Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 16:18:29 -0400
Subject: Resuscitating Religion?


Eric wrote,

>The point I am trying to make is that something is going on here,
>whether you call it religion, the evolution of consciousness or >Hegelian
>dialectics of history. The old hippie ideal, for all its faults, had
>some things going for it. Simplify our lives, tranform social
>relationships into play and use our new found freedom to explore >the
>hidden dimensions of consciousness and enter into states of love, >joy,
>peace and ecstasy. That is the form of religion I have been arguing >for
>and I think it still has vast political implications.  In fact, I would
>go so far as to say, significant political change will not take place
>until people first have a radical shift in their awareness.     

Eric, Steve, and All,

Hang on!

A response is only days away.

Respectfully,
Hugh

> steve.devos wrote:
> 
> Baudrillard has always been extremely open in aknowledging the roots of
> his theoretical practice, but they are very broad, ranging from the
> above to Surrealism, Situationism, Lefrebvre, Hegalo-Marxism and
> Saussure's Anagrams with references to Freud, Lacan and Althussar, I am
> by no means certain that it makes much sense to interpret, to attempt to
> understand his work through Mauss and Bataille.
> 
> Steve:
> 
> I recognize you are very right and, of course, Baudrillard has had many
> influences. However, in my post I wasn't talking about Baudrillard in
> toto, but about his theory of symbolic exchange. Furthermore, I am
> certainly not alone in this point of view. Here is what Douglas Kellner
> says about Baudrillard's theory: "precapitalist societies are governed
> by forms of symbolic exchange similar to Bataille's notion of a general
> economy, supplemented by Mauss's theory of the gift and countergift,
> rather than by production and utility."
> 
> Certainly it is possible to critique this point of view (as Lyotard did
> in The Libidinal Economy) but since you and Glenn both raised the
> specter of Baudrillard, I was working within that theoretical
> perspective.  From the historical differentiation Badrillard sets up,
> societies of symbolic exchange are clearly governed by a playlike
> structure while societies of production in turn are governed by work.
> The open possibility in Baudrillard is that the societies of simulation
> may witness the return to something like play, albeit in a banal and
> debased form. At any rate, in my reading of Baudrillard play remains a
> central component and I also think the idea of play has many
> implications above and beyond Baudrillard.
> 
> With regard to the frogs, are you aware that Sir Thomas Browne worked
> out a metaphor like this, namely that man is an amphibian. The
> possibility of some radical transformation, whether to frog or
> butterfly, has always governed the religious mentality. (The greek word
> 'psyche' also means butterfly.)
> 
> I am aware that the subject of religion appears to be a hot button for
> you and I am willing to let this thread die (perhaps to be reincarnated
> in another form elsewhere).  However, I just want to allude to several
> trends that indicate for me something like religion is still at work.
> 
> 1. In your last post you refer to technology.  Certainly, you are also
> aware of interactive forms such as virtual technology. I think this has
> the potential to develop greater different states of awareness once the
> technology has been developed.
> 
> 2. When I suggested that drug laws might be a form of religious
> persecution, your response was simply one of question marks. Personally,
> I find it somewhat incredulous that you don't want to acknowledge the
> political implication of current drug laws. (it reminds me of the
> sixties and the traditional response of the old left - what do drugs
> have to do with class war?)
> 
> Again, I will simply remind you that there is a good amount of
> historical evidence that suggests a relationship between drug use and
> religion and, just as with VT, drugs have the potential to radically
> transform consciousness, which is for me the main reason they have been
> banned. "How do you keep them at the office after they seen the white
> light and raised their kundalini?"
> 
> For some good pop perspectives on this topic, I would recommend Terence
> McKenna and Robert Anton Wilson.
> 
> 3. From studies of Shamanism, scholars like Eliade have pointed to what
> they call "archaic techniques of ecstasy", methods for entering altered
> states of consciousness. These techiques have been disseminated and the
> hidden structures of esoteric techniques for changing consciousness have
> now reached a much wider audience.
> 
> The point I am trying to make is that something is going on here,
> whether you call it religion, the evolution of consciousness or Hegelian
> dialectics of history. The old hippie ideal, for all its faults, had
> some things going for it. Simplify our lives, tranform social
> relationships into play and use our new found freedom to explore the
> hidden dimensions of consciousness and enter into states of love, joy,
> peace and ecstasy. That is the form of religion I have been arguing for
> and I think it still has vast political implications.  In fact, I would
> go so far as to say, significant political change will not take place
> until people first have a radical shift in their awareness.     
> 
> "When the doors of perception are cleansed, we will see all things as
> they are - infinite."
>