Showing posts with label Simondon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Simondon. Show all posts

February 18, 2013

Spiritual practice contains its fair share of relaxation and hedonic moments

Cromwell’s Puritan dictatorship even banned Christmas. Protestantism emphasised the centrality of text and text alone as the word of god and the basis of religion. Enlightenment thinkers applied this to all religions. So when the Orientalists came to India and tried to categorise the culture, they ignored much of the customs and traditions in favour of what could specifically be found in texts. This was the only paradigm that they could use when confronted with a bewildering array of what became known as Hinduism. So anything in religious text such as Vedas formed the canon of Hinduism. All else was custom, tradition, tribalism or culture. It is that thinking which has lasted until today in defining secularism in India. The Enlightenment differentiated between sacred and profane, between religion and culture.

Hegel also considered himself to be an orthodox Christian. The greatest minds of the following generations – Ludwig Feuerbach, David Strauss, Marx – did not. They considered themselves Hegelian, yet they were against the gods… That atheism is at the heart of Marx’s dissertation… Marx turns his focus to two lesser-known figures, Epicurus and Democritus… The topic of his dissertation is Epicurus; Democritus’s role is merely to illustrate why Epicurus is so great…  The gods are just as distant in Epicurus’s explanations; he can look like a precursor of Darwin. And so it was to Epicurus that Marx turned as an inspiration for his still-developing atheist Hegelianism.

(title unknown) from enowning Robert Mugerauer on tenderness. 
“Tenderness, according to Heidegger, is used by Hölderlin to indicate the native essence of the Greek: their art of showing, letting appear what shows itself purely and thereby presences.  For the Greeks, what brings the splendour of the presencing to appearance is the athletic warlike struggle of heroes (also consider Heraclìtus and Pìndar) and the power of reflection (die Reflexionskraft) (HEH 166).” P. 414 HEH: Hölderlin's Erde und Himmel.

The Being behind Hitler Science Of Spirituality Blog on ... By: Martin Sobieroj on Feb 18, 2013 Source : Mother's Agenda, 12 January 1965
(Regarding an old "Playground Talk" of March 8, 1951, in which Mother spoke of the being that possessed and "guided" Hitler: … As for Sri Aurobindo ... (you know that there is a place in Russia where they were defeated [ii]), Sri Aurobindo had foreseen the defeat and had worked the night...

“Spiritual ordeal” is too one-sided a vision of spiritual practice, which includes ordeals, but contains also its fair share of relaxation and hedonic moments. I “see” it as a process psychic and collective individuation, as Simondon and Stiegler call it. There is no necessary dualism between philosophy and individuation, and Deleuze is a shining (in the sense of Dreyfus and Kelly’s ALL THINGS SHINING) example of their co-existence and superposition.
Gilles Quispel once declared that “Alchemy is the yoga of Gnosticism”, that is to say the actual experiential and transformative practice that subtends and is subtended by Gnostic theoretical creation. One could reformulate this as “Non-philosophy is the yoga of philosophy”. 

Order never comes for free, but always requires operations, energy, and work precisely because it’s more probable for anything to be related to anything else, than for anything to maintain improbable and selective relations to a delimited range of elements in the order of being. “Onto-cartography” would be the investigation of the mechanisms by which improbable orders are maintained; and would therefore include investigations of discursive mechanisms (not surprisingly, the favorite of the humanities), chronopolotical mechanisms, geographical mechanisms (geopolitics), and thermopolitical mechanisms.  Whenever encountering an order in the social and political world we should be surprised and ask ourselves how it maintains itself.  In understanding how it maintains itself, we can begin to devise strategies undermine it where those negentropic mechanisms are oppressive.
All of this aside, we now see a third argument against holism.  A world in which everything is related to everything else is identical to the definition of a highly entropic system.  It is a world where no inferences can be made to other elements precisely because there’s an equal probability of anything being related to anything else.  Such a world would be a world of Brownian motion, where there was no language, mathematics, ecologies, or social orders, precisely because all of these orders are orders in which relations between elements are selective or improbable.  As Deleuze said of Hegel’s categories, the world proposed by holists is a world that is too baggy, too ill fitted, to get at the real of the world that we, in fact, encounter.

There is the practical mind that involves itself with the physical and vital levels of existence and works to manage and utilize them to best advantage; there is also a higher mind of thought and concept, as well as an aesthetic and an emotional aspect that weave the complex fabric that we consider to be mental functioning. Sri Aurobindo explains: “The mental energy divides itself and runs in many directions, has an ascending scale of the levels of its action, a great variety and ...”
It is not simply the complexity of these different energies and levels of action that we have to contend with; we also have to take into account the varying concentration and intensity of the energy put forth within each of these lines. A weak force will soon be deflected, drowned out or watered down by the myriad other active forces around it and with which it needs to contend.

It is here she loses herself into Infinity the way the crested eagles of thought fly into the sky of the Unknowable… Wherever he looked, he saw the veiled and seeking Force, she an exiled goddess building mimic heavens, a Sphinx gazing at the Sun.

Why do some people get angry and mad when you mention alternative medicine, the mind and the soul? Here's one person that explains it. ... if that force can be made to work freely, drugs are at once superfluous. Sri Aurobindo 

October 02, 2012

Finding a genuinely encompassing compassionate truth

Oldtimer • 16 days ago There are more secularisms in India than religions, so you better disclose right upfront which secularism you belong to… European secularism is not secular (don't ask me according to which definition of secular). It is a Christian concept. 
jasonbourne • 16 days ago People like Ambedkar make this wrong assumption that Hindus have to follow Manu Smriti which never was the case. Manu like Kamasutra became famous because of the British. So we should stop obsessing over Manu smriti which was never meant to be infallible in the first place.
Vijay Kumar • 14 days ago • parent Hinduism is brought into the discussion because Hindutva is offering a resistance to move towards secular/liberal position (which would be in line with the first amendment, as supported by Mr. Harsh Gupta).
Susheel Mehta • 16 days ago Dear Harsha, Thanks for a wonderful write-up. As always your arguments are marvels of clarity. But I would like to register specific issues of disagreement: 1. You confuse Dharma with Dharmashastras. That is akin to confusing Physics the subject with Physics the book written by Aristotle. While the former is more of a meta-framework, the latter a seminal and important contribution, but not the last word…
7. I may be wrong about my contentions. But the point is that social theorists have not examined with clarity the strength and challenges of our society and its internal dynamics. Rather the idea is always to look it through western experience.


Nizken September 24, 2012 at 12:38 am Sandeep, just curious…..where and how do you find the time to post all this information from?
Sandeep September 24, 2012 at 1:35 pm The pedestrian explanation is that it is the work of several years. The modern yogi has to know western philosophy, other religions, linguistics, physics, biology, psychology, neuroscience, sociology because they are all investigating, albeit partially, the same realm of consciousness. The spiritual explanation is that other burdens are decreased with progress on the spiritual path… Sandeep December 29, 2011 at 11:35 am Some people might call us loony as well for believing in the existence of occult spirits

Karl Popper, the enemy of certainty, part 4: Lakatos, Kuhn and Feyerabend The Guardian (blog) - ‎Oct 1, 2012‎ Liz Williams This diverse trio drove the philosophy of science forwards with their responses to Popper's theory of falsification
Lakatos's views form a halfway house between Kuhn and Popper (he was a student of the latter), and his approach is often considered to be a more nuanced form of falsificationism.
A more anarchic approach – literally – is offered by Feyerabend. Auxiliary hypotheses are critical, he argues, but may be irrational. In fact, it's impossible to develop any set of methodological rules by which scientists work: ad hoc, rule-breaking postulates are the order of the day. We seem to be heading at full speed towards epistemological relativism here, and indeed, according to Feyerabend, this is the case: not only does science fail to proceed according to fixed principles, but it doesn't deserve its epistemic privileges, either. Far out! So if your preference is for Feyerabend over Popper, astrologers might be on to something, after all.

Occam’s razor, which essentially is the concept that when all other things are equal, the simplest explanation will tend to be the best, is a useful conceptual tool in many fields of life, and helps us avoid bogging down in needless complexity,–thereby helping us sort out theories that have “too many moving parts” to sustain serious scrutiny. This is especially helpful when it comes to practical matters in the material world, but it is not always the answer! Sri Aurobindo uses the example of the simple explanation of the “theory of the spheres” as an explanation of astronomical events. Today we have a much more detailed and complex understanding, as well as the ability to observe many more facts that need to be covered by any solution.
This becomes a question because the theory of rebirth and the corollary law of karma actually is a quite good example of “Occam’s razor”. Sri Aurobindo explains: “The theory of rebirth coupled with that of Karma gives us a simple, symmetrical, beautiful explanation of things…”
If we accepted Occam’s razor as a determining factor, we would have to admit that rebirth and karma are the best explanation we have for the facts of our existence. Sri Aurobindo cautions however, that while this may provide us “moral certitude”, it does not yet constitute certainty or absolute proof and thus, much more examination of the question is warranted. Rebirth and Karma, Section I, Chapter 1, Rebirth, pp. 6-7

Wilber can take this approach because he claims repeatedly that the “core” or “essentials” of these traditions are constituted by replicable mystical experiences: one follows certain practices, such as prayer or meditation, and will then reliably achieve certain states of consciousness as a result. Wilber’s philosophy is then above all an attempt to integrate the knowledge of science with the knowledge derived from these states of consciousness. The problem with this approach is simple: these replicable mystical experiences simply are not the core of the vast majority of traditions out there…
The point of this criticism is to establish that replicable mystical experience is simply not the “core” or “essentials” of the premodern traditions. The view that it is, is a construct of the 19th-century quest for a “perennial philosophy” with perennial answers to the great questions. But while I have long agreed that there are perennial questions, I do not buy the claim that they have perennial answers, and certainly not that mystical experience supplies those answers universally. The perennial questions are perennially disputed, with answers going in multiple directions. In my view, a synthesis between different views needs to be found dialectically. One cannot put the traditions together by assuming that they are the same at their heart, whether in terms of mystical experience or anything else — for they aren’t. Instead, one must start with their differences as given, and take those differences as a starting point from which a mature and complex synthesis can be worked out. That’s harder, but as far as I can tell, it’s the only way to find a genuinely encompassing truth. And no empiricist method will get you there, not even one that incorporates mystical experiences alongside scientific ones.

Value Experience from The Pinocchio Theory by Steven Shaviro
Following Stengers, I'd like to consider what it might really mean to refrain from defacing value experiences. I take it that this largely applies to the "value experiences" of others than ourselves. And respecting the value experiences of others is not always an easy thing to do. I certainly don't want religious fundamentalists who deny the theory of evolution and claim that the Earth is only 6,000 years old to be teaching my children. But living as an atheist in a common world with religious believers, I also reject defacing the value experience of those believers, in the way that "New Atheists" like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and the late Christopher Hitchens have done. I also want to work through the implications of Whitehead's claim that such "value experience… is the very essence of the universe." But doing this demands that we pass beyond the human. 
Both Stiegler and Simondon are problematic from a Marxist point of view. One might criticize Stiegler for turning a particular historical situation (that of alienation under capitalism) into an originary characteristic of the human species in general. While much in Stiegler's critique of capitalism is spot-on, he turns cultural symptoms into to basic existential situations, while omitting to consider capital accumulation & exploitation as the motors of capitalism.

नई शुरुआत फिर से दैनिक जागरण Mon, 01 Oct 2012
महात्मा गांधी और महर्षि अरविन्द के जीवन इसके जीवंत उदाहरण हैं। गांधी जी कोई दक्षिण अफ्रीका में क्रांति करने नहीं गए थे। वे वहां वकालत करने गए थे, लेकिन परिस्थितियों ने उन्हें इसके लिए मजबूर कर दिया कि वे स्वतंत्रता के लिए संघर्ष शुरू करें और दक्षिण अफ्रीका से शुरू हुआ संघर्ष ही उन्हें भारत तक ले आया। ठीक इसी तरह महर्षि अरविंद ने योग-अध्यात्म की दिशा में सोचा भी नहीं था। उन्होंने भारत को अंगे्रजी शासन से स्वतंत्र कराने का स्वप्न देखा था और इसके लिए क्रांति का मार्ग अपनाया। उन्होंने लंबे समय तक संघर्ष भी किया, लेकिन इसके बाद राजनीति या किसी अन्य रास्ते पर जाने के बजाय उन्होंने अध्यात्म का मार्ग चुना। बाद में इन दोनों ही विभूतियों को जिन कारणों से दुनिया भर में जाना गया, वे परिस्थितियों के चलते उनके जीवन में आए बदलाव के परिणाम थे। परिस्थितियों ने ही उनके सामने उनके उद्देश्य को स्पष्ट किया और उन्होंने अपने वास्तविक लक्ष्य की दिशा में प्रयास शुरू किए।

1m - Savitri Era Party @SavitriEraParty One-stop blog for curing all theoretical confusion and muddled thinking just a click away at Savitri Era Learning Forum Posted by Tusar N. Mohapatra  Location: Shipra Riviera, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India