NON + X HOW TO XPLODE X-BUDDHISM MATTHIAS STEINGASS HOW TO XPLODE X-BUDDHISM MATTHIAS STEINGASS Introduction This essay is the first part of a three-piece mini-series about Where to! It is a short assessment of recent developments around non-buddhism. The second part will be primarily a sketch of the Critique and Performance of non-buddhism as it is laid out by Glenn Wallis in “Speculative Non-Buddhism: X-buddhist Hallucination and its Decimation” (henceforth: XHD; part of Cruel Theory | Sublime Practice) – a primer which is necessary because critical and sympathetic onlookers alike mostly display ignorance about non-buddhist motives, intentions, terms, theories and practices. The third part will be about possible forms of future action by the non-buddhist – i.e. the non-buddhist subject. The formatting of this text is intended to give the reader access to non-buddhist terminology and thereby to steer the discussion from the objection about nonbuddhist punk to non-buddhist thinking. Bold printed terms are to be found in XHD (provided the reader has it at hand) and give immediate input to what nonbuddhism is about. The links provided also give additional information and the interested reader is kindly asked to follow these trails to establish a differentiated picture about the topics discussed. Although the intention here is to lead the discussion into more productive and creative regions there can be no doubt that these regions can only be reached by a certain form of destruction. This destruction is about certain kinds of ideology and in particular about decision. The reader is asked to abstract himself for a moment from his affiliations when he tries to digest the non-buddhist diet and to un-confuse that what is shaping personality and individual preference from that what the human as a minimally representational thought is. These texts are written with two kinds of individual in mind. First so to speak, the spell bound x-buddhist. What I mean here will become clearer in what follows. But let me say that I mean spellbound in a positive sense. I am referring to the one ready for the experience of ancoric loss. Second I have in mind the “nonbuddhist posse” – as we have been recently named. For us the question arises as to how we can go on and I hope to contribute a little here. 16 Critique of ideology, cynicism and kynicism In May 2011 Glenn Wallis founded the blog Speculative Non-Buddhism. In the about page, in the last paragraph, he writes: In spiritu ludi Please, don’t take it all too goddamn seriously. A title such as “Speculative Non-Buddhism” should tip you off that I am playing, jamming, cavorting, experimenting, standing on my head, showing off, having a go, letting loose, puffing my pipe, falling on my face, making a fool of myself, and, most of all, downright just wondering about it all. Maybe you are, too? But what in the beginning was intended as a thought experiment in the spirit of playfulness developed, over two years, into an often fierce polemic exchange over differing positions. An onlooker may indeed have wondered about it all. As a result of the fighting Glenn Wallis shut down the discussion at his blog in May 2013. In the beginning, in 2011, probably no one had the intention of having this disagreement. On the contrary, there was a lot of enthusiasm. But the dynamics of the evolving discussion lead to a breaking point and the non-buddhist posse parted ways. X-buddhist onlookers must have rubbed their hands in glee when they saw how we fought over so many topics and finally vacated the arena of word blood altogether. “These non-buddhist guys just can’t get it right. Just another intellectual fad.” Maybe… Tutte & Mother Around the same time, just as the non-buddhist blog was shut down, the spiritual entrepreneur Tutteji Wachtmeister entered the limelight. When I first came upon one of Tutte’s pages I thought that he was just another deluded guy selling esoteric jelly beans. But after skimming a few paragraphs and finally coming to the page where he sits under the picture of Guru Margaret I realized that this was parody – and a good parody indeed. At first Tutteji wasn’t recognized by a lot of people for what he was. Even the skeptics at the non-buddhist blog didn’t recognize the ruse at once. 17 Over time, Tutteji developed good momentum. In addition to his blog he founded the Transintegral Scholars on Facebook. A very successful use of mimicry with lots of integral people – Ken Wilber clones, for example – flocking to the page without recognizing the hoax, often remaining unaware of the fact that they were being mocked. Then, in late August, a discussion erupted at Tutte’s main outlet: The Tutteji Wachtmeister blog. There Tutteji opened a thread called The triple edged sword of irony or: All You Can Do I Can Do Meta. The opener of this thread was about the effect of parody and especially about the way it made those who were being parodied indistinguishable from the parody. The effect was that the relationship of the parody and its target was inverted. The parody becomes an essential and sincere means of unveiling the insubstantiality, fraud, imperfection, and outright ridiculousness of the situation in which the defective was being sold as perfection. In the beginning it was about Kenneth Folk and Daniel Ingram. They were being targeted by Tutteji as two outstanding exemplars of a species of fraud aptly described as “putting nothing in boxes and selling it.” That is, selling the perfect product: Awakening – a product which is entirely intangible, yet infinitely reproducible, constituted as it is by the customer (cf. Richard K. Payne; Putting Nothing in Boxes and Selling it). Folk and Ingram are exponents of American x-buddhism who both do big business with esoteric cotton candy. Lured to bite the bait laid out by Grandmaster Tutteji they readily provided blurbs for the book Mastering the Core Teachings of Pharmacological Meditation by Kenneth R. Lingam. They provided these blurbs using exactly the same language Tutteji was using to mock them, and, amazingly, found it unproblematic to do so. What happened here was a three-step process: 1) The attempt to sell sugarcoated hot air in a certain language by Folk and Ingram; 2) the parody of 1) by Tutteji using their language; and 3) the recognition by Folk and Ingram that 1) and 2) were alike. The third step was a kind of realization by Folk and Ingram. The realization that they really were indeed selling nothing in boxes and that, actually, all they were doing was talking and acting in a way that amounted to saying that there is something where there is, in fact, nothing – plus that, in principle, this could be replicated by anyone. What were the likely consequences for them? One would be to close shop. A bold step which would earn them lots of respect on one side and angry astonishment on the other. The second possibility, to go on as if nothing had happened, was, perhaps, made necessary because the symbolic capital they traded in and which they would otherwise lose, was coupled with the wealth they lived off. But, in that case, how could they go on without ridiculing themselves? 18 The resolution was to accept that their symbolic trade was indistinguishable from the mockery. Although this seems counter-intuitive, it is the postmodern tactic par excellence; the use of cynical dissociation vis-à-vis one’s own position. Or to put it another way: One uses truth as the most effective form of lie. Or in yet another way: The x-buddhist already knows what the truth is. Slavoj Zizek puts it as follows: The cynical subject is quite aware of the distance between the ideological mask and the social reality, but he none the less still insists upon the mask. Folk and Ingram are not, now, oblivious of their ideology. The problem is not the gaining of knowledge about one’s ideology, or convincing somebody else that he, in fact, inhabits a particular ideology, but how to break the spell of cynical dissociation from a given ideology which is already understood as detrimental, and while knowing this, insisting that one should go on using it. In the passage from which the Zizek citation is taken we find another important differentiation: Cynicism and Kynicism. The classical kynical procedure is to confront the pathetic phrases of the ruling official ideology — its solemn, grave tonality — with everyday banality and to hold them up to ridicule, thus exposing behind the sublime noblesse of the ideological phrases the egotistical interests, the violence, the brutal claims to power. Tutteji Wachtmeister uses this classical procedure. The problem which arises in this situation – cynicism reacts against kynicism in simply using the truth to go on lying – is that when one is “confronted with such cynical reason, the traditional critique of ideology no longer works” (as Zizek concludes). Every kind of critique of ideology at once can be discarded as another cynical dissociation. It is therefore easy for the x-buddhist to dismiss the (not understood) non-buddhist critique and eventually folks like Folk and Ingram just dive away and go on with their business. A close reading of the text passage the Zizek citations are taken from will make the whole problem clearer. It will make clear that ultimately we can no longer subject the ideological text to ‘symptomatic reading’, confronting it with its blank spots, with what it must repress to organize itself, to preserve its consistency — cynical reason takes this distance into account in advance. (cf. Slavoj Zizek: Cynicism as a Form of Ideology) Tutteji nonetheless took a new step in the non-buddhist campaign. While we were, as I see it, mostly engaged in good old critique of ideology – although the Laruellean impetus should have led us somewhere totally different – Tutteji, for the first time, managed to bring the x-buddhist to the point where s/he admitted the sheer selling of nothing. And here two vectors come into interaction: Tutteji’s 19 kynical campaign forced the x-buddhist to testify. Additionally the theoretical underpinnings which are provided by Speculative Non-Buddhism came into play. Kynicism is one way to pull out the x-buddhist from his hole, non-buddhist performance is one means to decimate him to the point where aporetic dissonance sets in. That is the point where kynicism and non-buddhist performance could synergize – wreaking havoc to the x-buddhist vallation. The spell bound x-buddhist subject The discussion at Tutteji’s blog attracted a whole class of people from within the xbuddhist vallation. As Tutte went on to throw out parody after parody, those who were the targets of his mockery gathered and looked on in awe. But underneath the cynical fascination with the kynical onslaught there was an undercurrent which seemed to attract people who were more than your average naïve x-buddhist ventriloquist. During the debate several high(er) profile x-buddhists appeared and obviously felt the need to comment on Tutteji’s kynicism and the nonbuddhism project. We have already mentioned Kenneth Folk and Daniel Ingram who contributed lots of text in defending a position (Ingram) or who tried to beat ‘us’ at our own game (Folk); but there too was Vincent Horn, who felt the need to come in into the discussion about the above mentioned book Pharmacological Meditation. Horn admits to Tutteji, to your point about “dopehead narcissim” vs. “Buddhist geekery” I think this is a fine damn line, and we all know it. (Source, emphasis added) Here the motor of the Buddhist Geeks was forced to admit the blunt cynical grant just discussed. Justin Whitaker arrived too, providing on his blog American Buddhist Perspective a hastily summarized overview about the triple-sword-ofirony discussion. While the non-buddhist posse was banned by Whitaker from taking part in this discussion, x-buddhists were free to express themselves: Enter stage, for example, Seth Zuiho Segall, The Existential Buddhist or Robert M. Ellis with his Middle Way Philosophy. What all these x-buddhists more or less openly admitted, mesmerized as they were by Tutteji’s kynic blessings, was their attraction to the Speculative Non-Buddhist (SNB) project. Perhaps it was Kenneth Folk who admitted in the most open manner what the propellant was. I find the NSB [sic] critique valuable. I have been influenced by some of the ideas. (Source) Or take Seth Zuiho Segall who admitted to “read[ing] [the Speculative NonBuddhism] website out of sheer curiosity,” while at the same time saying “I don’t find any of it enlightening.” 20 The question arises as to the sources of so much x-buddhist interest. What are they interested in? Influential ideas? Which ones exactly? Curiosity? But about what? There was interest, as Folk says, about ideas that are there and which are valuable and influential. But we never get to know anything specific. Also, these people are not the only ones attracted by that quality that seemed, somehow, to evade definition. During the many discussion, over the two years at the Speculative Non-Buddhist blog, many people became involved, and many of these could in no way be dismissed as uninformed; for example: Stephan Batchelor, Jayarava, Linda Blanchard, Stephen Schettini, Bhikkhu Brahmali, David Chapman, Ted Meissner, Ajahn Sujato. These are just a random few who either engaged in discussion at the blog, or were involved elsewhere in discussion with and about the non-buddhists. What is most astonishing in all these discussions, and this doesn’t apply only to the skeptics mentioned here, is the fact that none of these people, in either the recent discussion at Tutteji’s, or in earlier discussions, is able to name just one specific non-buddhist term. There is a lot of complaint, apart from the obvious interest in non-buddhism, about rude language and being bullied all the time by “the non-buddhist punks;” but nowhere is it obvious that the idea of nonbuddhism is understood, or that they have at least a suspicion of what the nonbuddhist critique is about. This is all the more remarkable as there have been quite a number of texts introducing or discussing non-buddhism. One reason might be that the spellbound x-buddhist, although not really getting what the nonbuddhist wants, senses some future potential. A new commodity, for example, which could be exploited to generate new symbolic capital. This, of course, is exactly what they will not get from non-buddhism. Or is it something else entirely? Something perhaps similar to that what many x-buddhists might have wanted from Buddhism originally – only to be disappointed in the end? That I may understand whatever Binds the world’s innermost core together, See all its workings, and its seeds, Deal no more in words’ empty reeds. Three Points I want to summarize, briefly at this stage, what has happened until now in the non-buddhist/x-buddhist discourse. It seems to me that it has certain characteristics which might yield certain actions and consequences (to be discussed in the following parts of this series). First we have the iceberg. I refer here to the so called “90–9–1 principle” which states that in a collaborative website 90% of the participants of a community view only content, 9% of the participants take part in discussions, edit and/or think actively about the content, and only 1% of the participants actively create new 21 content. 90% of readers, then, are lurkers who are, nonetheless, attracted and/or fascinated. The above 9% are those, I guess, who, being interested in the topic, take action in some form (even if it is only superficial criticism) – that’s the tip of the iceberg (remember, these are only some of the skeptics (who function as nodal points in the network). Not mentioned are people sympathetic to the project, nodal or not; in other words the tip of the iceberg is much larger than shown here). Second, although the mentioned x-buddhists are compelled to pay attention, all they can say is that they are repelled by the nasty appearance of the non-buddhist posse…while, third, there is a complete – 100% – lack of any knowledge about what the speculative non-buddhist work is. In no comment, in no contribution, in no assertion about Speculative Non-Buddhism in the recent discussions, even in the sympathetic ones (which are there too, indeed), is there to be found even one term from the Critique and Performance provided by Glenn Wallis for this project (I refer to the new formulation from Wallis’s text in Cruel Theory/Sublime Practice mentioned at the beginning.) The non-buddhist terminology has been there all along, though, since the publication of “Nascent Speculative NonBuddhism” in November 2011). These three points pulled together sketch one stark picture about our x-buddhist interlocutors and lurkers: There are many who are interested, even fascinated I would say. Fascinated to the point where they admit that the critique is right (see above: cynic vs. kynic). Whatever the reason, these people cannot ignore the non-buddhist critique. The fact is: they pay attention! Conclusion: There is something they are hooked on. The constant objection about being bullied – why can’t they simply ignore the non-buddhist? – is another sign that the hook is on, that the fascination is actually taking place. But the admittance that this is so isn’t possible right now, therefore the lament of resistance. Probably it is felt that the non-buddhist leads to anchoric loss and incidental exile. The fascination has to do with the intuition that non-buddhist critique and performance would lead to an actual shift of consciousness, to a real insight into what mind really is. This constellation makes for a powerful mixture which could explode right into the face of x-buddhism. 22 What is lacking to ignite the fuse is the knowledge of the tools Wallis provided and what they could achieve. The emptiness of zero non-buddhist knowledge has to be filled with the thought tool of the non-buddhist. That’s the one point: people should no longer have the excuse to evade the nonbuddhist heuristic. The non-buddhist mind altering non-meditation must be pushed into the market place. But, on the other side, from the short discussion above – truth as the most effective form of lie –, it is clear that this non-meditation can no longer have the form of simple propositional argumentation or old school critique of ideology. I will try to tackle how it could otherwise looking the third part of this mini-series. But it is clear that the question about how something could be pushed into the market place, which would, in turn, change that very place – and at last it is about just that! – is one of the most difficult questions we can face. This series though is concerned with more obvious problems. These are mainly about how to force the x-buddhist into conversation – at the Great Feast of Knowledge. The lurkers (90%) and the active participants, skeptic, anti or not (10%), need to be provided with the tools which already exist, and are there ready to use. What will happen if they are provided with the input needed to use the non-buddhist critique? Sure, folks like Folk, Horn, Ingram etc., won’t give up their candy stores. But what will happen when more people from the invisible part of the iceberg come to use the non-buddhist heuristic, or when they see what happens when xbuddhist postulates are decimated, remains to be seen. But I am sure there are many who would show the dupers selling their emptiness-juleps (ask Rinzler for this one) the exit if, for once, they could finally have a serious conversation. Whatever the consequences the intention here is to risk them. Fact is, the non-buddhist fascinates. Fact is, the kynic parody and the nonbuddhist theory together have recently developed quite a momentum. X-buddhists are being forced from their thaumaturgical refuge and forced to look at their contradictions. That’s the result of “Critique” [that] is that form of discourse which seeks to inhabit the experience of the subject from inside, in order to elicit those “valid” features of that experience which point beyond the subject’s present condition. (Wallis citing Terry Eagleton) However it unfolded, we have to look now at how it can go on. The wheel has been set in motion. Let’s see where it leads. The x-buddhist suddenly isn’t sure any more about his thaumaturgical refuge. Aporetic dissonance is setting in as an effect of the two vectors of kynic mocking and theoretical piercing. The x-buddhist experiences from inside the irrefutable reality of utter irritation. A force relentlessly moving forward impels him/her to realize that the supposed place where, finally, they felt like they had arrived home – the refuge – is but one more arbitrary representation of empty reality. And please don’t take it all too goddamn seriously 23 THE AUTHOR Matthias Steingass is the founder of the German-English language blogs Der Unbuddhist and Kritikos & Bodhi, and co-founder, with Patrick Jennings, of the English-language blog The Non-Buddhist. Matthias studied math and economics. He has worked in the financial markets for the past seventeen years. He has also worked as a musician (bass and sampling). In addition to his career, Matthias is currently pursuing his interests in philosophy while at the same time pursing music again, this time as a songwriter. Matthias can be reached at: [email protected] Originally published at The Non-Buddhist. 24 non + x issue nine 2014
© Copyright 2024