Buddhism and the social sciences: Hindu-Buddhist Studies Post 13 : Keep Calm and ban everyone

Sunday, August 17, 2014

Hindu-Buddhist Studies Post 13 : Keep Calm and ban everyone

A repost of a post on Tuttejiorg.wordpress.com.

-+-

Two other friends of mine, Arne Chosfer (cultural critic and bon vivant extraordinaire) and Galley Trot (an accomplished Buddhist scholar and expert in the treatment of Post-Buddhist Stress Disorder) recently joined the Soto Zen Facebookgroup, offering their perspectives. Hardly surprising, both were banned within a few hours.

Galley Trot
I just joined this site. I havt say: beschizzlefoschizzle, bitches! Good shit. This Tutteji dude and this Erica Sagn are not the site admin in disguise. I mean, everything else here is lame and platitudinous by comparison. Yawww!

Lana Berrington (admin)
Galley – yup.. lame and boring and without drama… that’s what this place is all about. Some people won’t like that.. but you can’t please everyone. ps: please watch your language,

Galley Trot
Oh, forgive me Mother Lana Berrington. “Dude” = “Gentleman”

That final comment apparently made Mother Superior jump the gun, and Galley Trot was swiftly banned from the group. Let’s see what happened with Arne Chosfer:

x-buddhist 1
Like most failed comedians, this “gentleman” [Tutte Wachtmeister Dai Osho] wants to make it about the audience. It’s not. His act flopped on it’s own merits.

Another Voice of Sanity
Your absolutely right Number 1, Whoever posts a thread that does not receive the desired response that the contributor intended, then that group member should be banned.

Another Voice of Sanity
Whoops! Please strike my last post from the record. I accidently used sarcasm AKA lying. Hopefully I don’t receive an infraction or get banned.

x-buddhist 2
Ah, c’mon now lads! Wouldja ever ‘man’ up at all, for Christ’s sake? Ye’re all acting like a bunch of petty-minded schoolkids!

Another Voice of Sanity
Number 2,With all the cursing and name calling you’ve opportunistically added to Tutte’s thread my first impression was that you were the troll everyone was talking about in the deleted threads of his. Then I thought you were his little buddy just joking around with him. When I realized that you were a part of the opposition against him is when I started to not see his threads as trolling. I’m serious. Your comments were the most offensive part of this whole thing. Talk about school kid mentality.

x-buddhist 2
AVoS, I’m neither for nor against anyone, anything, or any one view.
That is clearly confusing for one such as you, which is presumably why you were struggling to work out whose ‘side’ I was on.

But that’s what gives me the freedom to comment as I do. If you feel offended by my neutral comments then I guess you feel offended. Feel free to sit with your offense if you can. :)

Arne Chosfer
So, Number 2, as a good little Soto Zen altar boy, you’re “neither for nor against anyone, anything, or any one view.”

Still, you don’t hesitate to tell someone: “Now fuck off and take your pathetic attempts at trolling someplace else! Ya … twat, ye!” and “My ’associates’ are currently tracking down the ID and physical location of ‘Tutte’ and his supporters.”

What does this say about your character?

x-buddhist 1
AVoS, my friend, here’s how it should go: whoever attempts comedy and fails should be called out for bad material or bad delivery. If they then compare themselves to Lenny Bruce, i.e. a “misunderstood” genius, they should be banned from polite company.

Arne Chosfer
Listen now, Billy boy [x-buddhist 1], and I’ll tell you how it is. First, the ”comedy” worked just fine, and the fact that you and [two other x-buddhists] don’t get this and keep posting your irrelevant (but highy revealing) nonsense, makes it better and better. As for Tutte’s tounge-in-cheek comparison with Lenny Bruce, it was an explicit reference to Bruce’s *late* performances – another point which you completely missed.

x-buddhist 1
Yes, Arne, me wee lad, I did not read the gentleman’s explanation; just as, when I dislike a performance, I don’t buy a ticket for the next. I’m sure it was all quite “tongue-in-cheek” and, for some, may have been hilarious.

Arne Chosfer
I see, you didn’t read, you just quoted. Great performance, Billy boy!

x-buddhist 2
Arses should be firmly and regularly placed on cushions.
They serve no purpose on FB.

Arne Chosfer
May I suggest you go crawl back from under your zafu. And keep your “neutral” comments to yourself

x-buddhist 2
Suggest what you like Arne. I wasn’t talking to you!

Lana Berrington (admin)
Arne and Number 2, will you both just knock it off… !

Arne Chosfer
And now Billy boy’s comments are disappearing, Spooky!

Arne Chosfer
Not with a ban but a whimper.

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.