Subud Vision - Discussion

Aliman Sears - Forget about Outreach

Discussion continued from this page

From Mike Higgins, January 20, 2008. Time 19:36

Edward, Everything you said seems reasonable to me (and old news) except for the following:

"He shows that Subud's theology is based on the latihan and that the aim is to produce a dissociative state through unrestrained emotional expression in a group setting."

From an external perspective, I could see how the latihan would appear to be a cathartic exercise - like primal therapy or something - but to me that demonstrates a superficial understanding of it. I think there may be levels of the latihan, cathartic dissociation being it's lowest or base level. Or maybe that's not the latihan at all, I have my doubts because: (1) For me it has never involved "uninhibited weeping, shouting, writhing, moaning and speaking in tongues," as mentioned on the Rick Ross website, and (2) Such emotional catharsis is contrary to Bapak's suggestion that one must quiet one's heart and mind to tune into one psychic or spiritual center (which I have found to be true).

Further, the statement that "Subud's theology is based on the latihan" is illogical. It's like saying that Buddhism theology is based on vipassana meditation or Christian theology is based on a form of prayer. Besides, if Subud is not a religion, how can the latihan be a religious practice?

Apparently the author of this study concluded that, contrary to the claims of most Subudites, Subud is in fact a religion. (Did he reach this conclusion before or after beginning his study?). Many of us have agreed with this assessment and are seeking to de-theologize it. This won't be easy. Best - Mike

From Edward Fido, January 20, 2008. Time 22:14

As you know, Mike, from the name of the article, the author referred to Subud as "a charismatic group" not a religion.

I'm afraid I don't consider your "critique" of the author's reference to Subud's "theology" holds much water.

Referring anecdotally to your own personal experience of the latihan doesn't really counter most of what he says.

When you referred to "we" as having discussed the matter of mental illness in a previous post I wonder just who the "we" is/was.

This would be exactly the time to ask who you actually are and what specialist knowledge (if any) you bring to the subject.

I am afraid I found your posts on this matter have trivialised and obscured what I consider to be real issues.

If you have not - for whatever reason - managed to read the article I think it would seem high time I terminated this exchange.

Because your "method" of critique is really akin to criticising the film "The Darjeeling Limited" after having read a film review.

You seem not to realise that I am constrained by International Copywright Law from providing you with more than limited information from it.

From Aliman, January 21, 2008. Time 7:14

In a discussion about Subud, I asked why, exactly, it is that we want to "spread Subud." Merin said: "When a human being comes across a sustainable resource that could benefit fellow human beings, there's an ethical imperative to share it, or at least make it available to those who wish to share it."

I think this is quite interesting. My question now is, Why?

http://subud-committee-aliman.blogspot.com/

From Aliman, January 21, 2008. Time 7:43

Well, I can't resist this one. As a psychiatric social worker (not a doctor) I can say it's a fact that one out of every five people in the USA suffers from some form of mental illness. (SAMHSA). Levels are similar in the UK. Thus, by extension, the numbers would be similar within Subud. You folks are operating with a layman's understanding of the term "mental illness." We're already dealing with the mentally ill in Subud.

Aloha!

Aliman Sears, MA, CPRP

Chief Operating Officer, Community Empowerment Services

1110 University Ave. Suite #411, Honolulu HI 96826

Immediate Past President, Hawaii Psychosocial Rehabilitation Association (www.uspra.org)

Adjunct Instructor in Philosophy/Ethics, Chaminade University, Honolulu

National Vice Chairperson, Subud USA (www.subudusa.org)

BLOG: http://alimansears.blogspot.com/

From Mike Higgins, January 21, 2008. Time 9:37

"As you know, Mike, from the name of the article, the author referred to Subud as "a charismatic group" not a religion."

You had mentioned two articles, 'Evaluating the Charismatic Group Subud: Javanese Mysticism in the West' & 'Subud and Mental Illness: Psychiatric Illness in a Religious Sect', I must have confused their titles, but I suspect most people associate mysticism with religion.

"When you referred to "we" as having discussed the matter of mental illness in a previous post I wonder just who the "we" is/was."

Well, I'd have to look for it, but I believe the discussion was prompted by the article written by Hassanah Briedis, 'The Latihan of Subud, Dissociation and the Neurology of Spiritual Experience", and can be found in the feedback to that article.

"If you have not - for whatever reason - managed to read the article I think it would seem high time I terminated this exchange."

But I admitted I hadn't read it before I commented on what you said!

"This would be exactly the time to ask who you actually are and what specialist knowledge (if any) you bring to the subject."

Which subject is that, mental health? I have no professional degrees in psychology but am fairly well read in the field, having read Freud, Jung, Adler, et. al. I was simply stating my opinion, didn't realize you were only interested in hearing the opinions of mental health professionals about the article.

Aliman, In response to Merin's statement ("When a human being comes across a sustainable resource that could benefit fellow human beings, there's an ethical imperative to share it, or at least make it available to those who wish to share it") you asked, "My question now is, Why?"

Why what? Why is there an ethical imperative to share a beneficial resource one has found? I find that to be an odd question for a psychiatric social worker to ask... you don't feel any responsibility to share a practice you deem to be worthwhile with those who may benefit from it? Please correct me if that is not the question you asked.

You (Aliman) also said: "We're already dealing with the mentally ill in Subud." Yes, I realize that. So then, in your opinion, do you feel we should be making more of an effort to assess the mental health of applicants (wouldn't imagine we have the resources for that) or just concentrate on screening out those who have or have had serious mental illnesses? Thank you, I will check out your blog - Mike

From Aliman, January 21, 2008. Time 21:6

Mike, you seem to be making an unwarranted assumption about my question to Merin. Please look only at the bare text--I really mean only what the question asks. I'm a professional philosopher and ethicist, and am asking for an argument about why there is an ethical imperative. Is it Kantian based? (The term "imperative" implies Kant.) Is it Utilitarian based? Is there a classical slant (Aristotle) here based on an end or teleology?

BTW, I put this on the Subud Committee blog (mine--I don't suppose anyone reads it!) because it is a national policy question.

Aloha

http://subud-committee-aliman.blogspot.com/

From David W, January 22, 2008. Time 6:30

Hi Aliman, Merin

Here's a contrary view: I don't believe that there is any "ethical imperative" to share a sustainable resource that

that could benefit fellow human beings.

I DO like Merin's question as a way of shaking the sleepy tree of Subud. But I attach no metaphysical significance to it. It's just a good kick, and one of Marcus B's cartoons can have the same salutory effect.

Okay, two reasons why "no" to the "ethical imperative":

1 ETHICAL ACTION IS NOT RULE-DRIVEN

As a Buddhist sympathizer and fan of philosophical hermeneutics, I don't think that ethics are rule-driven, so the idea of such a rule based "ethical imperative" framed in predicate logic seems silly. Give me 10 minutes and I'll give you 10 counterexamples to any rule-based imperative.

2 WE NEED TO LET THE WORLD BE

The "ethical imperative" view is exactly the logic of Christian evangelists. The logic of imperatives fails to remember: your view is only your view. Both "sharing" and "making available" consume resources and impinge on others. If everyone felt the "imperative" to project their views in this way, the world would be a big mess. What the world may need instead is a lot more "letting be", and a lot less of people "sharing" and "making available" their democracy, their religion, their economic system, and anything else of theirs that they think is excellent and needs to be "shared" with others. The very notion of an "ethical imperative" may therefore be ethically dubious.

Best

David

From Mike Higgins, January 22, 2008. Time 7:9

I have a tendency to sarcasm and am liable to surrender it at the most inappropriate times, so I hope no one here will take any of my opinions personally - I certainly don't.

Aliman, Alright, that question seems relevant to your article, i.e., the section in which you question whether we should publicize or proselytize about Subud. My opinion is that the latter would be a mistake and the former would be the wise course of action. But do we have an ethical imperative to publicize the latihan? Well, the answer seems obvious to me, I feel no need to consult either Kant or Nietzsche about it. If the latihan is helping us become more ethical caring people, we would feel naturally inclined to share it with others, and if it isn't (helping us become better people), then we'd probably keep it to ourselves. (Did I just repeat Merin's comments? I think so!). Mulling over the "ethics" of sharing the latihan (if it is working for you) is kind of like worrying about the ethics of hugging someone who is feeling sad. When you have to think about what to do in such a situation, what the "ethical" decision would be, you could probably use some therapy to get more in touch with your feelings/emotions and out of your cerebellum.

But really, it doesn't seem to be the latihan that many of us have a problem sharing, but the organization associated with it. That's where the ethical dilemma arises. - M.

From Helissa Penwell, January 22, 2008. Time 18:51

Love is the primary force which moves us to want to share the latihan with others.

Then we make ethical decisions concerning how to go about it in a respectful and responsible way.

Helissa

From aliman, January 23, 2008. Time 9:30

1) Correction: My essay didn't question publicizing and/or proselytization of Subud. I've always been against proselytization.

2) Intellectually oriented discussions were the intention of those who set up this bulletin board. Your response smacks of misology, which is fairly popular within various Subud discussions and writings, primarily because of misinterpretations of statements Bapak and others have made. (This is a point that needs further elaboration.) In fact, it's possible to receive via the thinking, and to a great degree this is the point that Bapak made time and again (another statement that needs further elaboration).

3) It's clear that you're relying on a system like Hume's sentiment-based ethics because you mention "...feel[ing] naturally inclined to share it with others" and getting in touch with "feelings/emotions" and something "working" for you (this is pragmatism). All this without even mulling or worrying or thinking about anything! Sorry, I couldn’t resist! Once you put in the work, up front, it's not a matter of thinking and struggling and worrying about figuring out an ethical stance (or thinking and worrying about anything else). Once you put in the work, it can be an immediate knowing. But I'll admit in terms of philosophy it took me getting an advanced degree in philosophy, and then going on to teach the history of philosophy, and critical thinking, and ethics, before I really was able to put in the required work and get to the place of the kind of immediate knowing I’m referring talking about. This actually relates to point #2 above: no matter if it's martial arts, business, education/study, or even latihan, after awhile the quality of understanding can permeate and you have that immediate knowledge, that intuition, and if it's really developed (like the kejiwaan was in Bapak, or human/political relations were in Gandhi), it then becomes a gift. And we can’t simply bring this about by working at it. It requires hard and long work, coupled with the grace of God. God will always be there, but putting in the work up front can only come from us.

From aliman, January 23, 2008. Time 11:47

BTW, Mike, you said: "But really, it doesn't seem to be the latihan that many of us have a problem sharing, but the organization associated with it. That's where the ethical dilemma arises." Sorry, I don't understand. Please re-phrase. Aloha!

http://subud-helpers-aliman.blogspot.com/

From Sahlan Diver, January 23, 2008. Time 12:5

NOTE FROM THE MANAGING EDITOR

Aliman' says "Intellectually oriented discussions were the intention of those who set up this bulletin board."

I am not clear whether this is a reference to Subud Vision's discussion pages. If it is, then what Aliman says is not accurate. We wish to promote intelligent and open debate about Subud matters, without a prejudice against people using their minds, but we don't set any requirement for the discussion to be "intellectual" in the popularly understood sense of the word.

Many of the statements made in the feedback items are quite straightforward. Many are more "intellectually oriented". Either is OK as far as we are concerned. We are looking for opinions from anyone, regardless of considerations of intellectual level or academic training. The only criterion is that when someone makes a statement, they can back up what they say with reasonable evidence or a persuasive case.

From Merin Nielsen, January 23, 2008. Time 13:52

Kant’s Categorical Imperative: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." Kant proposed that this goes for anybody with rational will, regardless of other ends to which their will is disposed. He viewed this as the sole absolute value, an end in itself, showing up morality as a “mere phantom”. I roughly agree with Kant but spell things out differently. I similarly think all of ethics boils down to one imperative: "As best you can, preserve thyself. Persist."

But ‘thyself’ is not the human being’s flesh and blood entity. The imperative speaks to the human being's entire mental identity - all that with which/whom the human being identifies. The range varies widely between people, while each person has a gradient of intensity of identification, but our ‘fellow’ human beings (perhaps with associated communities, cultures and other connections) are all those with whom we thus identify, who reside within one’s extended sense of self. In this respect, one can also have fellowship / affinity / identity with objects, places, memories, concepts, codes of behavior, other creatures, one’s civilisation, ecosystem or whatever. And in accordance with the ethical imperative, reinforcing the prospect of one’s persistence must involve reinforcing the prospect of the persistence of one’s extended entity.

Faced with all the elements of reality in one’s environment, identification is generally more likely with certain types of element than with others, but is most likely with elements to which one feels more closely connected in terms of co-persistence. Yet there’s a crucial spin-off from identifying with more distantly connected elements. That is, one is more likely to persist overall, just because one’s persistence is embedded in reality more thoroughly. Identifying with the broadest possible environment therefore most effectively reinforces the prospect of one’s persistence. It might well be ‘difficult’ to identify, however, with a recognised, physically dangerous enemy.

The imperative is kind of tautologically rule-driven. As an activity, self-preservation is its own end. Whatever does not self-preserve may engage in no activity at all. But even if I choose to terminate my flesh & blood existence, then to the degree that my identity consists of my will, the result of my will persists as my absence. As presented here, the notions of ‘identifying’ and ‘self’, and why they connect with persistence, are admittedly vague but they need too much discussion for this feedback. Metaphorically, though, perhaps they concern love: we automatically seek to protect what we love. That’s one form of the imperative.

David suggested WE NEED TO LET THE WORLD BE

Regarding a sustainable resource that might benefit fellow human beings, I would delete emphasis from ‘sharing it’ but keep emphasis on ‘making it available’, the idea of which is cleaner. Suppose that ‘benefit’ equates to reinforcing the prospect of persistence. Then a sustainable resource ought to / must be made available because thine fellows are thyself, and one can’t refuse to self-conserve. This is simply because one cannot defy one’s own will, which effectively is one’s self. Within the larger entity, each part automatically undertakes to make available, to the whole, any resource that appears to reinforce the prospect of ‘survival’. Of course, if a given resource is unnecessary for the larger entity’s persistence, then it represents no current benefit. Situations can change, though, and tomorrow there could be some vital use for it. In this light, any resource is a potential contribution to the larger entity’s persistence, and therefore must be made available, even if it isn’t immediately beneficial or appreciated.

Cheers,

Merin

From Mike Higgins, January 23, 2008. Time 19:52

BTW, Mike, you said: "But really, it doesn't seem to be the latihan that many of us have a problem sharing, but the organization associated with it. That's where the ethical dilemma arises."

Aliman, I'm sorry I added that statement. I haven't had a problem with anyone in Subud or experienced the sort of prejudice (religious or otherwise) that some people in this forum say they have experienced. But then, I haven't involved myself in Subud's organizational politics. Neither do I feel a need to subscribe to or reject Bapak's knowledge, beliefs or opinions. I take what I can use and leave the rest, and I advise those who express an interest in the latihan to do the same. Life can become very simple (but not necessarily easier) when you open your heart/mind and follow the "inner knowing" to which you referred in your recent post. I think I'll just leave it at that. Take care -M.

From Edward Fido, January 25, 2008. Time 5:11

One of the problems with discussing Subud is that it is not an intellectual system.

It is - or was when I joined - put forward to me as a spiritual system which works.

One of the problems I had and consequently the reason I left, was that, having been a member for 35 years, I found it didn't work, or at least didn't work for me.

My personal feeling is that Subud is based on false premises.

I am unsure that the latihan is that magic 'one size fits all' solution.

It was my concern with the latihan and the referring back of everything - Bapak's talks, group decisions, attempts to change one's personal life, help others etc. - to it which made me look at outside psychological and sociological studies on Subud and other New Religious Movements (a category into which Subud is normally put).

Can one 'reform' Subud?

I'm unsure.

I wish those who stay luck but I'm not wagering any money on it.

But it's not really my problem now.

Probably the best action is for me to 'do a Pontius Pilate'.

Discussion continued on this page