Subject: RE: BHA: Re: The tall poppy syndrome within CR Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 21:20:46 +1300 From: "Radha D'Souza" <rdsouza-AT-waikato.ac.nz> Mervyn You say: "I wondered why you call the spiritual turn 'so called'. What is the problem with 'spiritual turn' (given that handy labels are more or less necessary)? I think there has been a definite turn in Bhaskar's thought, and that 'spiritual' is the best single-word label, but I might be missing something owing to my one-thirds perspective." First, in response to the bit about: "but I might be missing something owing to my one-thirds perspective". I hope you were not offended by my statement about the Third World being the two-thirds world - please read the statement only at the 'empirical' level and nothing more. I remain absolutely committed to love as the first structuring principle, a common humanity, together with all the trees, monkeys, bears et al, even if, going by the World Vision ads, it takes two dollars a day (NZ $ i.e.) to save a third world bear and a dollar a day to save a third world child. But that's the way the world works and let's retain love and humanity as a philosophical idea and leave it at that. About the other point: I recall an extended discussion on this list a while ago about the primacy of mind/matter, materialism/idealism etc. etc. Beyond a point, I find those types of discussions on materialism/spiritualism etc make sense only if philosophy is interpreted to mean Western Philosophy and after a certain point, to me, those types of debates are meaningful only as inter-paradigmatic interrogations, that inevitably entail questioning founding premises of ones modes of reasoning, thinking, being and feeling. What can an 'eastward' turn mean to someone in the "east"? Hardly as shocking, for a start. But confusing too on more than one count. On the one hand, intellectual labouring is rewarding when it leads one to new understandings/insights. If it leads one back to what our grandparents, elders and ancestors have always dinned into us, then the whole labouring could become an anti-climax in some ways - one strain of responses could be to say: did I spend my best years trying to figure out what all those dead white men said only to be told, east is best. On the other hand, rediscovery is important and valuable, not least because we always rediscover ourselves in new ways. Rediscovery however happens in a socio-political-historical context, and in the present context the question/challenge is what is it that we ought to be rediscovering about the east? The problem is even more confounding in case of "Macaulay's children" baptised by him as the Westernised Oriental Gentlemen (WOGS), or, in a more charitable vein, the children of colonisation, who can rediscover themselves only enroute the "West" and there is a lot of seepage in ideas, concepts, structures of thought and belief systems that occurs in the process due to institutional, political and power structures (very, very causally efficacious I may add). In an ideal world, this Eastward and Westward turns should bring everyone together and equip us to find common grounds, or, to use more eastern language, become seekers. I am not sure if that is happening in any meaningful way and at deeper levels. Sorry for this rave. I don't know if any of this makes sense. But, the discussion has certainly deviated considerably from the issue you sought to raise in your email. Radha -----Original Message----- From: Mervyn Hartwig [mailto:mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, 28 October 2003 9:49 p.m. To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU Subject: Re: BHA: Re: The tall poppy syndrome within CR Hi Radha, I'm not surprised, but I must confess to a certain irritation and frustration. I spend a lot of time trying to encourage people to read DPF etc and don't find it helpful when people seem intent on doing the opposite. For the rest, I absolutely agree. Thank you for taking the discussion to a deeper and more rewarding level. Do tell us when you're ready what's in that crystal ball! I have one of my own, and I'm trying to exercise some influence over what's in it. I wondered why you call the spiritual turn 'so called'. What is the problem with 'spiritual turn' (given that handy labels are more or less necessary)? I think there has been a definite turn in Bhaskar's thought, and that 'spiritual' is the best single-word label, but I might be missing something owing to my one-thirds perspective. Mervyn r.dsouza <r.dsouza-AT-waikato.ac.nz> writes >Mervyn >My spontaneous reaction to your mail was "why am I not surprised" followed >by "but why is Mervyn (the writer of the new age, new left article) >surprised?" and are you surprised Mervyn? I don't mean this as a rhetorical >question in any sense. Surely, CR is not exempt from a sociology of its own >and from its historical, cultural and political contexts that we talk about. >As someone from the so called "Third World" (which in my view, is the >two-thirds world) it interests me that with so many radical "schools of >thought" in the so called "West", from scientific theories to Marxism, >socialism et al, the problem for the two-thirds world is not so much with >the philosophy or theory per se (the text) but with the sociological and >cultural assumptions (the context) that makes the theory/philosophy >problematic. There appears to be threshold beyond which the >theory/philosophy is constrained by its own cultural and historical context. >It certainly happened with Marxism in the "West" and the ramifications it >had for the "Third World". >Is it surprising at all that the so called "spiritual turn" should have >invited the kind of response it did, or, for that matter the reactions on >this list to the ad for a publicist recently (I don't recall how the >position was described exactly now). And, do we not lapse quickly and >comfortably into bourgeois norms of discourse or social practices for that >matter, even when critiquing those norms in the issues we talk and write >about? >Calling it "tall poppy syndrome" is putting it too simplistically, it is >much deeper than that. I am reminded of Rumi's famous story of the parrot >and the merchant, (I don't know if you are familiar with it). Indeed, like >the parrot in the story, one has to give up things (die) to be free and >enlightened, and to "gain" new things. I am not sure the adversarial and >individualistic intellectual traditions in Western academic institutions >ably guided by the "invisible hand of the market" are the most conducive >places for an introspective approach that helps to locates oneself in the >wider search for answers to the questions of our times. >I am tempted to look into my crystal ball now to see what CR will look like >25 years from now, but I think I will leave it for another time. > >Radha > > > --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005