Bodhi, svaha!

(Alternate titles: “Books”, and “I’m glad I’m not dualistic like you guys.”)

I’ve been reading actual books again (both the old-fashioned paper type and the modern “e” type), and it’s very nice. I’ve even consciously made a decision to keep doing more of that (foam theories notwithstanding) with the idea that I feel better when I read more book-sized things and mindlessly scroll fewer social-media-post-sized things.

When I finish a book lately, I with some significant probability write up a little review of it for my Goodreads profile (which may or may not cause it to also appear on Amazon I can never remember). So really you can read them all over there and there’s no need for me to post any of them here.

But probably I will anyway. :)

I just finished Red Pine’s translation and commentary on The Heart Sutra (always a favorite), and this is what I wrote over there:

“The Heart Sutra itself is just a page long, and contains the heart of Prajñāpāramitā teachings. And among other things, as Jan Nattier notes, ‘in contemporary Japan, the Heart Sutra has been printed on more teacups, hand towels and neckties than has any other Buddhist scripture’.

“In this readable translation and commentary, Red Pine gives us the thoughtful and scholarly treatment that he is so good at. Considering the sutra in its historical context, the analysis considers it largely as a response to, or a refutation of, the teachings of earlier Buddhist sects, where the light of the Prajñāpāramitā shows all the more or less complex conceptual structures of those earlier teachings, the Four Whatsits and Eight Thingamys and Twelve Whathaveyous, to be not just empty of self or of independent origination, but to be exactly emptiness.

“Not that that’s a bad thing.

“Line by line, he gives both his own formulations of the teachings involved, and pithy quotes from various writers and thinkers and teachers across the centuries; it’s a rich and nourishing stew.

“As a matter of dharma, I would say that the sutra itself is adequate and complete; you don’t need to read commentaries on the Heart Sutra in order to attain the non-attainment that you may be not striving to not-strive for. But who knows, it also couldn’t hurt; sometimes you get nothing from the dharma talk in the evening, but enlightenment comes when the bottom falls out of your bucket while the water was reflecting the moon.

“And in terms of an enjoyable historical treatment, it’s an interesting and informative tour through thought and history that even if not strictly speaking necessary in order to (not) achieve anuttara-samyak-sambodhi, is still a good read.”

Some other stuff that I thought but didn’t put into the Goodreads writeup:

One interesting piece of (what?) doctrine that came up as I read this was the line that the Zen Mountain Monastery chants as:

“Far beyond deluded thoughts; this is Nirvana.”

and Red Pine gives us here as:

“They see through delusions and finally nirvana”.

This is a significant-looking difference. Red Pine talks about how various translators have interpreted this in various ways. In one reading, the Bodhisattvas (which is who we’re talking about here) see that basically everything, from basic sense-perceptions and ideas and everything else that earlier sects made big diagrams of, as empty and emptiness and (perhaps, I’m not terribly fond of this word) delusion, and seeing that leads one to (or just is) nirvana.

But this reading seems to stop arbitrarily short of the obvious end-point. The other reading, which is the one Red Pine gives us, says that nirvana itself is one more thing that is not separate from emptiness. As he puts it, “bodhisattvas do not reach or attain nirvana but overcome all delusions, including those that concern the ultimate goal of nirvana… Nirvana is simply the final delusion.”

And that seems more pleasing to me (modulo just what “delusion” means). But I’ll probably continue my vague effort to memorize the ZMM version of the Sutra anyway, because (so far anyway) I find it flows better (“not born not destroyed, not stained not pure, without loss without gain”).

Then there’s the mantra at the end. Red Pine says, and having read it I find it hard to disagree with, that it’s a pretty important thing, if we read the text as it is. This mantra, “gate gate pāragate pārasaṃgate bodhi svāhā“, might seem to the Western reader (e.g. me) as just a funny little thing tagged on at the end there. But Red Pine (who I keep wanting to call just “Pine” but on the other hand it feels weird to) takes it very seriously; it is the very last thing in the Sutra, after all, the climax of the whole message.

It seems a bit over the edge to me when he writes for instance, “After negating the categories of the Abhidharma, this sutra refuses to set up another category or set of categories. Whatever it is, this teaching is beyond it, including itself. This is the function of this mantra: to go beyond language and the categories in which language imprisons us and to lead us into the womb of Prajnaparamita, which is the Gone, the Gone Beyond, the Gone Completely Beyond.”

I’m not entirely sure what to do with this. Womb? If I take the sutra as actually claiming that this particular mantra leads to freedom from suffering and realization of ultimate emptiness (and maybe a womb) in a way that any other random chant doesn’t, then it seems like, again, a stopping one step short of the summit (or the edge of the abyss). If dharmas are not separate from emptiness, than surely this mantra is also not separate from emptiness, or from the sound of the wind, or a horse’s sneeze (do horses sneeze?). So why is the sutra making a big deal about it like this?

I get the same feeling from some of the sages that Red Pine quotes. Te-ch’ing (aka Hanshan Deqing, a different person than ol’ Hanshan Cold Mountain, fortunately if confusingly) for instance is quoted as saying “The foregoing text is exoteric prajna. This mantra is esoteric prajna… Who but the wise can use it? Certainly not those with small minds.”

The wise? Small minds? What is this? Is not mind emptiness, and emptiness mind? Is small mind separate from wise mind? Is the distinction between the wise and “those with small minds” not itself empty?

Whenever I trip over this sort of thing in Buddhist literature, I am distracted, and wonder whether this was inserted later on by the PR department, or if the author was slipping into dualism, or (perhaps more likely) if there is something going on here that is too subtle for me, and that what seems to be a sudden blatant bit of dualism is actually something wise in a way that I have not yet encompassed.

Which reminds me of the joke: three students are walking together after the evening’s dharma talk, and one says “the talk tonight seemed quite dualistic!” and the second one says “ah, but you see, by saying that, you are yourself engaging in dualism!” and the third one says, “heh, I’m glad I’m not dualistic like you guys.”

:)

Can AIs do interesting cultural analysis?

A few years ago, this question would have been just a joke. Now it’s almost something that one might actually wonder.

Today’s experiment:

“Fiona Apple, Billie Eilish, Sinead O’Connor; are these artists really transgressive, or do they only illustrate how naturally the system can co-opt a superficial transgressiveness to its own ends? Are there more transgressive artists, not in term of throwing around chicken blood or excrement, but in the sense of expressing thoughts that genuinely challenge or disrupt the system? Are these three as transgressive as a single individual can be? And what does that tell us about the relationship of culture to power? (Please answer as a seasoned cultural analyst, well versed in Marxist and Post-Marxist theories of labour relationals, as well as oppression and resistance.)”

“Labour relationals” is my typo. And one can of course question the question itself; it is a good question, or a bad one? Both as a challenge to generative AIs, and as a significant question about culture and transgression. Why those three particular artists, for instance? (That one is easy: because WFUV played “Shameika (said I had potential)” on my drive home, and the other two just sort of popped into my head.) And doesn’t the reference to the specific things that the AI should answer as someone “well versed in” bias the kinds of answers were likely to get? (It absolutely does; I did that on purpose.)

Here is (tonight’s version of) ChatGPT 4 on the issue:

“Your question delves deep into the intersection of cultural analysis, Marxist and Post-Marxist theory, and the role of artists in challenging or reinforcing societal structures. Fiona Apple, Billie Eilish, and Sinead O’Connor are indeed significant figures to consider in this context.

1. Transgressiveness of Apple, Eilish, and O’Connor: These artists, through their music and public personas, have certainly challenged various norms and expectations. For instance, Fiona Apple’s raw emotional honesty in her lyrics, Billie Eilish’s subversion of pop star image norms, and Sinead O’Connor’s famous protest against the Catholic Church on ‘Saturday Night Live’ are acts that can be seen as transgressive. They push against the boundaries of what is typically accepted or expected in their respective contexts. However, the extent to which they truly disrupt the system can be debated.
2. Co-optation by the System: In Marxist and Post-Marxist theories, there is often an understanding that capitalist systems have a powerful ability to co-opt forms of resistance, turning them into commodified elements that can be sold and consumed. This process can dilute the transgressive potential of an artist’s work. While Apple, Eilish, and O’Connor might initially challenge certain norms, the question remains whether their work becomes absorbed and neutralized by the very system they are challenging. This phenomenon is often discussed in relation to Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer’s concept of the “culture industry,” where the capitalist system mass-produces cultural goods that ultimately reinforce dominant ideologies.
3. More Transgressive Artists: There certainly are artists whose work might be considered more fundamentally transgressive in that they might resist co-optation more staunchly or express thoughts that more directly challenge dominant power structures. This could include artists who operate outside the mainstream music industry, or those whose work directly confronts systemic issues like racism, sexism, or capitalism in more overt and unapologetic ways. However, transgressiveness is not just about the content but also about the context and the ways in which the work interacts with or resists prevailing power structures.
4. Limits of Individual Transgressiveness: The comparison of individual transgressiveness raises the question of whether any single artist, regardless of their intentions, can truly challenge a system as pervasive and resilient as capitalism. This ties into the idea of “repressive tolerance” as discussed by Herbert Marcuse, where the system tolerates a certain degree of dissent as a means of preserving itself.
5. Culture and Power: The relationship between culture and power is complex. Culture can both challenge and reinforce power structures. In Marxist theory, cultural expressions are often seen as reflective of the material conditions and power relations of society. However, culture can also be a site of resistance and a means of envisioning and enacting alternative realities. The extent to which artists like Apple, Eilish, and O’Connor contribute to this process depends on how their work interacts with and is shaped by the broader socio-economic context.

“In conclusion, while Apple, Eilish, and O’Connor can be seen as transgressive to varying degrees, their impact needs to be understood within the broader context of how cultural products and expressions are produced, consumed, and potentially co-opted within a capitalist system. The true measure of their transgressiveness might lie not just in the content of their work, but in how it exists in relation to the power structures it seeks to challenge or disrupt.”

And here is (tonight’s version of) Bard (the public one, nothing secret I can access inside of Google or anything):

“As your seasoned cultural analyst, I must offer a nuanced response to your query regarding Fiona Apple, Billie Eilish, and Sinead O’Connor’s “transgressiveness.” It’s a complex question, demanding we navigate the thorny relationship between artistic expression, the cultural apparatus, and the ever-shifting boundaries of transgression.

“Firstly, defining “transgressive” is crucial. Does it imply mere shock value, like chicken blood and onstage antics? Or something deeper, a genuine challenge to power structures and dominant ideologies? From a Marxist perspective, true transgression disrupts the capitalist system and its control over production, consumption, and even our consciousness.

“Apple, Eilish, and O’Connor all exhibit elements of both approaches.

• Apple: From her early, raw explorations of female sexuality in “Tidal” to her unapologetic critiques of societal expectations in “Fetch the Bolt Cutters,” Apple consistently confronts taboos and pushes boundaries. Yet, her success within the music industry suggests a degree of co-optation. Perhaps her “transgressiveness” serves the system by providing a palatable form of rebellion for mainstream audiences.
• Eilish: Her goth-tinged aesthetic and introspective lyrics about mental health undoubtedly challenged some norms. However, her meteoric rise and vast appeal might suggest a system eager to embrace a sanitized version of rebellion, one that doesn’t truly threaten the status quo.
• O’Connor: Her act of tearing a picture of the Pope during a live performance on SNL remains a potent symbol of defiance against religious authority. But her career trajectory was irrevocably altered, demonstrating the system’s capacity to punish those who transgress too far.

“Therefore, labeling these artists solely as “transgressive” is overly simplistic. Each navigates a complex dance with the system, sometimes challenging it, sometimes being absorbed by it.

“But are they the most transgressive possible? Absolutely not. Consider:

• Underground artists: Those operating outside the mainstream, defying categorization and commercial viability, often express far more radical ideas and engage in more disruptive art forms. Noise music, performance art, and certain subgenres of metal or rap come to mind.
• Activists and dissidents: Their resistance takes tangible forms, challenging power structures through direct action, social critique, and even bodily sacrifice. Think Emma Goldman, Edward Snowden, or Ai Weiwei.

“The extent of individual “transgressiveness” depends on context and perspective. What seems radical in one cultural climate might be commonplace in another. Moreover, individual acts of defiance only gain true power when they connect to broader social movements and systemic critiques.

“This brings us to the relationship between culture and power. Culture is not a neutral space; it reflects and reinforces power structures while simultaneously offering sites of contestation and resistance. Artists like Apple, Eilish, and O’Connor operate within this complex dynamic. Their “transgressiveness” might be co-opted or diluted at times, but it also holds the potential to spark dialogue, challenge norms, and inspire others to question the status quo.

“Ultimately, the true measure of their impact lies not just in their individual acts of defiance, but in their ability to contribute to a larger conversation about power, oppression, and the possibilities for genuine social change. They remind us that even within the confines of the system, transgression can be a powerful tool for disrupting complacency and paving the way for a more just world.”

Neither of these is terrible! Both use lists (ChatGPT’s numbered, Bard’s two just bulleted), and some useful bolding. Both make some nice external references; ChatGPT is more about academic ones (“culture industry”, Marcuse) and Bard more about cultural figures (Emma Goldman, Edward Snowden (!), Ai Weiwei). Points to Bard for specifically referencing two Apple album titles; both of them mention O’Connor’s famous SNL gesture (it’s famous after all). I like “Each navigates a complex dance with the system, sometimes challenging it, sometimes being absorbed by it” and “culture can also be a site of resistance and a means of envisioning and enacting alternative realities” rather a lot. (Would a strict English teacher say that navigating a dance is a mixed metaphor?)

Either one would probably get a good grade in secondary school, and even, I would venture, in a non-Major undergraduate course (modulo being too short, not having explicit references or bibliographies, and other stuff I didn’t ask for). Either one would have absolutely floored me in, say, 2016 (see this skeptical piece), or even a few years after.

Does either one offer fresh or non-obvious insights? I kind of don’t think so. They are, entirely unsurprisingly, what a pretty decent writer might write in response to the question, given some time to poke around on the web for background if they weren’t already familiar with the subject. They are both very middle-of-the-road in significant senses, neither coming down hard on either side of the question of whether a popular and “successful” artist can truly challenge the system. It depends! It’s nuanced! There are arguments on both sides! It’s debatable!

And that’s very true! But a bit squishy feeling.

It might be interesting to ask them explicitly to take a side; change the prompt to request a strong case that these artists really are disruptive and transgressive (at least potentially), and otherwisely a strong case that they aren’t and cannot be.

Maybe another day. :)