Absolutization - The Source of Dogma, Repression, and Conflict - Robert M. Ellis

Absolutization - The Source of Dogma, Repression, and Conflict - Robert M. Ellis

Criteria for a Response: Practicality

Absolutization - The Source of Dogma, Repression, and Conflict - Robert M. Ellis

Robert M. Ellis [+-]
Middle Way Society
Robert M Ellis has a Ph.D. in Philosophy and a Cambridge BA in Oriental Studies and Theology. Originally from a Christian background, he spent about 20 years practising Buddhism, including as a member of the Triratna Order. However, he now describes himself as a Middle Way practitioner without exclusive loyalty to any one religious tradition. Over the last 20 years he has developed Middle Way Philosophy, initially in his Ph.D. thesis. This is best described as a practical and integrative philosophical approach, incorporating many elements not only from Buddhism but also from psychology, neuroscience, and other aspects of Western thought. In 2013 he founded the Middle Way Society (www.middlewaysociety.org) to develop and apply Middle Way Philosophy beyond the limitations of the Buddhist tradition, both in theory and practice. Robert has earned a living for more than 20 years as a teacher and tutor of philosophy and related subjects. He has previously published both academic and introductory books about Middle Way Philosophy, and recently a parallel book on Christianity, ‘The Christian Middle Way’.

Description

a. What is Practicality? Practicality is a strength of Buddhist tradition and involves interconnected techniques, acknowledging embodiment and developing responsibility and effectiveness. Theory at a high level of generality can also be practical as long as it avoids absolutizing shortcuts. Restrictions in scope need to be provisional if they are not to detract from practicality, but academic specialization is often not seen provisionally. ‘Pragmatic’ philosophy has also lacked practicality, because of its representationalism, not distinguishing the meaning of ‘truth’ from belief in it. b. Embodiment To make our beliefs practical, our theories as well as our more immediate practical beliefs need to be scaled to human embodiment. This means adapting to our limited perspective by avoiding metaphysics – even though ‘saints’ may manage to maintain embodied beliefs in spite of the presence of metaphysical beliefs. It also means adapting to our limited capacities by avoiding both freewill (total responsibility) and determinism (zero responsibility) assumptions. c. Responsibility Responsibility can have both a ‘felt’ sense and a sense we are socially held to, but the former is needed (separated from law) as an aspect of our practical response to absolutization. Felt responsibility integrates and motivates, though it may need prompting by reminders. It applies not only to values, but to our interpretations of facts, the definitions of terms and our mental states. In all these ways we can avoid absolutizing dualities by developing felt responsibility. d. Effectiveness Absolutization may temporarily boost the intensity of our goal-directed action, but even that intensity is reduced by conflict. The more complex our activity the more direction rather than intensity becomes important, and the more absolutization interferes with that directionality, especially over time. In response, we need to develop genuine confidence, which arises from organic practice in embodied judgements in a varied environment, not from absolutized belief.

Notify A Colleague

Citation

Ellis, Robert. Criteria for a Response: Practicality. Absolutization - The Source of Dogma, Repression, and Conflict. Equinox eBooks Publishing, United Kingdom. p. 182-207 Oct 2022. ISBN 9781800502062. https://www.equinoxpub.com/home/view-chapter/?id=44330. Date accessed: 27 Apr 2024 doi: 10.1558/equinox.44330. Oct 2022

Dublin Core Metadata