Buddhism and the social sciences: Hindu Studies Post 9 : Karma Cola on the Internet

Sunday, August 17, 2014

Hindu Studies Post 9 : Karma Cola on the Internet

#SociologyOfBuddhism #SociologyOfCults

More comments on the Soto Zen Facebook group. More "Karma Cola" on the Internet.

I think Alasdair Gordon-Finalyson by virtue of his statement regarding my supposed anti-Semitism and subsequent refusal to issue an apology has simply gone beyond all parameters of reasonable discussion. The very idea of insulting people like this is revolting. And I'm sorry, there are no two ways about this.

As for me, I'm glad that I got out of the Soto Zen Buddhism forum within days of having joined it. The Internet is a very strange place.

Update (8:31 AM): Updated the original post quite a bit. Much of the initial stuff has been removed.

#SociologyOfBuddhism

By the way, I interacted with Lana Berrington as well. I also, like Bjarne Rydhielm, don't understand why my posts were deleted. This is not how it should be done. See Bjarne's comment on Tutte's posts being deleted below stating the same thing.

Faced with this situation, here's what I did. I put a process in place there on said forum. My advice to people: if you are accused of trolling, the first thing you should do is tell others what you plan to do next. Clearly, state that : (1) you are going to leave the group any way. (2) You are in the meantime going to resolutely respond to any and all pointless accusations; (3) You are going to use truth as an absolute defense against all insinuations, allegations and accusations.

And that is exactly what I did. I posted a message like the one above over on their Facebook. Then I proceeded to do exactly what I said I would do. Trasparency is the only way to make people accountable.

Bjarne Rydhielm Actually, Lana Berrington,why don’t you tell us why Tutte’s posts were deleted and – especially – why he was banned from this group.

Update (9:24 AM): I have had the chance to discuss this with Prof. Manikutty. We spoke over Skype earlier today. We both agree that this was the right thing to do.

In many ways, I am fortunate in that my father is a professor of management of repute, and continues to teach, so I can always call him in case of issues like this. We have the Indian Institute of Management to back us up. It would be an easy matter for us to show that there is no scientific evidence behind tenets of Buddhism such as karma. No evidence whatsoever. This update is in the interest of science. Here's to Science. To Truth.

And this tells me that the market may be ripe for another online reputation management service, at least for companies, as well as (perhaps) for people. This is especially important for those who don't have access to a university, institute or other such institution in case of disputes .... Interesting times ahead.

Update (9:31 AM): Tutte Jiorg has made a much better case against the group than I have in the words above (as well as in my last two posts on this topic below). He appears quite knowledgeable about this whole Soto Zen thing, so please go through what he has to say. The Facebook group has close to 5000 members and is monitored by seven ~~political commissars~~ Truth Czars.

The three politruks involved in my case were: Lana Berrington, Jamie McLeod and Alasdair Gordon-Finlayson. Alasdair Gordon-Finlayson is the person described as "some kind of middle manager in the lineage of our favorite Zen huckster, Genpo Merzel "Roshi"." below. Politruks Lana and Jamie also make an appearance in the part of the discussion I had extracted into my post "Oops! Oops! More on the Soto Zen Facebook group".

From Tuttejiorg.wordpress.com:

I was recently kicked out from a Buddhist discussion board, this time a Soto Zen groupon Facebook. It’s a fairly large group, with close to 5000 members, monitored by sevenpolitical commissars admininstrators. Although the group itself is not affiliated with any particular Soto Zen cult sangha, one of these politruks, a self-described ”Zen chick and computer geek” is also a ”nun” in the infamous AZI organization, and another one is some kind of middle manager in the lineage of our favorite Zen huckster, Genpo Merzel ”Roshi”.

Update (10:32 AM): What led to Alasdair Gordon-Finlayson to call me out on supposed anti-Semitism was, I believe, a reference in a sentence to "the Nobel Prize Awards Ceremony, or as I like to call it, the World Jewish People Appreciation Day". This statement was somehow anti-Semitic to Gordon-Finlayson. This statement obviously implied pride/achievement for the Jewish people (in winning so many Nobel Prizes). Nothing negative. Not only was reading this statement as anti-Semitism a very bizarre reading, at the time I posted this comment, another person did say that he understood this sentence in the way I intended it once I brought this matter to the attention of the forum. So, there is absolutely no question there. Absolutely none at all.

No comments:

Post a Comment

About z-Buddhism

About z-Buddhism: http://buddhismandthesocialsciences.blogspot.com/2014/08/about-z-buddhism.html

-+-

There are many Buddhisms. There is, of course, mainstream Buddhism. Then, there is X-Buddhism, a description of which is available at the following website: http://speculativenonbuddhism.com/. And then, there is Y-Buddhism. Somebody suggested Y-Buddhism as an alternate type of Buddhism (I have not looked into the details of Y-Buddhism, whatever that may be). In this blog, we will describe Z-Buddhism.

Z-Buddhism is, hopefully, the last Buddhism you will ever need. Z-Buddhism interprets Buddhism in conjunction with what know from the sciences as well as the social sciences.

Z-Buddhism does not build up from X-Buddhism or Y-Buddhism. It instead builds up theory as it ought to be done - correctly and right the first time. While X-Buddhism seems to be building up some theory to deal with Buddhism intelligently, it really seems to be the sort of "theory building" you see in European continental philosophy. This type of theory building involves using words that few people can understand and it must be said that it is not clear that anything useful is being contributed by a theory merely by the use of impressive sounding words - hermeneutics, substratal matrix, visible informant, et cetera. Gayatri Spivak, Slavoj Zizek, and Homi Bhabha are just three intellectuals guilty of using terms that serve no real purpose other than to obfuscate. The excessive use of these words is often indicative of a poverty of theory itself. This does not mean that X-Buddhism itself is lacking in any way. It is merely a warning to be careful about certain types of theories. Indeed, the obfuscatory words of deconstructionists such the people behind X-Buddhism (or more famously Zizek, Spivak and Bhabha) may even play a role. By not revealing its hand, but yet speaking against the "Machine", it is able to critique whatever "Machine" it is that it chooses to pit itself against.

Again, the excessive use of complex-sound words is often indicative of a poverty of ideas in a theory. This is because of the following reason: good social scientific theories are based on a set of hypotheses. This set of hypotheses can be stated in relatively simple terms. So theories, which are built up from good hypotheses, can also be stated in relatively simple terms. An example of such a theory is the theory of disruptive innovation. Although the theory itself has fallen into question, the techniques of good theory building were used to build the theory - although extra care should have been taken in making sure that the theory was novel as well as accurate. A better theory is the theory of evolution. What is noteworthy about this theory is that it can be explained in relatively few and simple terms (viz., life arises due to evolutionary forces.)

Let us move on to the motivations of theory building. The motivation of theory building is to shed light on the world. The conflict of Religion with Science is well known. Christianity has come under attack because it conflicts with science. The theory of creationism has been throughly debunked and indeed this "theory" has been entirely superseded by the theory of evolution. What is an emerging truth is that Buddhism also has a conflict - not with the Sciences, but with the Social Sciences. Z-Buddhism tells the story of what this conflict is and how it is being resolved (if at all that is possible). Some of the conflict between Religion and Science are essentially unresolvable. It is simply the case that the theory of creationism is wrong. Similarly, it is possible that some of the issues with Buddhism from the perspective of the Social Sciences may never be resolved.

Like the DNA which consists of three intertwining strands, the world of religious studies consists of three strands - at least, it ought to. The first strand (let us color it red) is the strand of Christopher Hitchens and others who are against Religion in every form. The second strand (let us color it green) is the strand of Religion itself. Different religions such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism are part of this strand. The third strand (let us color it blue) is that of the scientist and the social scientist. Thus far, only two strands have been proposed. This work should be seen as the third strand that is oftentimes ignored.

In Z-Buddhism, we will look at some of these issues, and resolve the ones that may be resolvable. So that's Z-Buddhism. It is the last Buddhism you will ever need.