A ≠ A

M. Steingass —  14.4.12

Buddhism is at war. It is at war in as it is totally occupied and transformed by the market. As there is no longer any differentiation between the market and the society everything society does is the market. Buddhism is part of society. As such it is the market. The Dalai Lama is the market. Every word he says is the market. Every buddhist muttering is enclosed in a connotational cloud of values of the market. The marked transforms the norms, ethics, traditions, soft values of society into its own hard currency. It evaluates empathy which thus becomes a priceable commodity – for better competition. The lover, child, business partner becomes an evaluated entity which is liable. My trust is a loan which has to pay interest. My interest yields interest. That’s how the market pervades me and transforms me, atomizes me, hacks me into countable pieces. That’s what the market does in the incarnation of Google and Facebook. It atomizes. I am already an atomized entity. The market’s targeted marketing transforms me into an accountable being. I am just another item. The Gestell is me. Buddhism is not excluded from this. How could it be? It’s part of the society, the society is market, Buddhism is part of the market, every part of buddhist language is part of the market. Thus even „the material practice of symbolic communication by human beings [which] is the single most important component of the »mind«” is corrupted (q.v. here). How could it be otherwise? There is no way out. Aynway, has there ever been a way out? No! That’s it and I am the market. I am an atomized being. I am walking along the real atomized, as an entity formated by the market and not different from the market. I cannot be different. The market is what is left from society and so am I. But how can I know this? Is this just another delusion the market injects in my last intact vein to keep me quiet in a narcotized sleep morphing dreams of understanding? Is this distantiation for real? The market itself puts forward this question and answers it with The Matrix and onehundertthousand other pink think toys. In the same way it puts forward the answer in the guise of Buddhism. The market itself puts forward the answer to make the answer impossible. That is Buddhism at war! At war, against whom? Me? No, I am the market, there is no war against me. How could war fight itself? Buddhism fights itself. Suffocating its truth, selling out, walking the streets. Pimped by the market. Retailing anatman for real. Anatman as the lure of the buddhist opportunism. Another exit which leads nowhere but in again. What is left with a market-maker making the answer unrecognizable in answering the question What is Enlightenment? How could anything Buddhism says – samsara, karma, punabbhava, bodhi, sunyata, anatman, pratityasamutpada – be any answer if Buddhism as part of the market is nothing but an answer which makes itself invisible? It seems to be a question as old as The Aporia. But: If it really is an aporia, could that be „the Archimedean vantage point from which to force a change“? (q.v. p. 14 here). Obviously there is change. Platon argues against writing – but he is writing down the dialogue of Socrates with Menon. Socrates says Menon is remembering the truth of virtue. But in the proof he makes the slave drawing in the sand – constructing a geometric solution to the problem he poses. There is an omission. They ignore the writing. They forget the exteriorization. Could there be a similar omission by the market? If nothing is left but the market itself, the market still has to reproduce itself. It must use a script, a blueprint, it must express itself, it must use a language – and as language is in its character idiomatic, in the last instance it has no absolute control over it’s language of reproduction. This no-go-area is the heart of the dark star. To comprehend misunderstanding is the language of change.  The materiality of thinking! It is in-scripted, it is carved in stone, it is written down, it is noted, notated, annotated, stored and retrieved. It is thus in time – alterity itself. We have to talk to hear this.


3 Antworten zu A ≠ A

  1. 

    I must say that, having gotten here through David Chapman’s blog, I would be curious to know if you do any Buddhist practice besides blogging? Not that my practice has improved the brightness of my wits. I really can’t make heads or tails of this profound post, which I’m sure would be very interesting and informative if I had enough on the ball to actually understand it.

  2. 

    Hi karmakshanti, thanks for stopping by.

    The text you are referring to is very compressed and kind of a poetic rendering of material which is of interest to me.

    Regarding your question. I do no Buddhist practice. I practice in a way which is heavily influenced by dzogchen (what ever this means). I met some people who explained it a bit to me and I read a bit about it. Some say this isn’t sufficient. They are right.

    No, I do no Buddhist practice of any kind.