Continuing from this post, and the ongoing IPS FB thread on the topic, part of the problem
with the epistemic fallacy is actualism. Now Wilber does account for the
non-actual via the timeless, changeless Causal real which subsists the
actual, but then turns around in the
next breath and asserts we can directly access the Causal via a non-dual
meditative state (aka satori), the Absolute side of the equation. Which
is exactly what Bryant is criticizing, that we can directly and
accurately 'know' not just this state, but that this state directly
accesses that Causal realm underlying the actual.
So yes, it's a
fixation on enacting the interior state(s), because this 'consciousness
per se' IS the metaphysical foundationalism of ALL, "for foundationalism
is premised on the possibility of absolute presence." Bryant (and
Morton) have the good sense to carefully read and understand Derrida on
this metaphysics of presence.
In a way it's
akin (aken?) to the magical thinking of New Age positive thinking, in
that our thoughts, or mystical states in this case, is all we need do to
effect societal change. Which is of course a bastardization of even
Buddhism, for most adherents are required to directly engage with the
world of suffering to alleviate it. And not just by teaching people to
achieve a state of equanimity but by feeding, clothing and sheltering
the poor, etc. Only in America can we think that just attaining a
special state handles everything.
I'm reminded of the back and forth between Joe Corbett and Jeff Salzman on exactly this lack in AQALingus. The AQALack? If it quacks like a lack...
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.