaken in believing this crap. They have the power to make change, and change, not the status quo, is their true, their only possible, salvation. Marx may have overstated it when he said the working class has nothing to lose but its chains; the instability and unpredictability of revolution places even the most oppressed at risk of falling further, losing what little they have. But it would be rational for them to choose change. Therefore, there is some hope they could be persuaded to it.”

    So how will the working class do it? Will they finally pull themselves up by their bootstraps?

  6. Patrick jennings said

    Hi Glenn

    Whether or not to “engage” in revolutionary practice is never the question. Do it if you decide you must. Whats the big deal? This question is an old one , so old its a bit laughable that it should become an issue here. Of course its the classic petty bourgeois question (pardon my outmoded terminology) since the members of the petty bourgeois intelligentsia have an option about struggle. Some of them answer with years of dedicated struggle in the workers movement, others run hot and cold. Some opt for “self- realization through politics”, another classic petty bourgeois trait. (and one we often see transferred to politics from well meaning but theoretically bankrupt x-buddhists, who suddenly sprout a social conscience (another petty-bourgeois invention) and ask the silly question —so what are you doing in practice to make the world a better place? Simone Bouvier’s ” The Blood of Others” is probably the best literary exploration of this mindset.

    As for professes and their role, again its an old question .The answer is mostly always the same professors should do what workers are not good at for obvious reasons—-help construct a strong theoretical basis for workers struggle. In other words do the most un romantic thing— remain in position, all ones life if necessary, and do the hard stuff—-think.

    There’s no need to form a party. The oppressed have a long tradition of struggle, in America as much as any where else. You don’t have to look far to find struggle-its all around you in innumerable forms and already well established organizations-neighbourhood organizations, unions, anti racist groups, organizations of the undocumented, ecological organizations, animal rights , anti-war activism etc. etc.. Pardon my harping on the issue but bringing the “message” to the oppressed in the form of yet another new party, sect, group of two bearing the “good news” for the workers is another petty bourgeois trait. As Mark and Engels tirelessly pointed out the workers leadership will emerge in the confusion, terror and exile ration of social upheaval. The task of radicals in the meantime is to educate and organize. There is nothing to be smug about here–its bread and butter. Is up to the individual to decide the when and how of action-at least for the petty bourgeois academic. For the oppressed its a matter of deciding, usually with their backs to the wall, whether to risk resistance in times of massive compromise. Many opt to keep their mouth shut and knuckle down. Ironically, but that’s another petty bourgeois trait, the same “self realization by means of politic crowd” nearly always scream extremism when the oppressed finally get off their knees and take to the street(their streets) and start to tear down and wreak vengeance.

    Anyone interested in the complex and very old issue of “what is to be done ” could start by reading Paul Blackledge’s review of a good book on Lenin’s classic “What is to be done” by Lars T Lih, available here.http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=218&issue=111 Warning, if you are poised with your hat (workers cap of course) and coat on , and are clutching some leaflets fresh of the press in your (well manicured) hand, this book will give you pause for thought. As he points out the relation between the revolutionary act and the equally revolutionary non-act is a dialectical one that needs to be held in tension.

    “As Lih points out, because Marxists insist that socialism can only come from below we realise that it will necessarily emerge out of sectional and fragmented struggles. It is the sectional and fragmentary nature of the struggle which creates differences between more and less advanced workers, and consequently leads to the emergence of socialist leaders: anyone who organises a strike, challenges a racist argument, rips down a sexist calendar at work, etc. is acting as a leader. What is more, anyone who challenges such actions is also acting as a leader. ”

    Happy activism dears (its all so new and exiting, gosh I can’t wait for the revolution can you?)

  7. Patrick jennings said

    Craig,
    Re 4#
    (and your stupid comment in answer to me on another tread)
    Some of us have been around longer than you. Some have even seen it all go viciously wrong and seen people die. Grow fucking up will you, and start to think for yourself. (leave your Guru while you are at it)

    Danny—when are you going to leave the side line and actually put more that a short comment together….say three pages on what is to be done. I mean on the ground of course…wouldn’t want to over tax your brain by having you wade through Lenin’s “What is to be done” and have to cope with thinking through all that Marxist theory now that you have decided for practice. Its a risk I know to do more than ask stupid questions about “world poverty” (whatever that is) but why don’t you take the risk and write a post by your very own little self? You have been on the sideline for long enough. You run the risk of exposing your ignorance and looking stupid of course, like the rest of us.

  8. Craig said

    Patrick,

    Thanks for the response. I really appreciate the clarity of it. At least you’re not hiding behind any more wordy intellectual garbage. Ironically, you project on to Danny and myself exactly what your MO is. That being an inability to engage and think. Not to mention resorting to playground tactics of ‘i’m bigger than you’ and ‘you’re stupid’ when you get pissed off at actual thought. I’m not willing to stop at ‘it won’t work’ or ‘I know better’. You can revel in that deluded privilege, but I can’t. Precisely because people ARE dying!

    So is that thinking for myself? Or would you be happier if I just said, ‘okay Patrick, you’re right. I am stupid. Thanks for setting me straight old wise man’.

  9. […] [46] Quoted in “Organizational Notes #34” https://speculativenonbuddhism.com/2014/11/24/organizational-notes-34/ […]

  10. […] [46] Quoted in “Organizational Notes #34” https://speculativenonbuddhism.com/2014/11/24/organizational-notes-34/ […]

What do you think?

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: